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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02180-WJM-KMT

OTTER PRODUCTS, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

TREEFROG Developments Inc., A Delaware Corporation d/b/a LIFEPROOF

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter, coming before the Court upon Plaintiff Otter Products, LLC and

Defendant Treefrog Developments Inc.'s Joint Motion of Dismissal, filed December 15,

2011 (ECF No. 29), the Court having considered the record and being otherwise fully

advised hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Parties’ Joint Motion is GRANTED. The following claims and counterclaims

are DISMISSED in this action:

1. The Second Claim for Relief (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,180,735)

asserted by OtterBox in its original Complaint [Doc. No. 1], as it relates to

the accused "iPhone 4 LifeProof Case" "Swimming Headphone Adapter"

and "General Use Headphone Adapter" products, WITH PREJUDICE;

2. The Second Claim for Relief (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,180,735)

asserted by OtterBox in its original Complaint [Doc. No. 1], as it relates to

Case 1:11-cv-02180-WJM-KMT Document 30 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

the accused "iPad 2 LifeProof Case" product, WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

3. The Third Claim for Relief (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,312,984)

asserted by OtterBox in its original Complaint [Doc. No. 1], as it relates to

the accused "iPhone 4 LifeProof Case" "Swimming Headphone Adapter"

and "General Use Headphone Adapter" products, WITH PREJUDICE;

4. The Third Claim for Relief (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,312,984)

asserted by OtterBox in its original Complaint [Doc. No. 1], as it relates to

the accused "iPad 2 LifeProof Case" product, WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

5. The Counterclaims for Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,180,735 and

U.S. Patent No. 7,312,984 asserted by LifeProof [Doc. No. 10], with

respect to the accused "iPhone 4 LifeProof Case" "Swimming Headphone

Adapter" and "General Use Headphone Adapter" products, WITH

PREJUDICE;

6. The Counterclaims for Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,180,735 and

U.S. Patent No. 7,312,984 asserted by LifeProof [Doc. No. 10], with

respect to the accused "iPad 2 LifeProof Case" product, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;

7. The Counterclaims for Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,180,735 and U.S.

Patent No. 7,312,984 asserted by LifeProof [Doc. No. 10] WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; and

Case 1:11-cv-02180-WJM-KMT Document 30 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

8. All Parties to this Stipulation shall pay their own attorney’s fees and costs

in connection with the foregoing claims and counterclaims.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02180-WJM-KMT Document 30 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LED
UNITED
DENVER, COLORABS
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02276-REB-KMT
RAUL TRETO SEP 91 201
‘ GREGORY c, LANGHAM
Plaintiff,
ee
v.
BOULDER COUNTY,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the affidavit in support of the motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or security pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court has granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It now is

ORDERED that, if appropriate, the United States Marshal shall attempt to obtain
a waiver of service from the defendant. If unable to do so, the United States Marshal
shall serve a copy of the complaint, summons, order granting leave to proceed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and all other orders upon the defendant. If appropriate, the
Marshal shall first attempt to obtain a waiver of service of these documents pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.
Dated: September 20, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Robert E. Blackburn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02276-REB-KMT
Raul Treto
14955 Vine St.
Thornton, CO 80602
US Marshal Service
Service Clerk
Service forms for: Boulder County

| hereby certify that | have mailed a copy of the ORDER to the above-named
individuals, and the following forms to the United States Marshal for service of process on
Boulder County: TITLE Vil COMPLAINT FILED 08/30/2011, SUMMONS, AND NOTICE
OF AVAILABILITY OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE on September 21, 2011.

GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK

By: BS
( y Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Timothy Dupont

v. Case No. 08-cv-385-SM

State of New Hampshire

O R D E R

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

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated February 4, 2009, for the

reasons set forth therein. Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

February 12, 2009 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Timothy Dupont, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00385-SM Document 5 Filed 02/12/09 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                   MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                     FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                                               946,084
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     32,828,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       2,192,079
<INVENTORY>                                                       29,764,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  64,250,568
<PP&E>                                                            12,186,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     4,635,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    74,783,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             12,309,096
<BONDS>                                                           15,523,483
<COMMON>                                                              57,633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        46,893,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      74,783,314
<SALES>                                                          216,612,707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 216,612,707
<CGS>                                                            168,124,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    168,124,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     701,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 1,701,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   11,921,256
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       4,847,696
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                7,073,560
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       7,073,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            .69
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Angela Tortorella, Individually and as Executrix of Joseph Tortorella, Deceased, Respondent, v A.C. and S., Inc., et al., Defendants, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 352]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2005, which denied the motion for summary judgment by defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Con Edison dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it.

The claim against Con Edison is based on the alleged exposure of the decedent, an electrician, to asbestos dust while he was installing emergency generators and lighting at a Con Edison facility for about a year in the mid-1960s. It appears that such alleged asbestos exposure would have resulted from work by insulation contractors that was ongoing at or about the same time and place as the decedent’s work. There is no evidence that Con Edison exercised supervisory control over the work of either the insulation contractors or the decedent, or that Con Edison coordinated the work of the various trades or had the authority to exclude workers from particular sites. Nor is there any evidence that the alleged asbestos exposure resulted from a workplace condition created by, or known to, Con Edison, rather than from the contractors’ work methods. Accordingly, Con Edison is entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action *(see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]; *Mazzocchi v International Bus. Machs.,*294 AD2d *376151, 151-152 [2002]; *cf. Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co.,*91 NY2d 343, 353 [1998]; *Murphy v Columbia Univ.,*4 AD3d 200, 202 [2004]).

We reject plaintiffs argument that Con Edison’s moving papers failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment. The attorney’s affirmation on which Con Edison moved, although it did not have the relevant transcripts attached, summarized the deposition testimony relied upon, and transcripts of such testimony were supplied with plaintiffs opposition papers, which raised no procedural objections. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Odell Clifton, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 324]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), rendered on or about January 7, 2000, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Arthur D'Amario, III

Misc. No. 07-082ML

V.

James R. Starr, Clerk of the

United States District Court - NH

ORDE R

All of the judges in this district hereby recuse themselves from presiding over this case.

Accordingly, this case shall be returned to the District of New Hampshire for designation and

reassignment.

Enter:

4~~Z~ .~1~~

Deputy Clerk

Order:

V ! O'h ~(J~ fif~s

Mary M. Lisi hief Judge

Date: 11 9~

Case 1:07-cv-00324-JAW Document 9 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 1
1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: August 3, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
JEREMIAH MEANS, *