alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02290-CMA-MEH

RICHARD CROW,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. J. A. JAMES, (DRDC), and

UNKNOWN JOHN DOE, Medical Staff (at DRDC),

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING SEPTEMBER 10, 2012

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 14.) On September 10,

2012, Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation, advising that Defendant James’s

Motion for Summary Judgment “be granted” and that “Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

claim against Defendant James be dismissed with prejudice.” (Doc. # 39 at 13

(emphasis deleted).) Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Motion to Response / Reply” (Doc.

# 44), which the Court construes as an objection to Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation. 

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part of

the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” 

In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. 

Case 1:11-cv-02290-CMA-MEH Document 45 Filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

In the instant case, Plaintiff does not “properly object[]” to any part of the

Recommendation. Instead, he reiterates arguments that were properly before the

Magistrate Judge at the time his Recommendation issued. Nonetheless, the Court has

conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing all relevant pleadings,

the Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objection thereto. Based on this de novo review,

the Court concludes that Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation is correct and is not called

into question by Plaintiff’s objection.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 44) is

OVERRULED. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 39) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this

Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant James’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. # 33) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant

James is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Plaintiff’s claim against

Defendant Unknown John Doe is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

As such, the case is hereby DISMISSED as specified above.

DATED: November 16 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02290-CMA-MEH Document 45 Filed 11/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Meditech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Steven
I. Kern, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1034, as amended, and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all
          material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
          the Company.





                                              By:  /s/  STEVEN I. KERN
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                        STEVEN I. KERN
                                                        President and
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
August 28, 2002
#### In the Matter of Tyquan N., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 210]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2004, which *503adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed.

As the presentment agency concedes, the court’s finding was not based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence established only that before and after the incident appellant and another were in the company of the person who robbed the victim; no evidence was adduced that appellant “solicited], requested], commanded], importune[d], or intentionally aid[ed]” (Penal Law § 20.00) the commission of the crime. As in *Matter of Lamar McL.*(19 AD3d 234 [2005]), appellant’s mere presence in the vicinity of the crime was not sufficient. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2007: Q1... 8.9 8.8 8.2

 Q2... 8.8 8.7 8.2

 Q3... 8.7 8.6 8.2

 Q4... 8.2 8.1 7.6

2008: Q1... 6.9 7.0 6.6

 Q2... 6.6 6.7 6.4

 Q3... 6.7 6.8 6.5

 Q4... 6.2 6.4 6.1

2009: Q1... 6.0 6.1 5.9

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2007: Q1... 9.1 8.8 8.3

 Q2... 9.1 8.8 8.2

 Q3... 9.0 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 8.5 8.2 7.7

2008: Q1... 7.4 7.2 6.7

 Q2... 7.1 6.9 6.6

 Q3... 7.0 6.9 6.5

 Q4... 6.7 6.7 6.4

2009: Q1... 6.5 6.5 6.2

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2007: Q1... 9.2 9.3 8.6

 Q2... 9.4 9.5 9.3

 Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.8

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.4

2008: Q1... 7.5 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 6.6 6.8 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 7.3 7.1

 Q4... 5.5 5.9 5.8

2009: Q1... 5.7 6.1 6.0

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending October 22, 2005FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFALLS BANK                                                                                                              Member
#### In the Matter of Edward Ramon B., Also Known as Eduardo B., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Eduardo B., Appellant; Good Shepherd Services, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 370]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about April 21, 2004, terminating respondent’s parental rights to the subject child upon a finding of permanent neglect, and committing the child’s guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent, for more than six months, while incarcerated, failed to keep the agency apprised of his whereabouts, thereby excusing the agency of its obligation to make diligent efforts to encourage the parental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [e] [i]; *see Matter of Tanya Alexis G.,*273 AD2d 19, 19 [2000]; *Matter of Tashona Sharmaine A.,*24 AD3d 135 [2005]), and for more than a year failed to maintain substantial contact with the child or plan for his future (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]; *Matter of Aisha Latisha J.,*182 AD2d 498 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 759 [1992]). Respondent’s obligations to maintain substantial contact and plan for the child’s future were not excused by his incarceration *(see Matter of Gregory B.,*74 NY2d 77 [1989]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that termination of respondent’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child, who has special needs and has resided in the same foster home for nine years, practically since birth, where he is doing well *(see Matter of Hamo D.,*13 AD3d 108 [2004]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
#### CENTURY CAB CO. v. PARIS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-128-PB

Talbot Curtin

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense. 

The government does not object to a continuance of the trial

date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 10, 2007 to October 10, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00128-PB Document 7 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 29, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

October 1, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 27, 2007

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00128-PB Document 7 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

|   | 1. | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended                  June                  30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of                  Section                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m                  or                  78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| BY:    | /s/                  Steven Strasser     |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | Steven                  Strasser         |
|   | Chief                  Executive Officer |

----
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and that the information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. for the periods covered by this quarterly report.





Date: May 16, 2011
/s/ Cooper C. CollinsCooper C. CollinsChief Executive Officer and PresidentDate: May 16, 2011
/s/ Tracy S. CliffordTracy S. CliffordChief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### GULF OIL CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant, v. Jessie Ann Nelson ENGLE and Alan W. Engle, Cyrena Nelson Bonner and William Bonner, Patricia Ann Lind Adams and Richard Adams, Charles Edward Nelson and Alice Emerson Nelson, and Phillips Petroleum Company, a corporation, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

July 25, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1956.

C. A. Hiaasen, McCime, Hiaasen, Kelley & Crum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Foy B. Fleming, Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for Jessie Ann Nelson Engle and others.

Elbert B. Griffis, Jr., and Rogers, Morris & Griffis, Fort' Lauderdale, for Phillips Petroleum Co., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Daubmyre v. Hunter, 86 Fla. 326, 98 So. 69.

DREW, C. J., THOMAS and O’CON-NELL, JJ., and. ANDERSON, Associate Justice, concur.'
#### A. J. CONWAY, Appellant, v. Grover BLANTON et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Oct. 3, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bliss Edwards, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 697]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 17, 2001, convicting her of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the hearing court correctly denied that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress certain inculpatory statements she made in a telephone conversation with Poughkeepsie police following her arrest in Colorado. As an arrest warrant had been issued for the defendant in New York, her right to counsel had indelibly attached and could not be waived except in the presence of counsel *(see People v Carmona,*82 NY2d 603; *People v Samuels,*49 NY2d 218). “The rule, however, does not require the police to take affirmative steps, by gag or otherwise, to prevent a talkative person in custody from making an incriminating statement. Volunteered statements are admissible provided the defendant spoke with genuine spontaneity ‘and not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence, no matter how subtly employed’ ” *(People v Rivers,*56 NY2d 476, 479, quoting *People v Maerling,*46 NY2d 289, 302-303; *see People v Lanahan, 55*NY2d 711).

In the instant case, the defendant initiated the telephone contact to ascertain the strength of the People’s case against her. The conversation was tape recorded, and the defendant’s husband also participated. The detective asked no questions of the defendant, but rather, answered the defendant’s inquiries as to, inter alia, whether the victim was pressing charges, and *556the number of eyewitnesses to the assault. Accordingly, the incriminating statements made by the defendant during this telephone conversation were clearly voluntarily made, and were properly admitted at trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         141,154
<SECURITIES>                                    60,090
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (313)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,907
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,619
<PP&E>                                         514,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                 237,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,384
<BONDS>                                         69,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,982<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     305,127<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   517,246
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,748
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    30
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,407
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,081
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<FN>
<F1>REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY $67,310 ALLOCABLE TO 673,100 SHARES OF TREASURY
STOCK.
<F2>REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY $18,954,000 ALLOCABLE TO 673,100 SHARES OF TREASURY
STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         116,847
<SECURITIES>                                    92,496
<RECEIVABLES>                                  310,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,544
<INVENTORY>                                    205,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               732,230
<PP&E>                                       1,893,256
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,025,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,812,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          337,365
<BONDS>                                        161,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       732,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     378,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,812,979
<SALES>                                      1,649,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,649,280
<CGS>                                        1,251,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,251,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                222,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                    81,462
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   140,866
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Barry D. Elkins, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Direct General Corporation
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Direct General Corporation.


August 9, 2004                                  By: /s/ Barry D. Elkins
--------------                                      ---------------------------
    Date                                                    (Signature)

                                                Name: Barry D. Elkins
                                                      -------------------------
                                                Title: Senior Vice President
                                                       and Chief Financial
                                                       Officer
                                                       ------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eric Dickner

v. Civil No. 07-cv-120-PB

NH Governor, et al

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated September 28, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Eric Dickner, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00120-PB Document 16 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 1
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3077

_____________________________

DAVID FRAZIER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

December 27, 2023

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin Karpf, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau 

Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Leon Hammell

v. 06-cv-176-SM

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

The objection to the Report and Recommendation having been withdrawn

and the 5th claim waived (see Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal of Ground

Number Five of Amended Petition of 18 U.S.C. § 2254, doc. no. 18), I herewith

approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated

May 26, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

September 6, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Michael Leon Hammell, pro se

Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 21 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 1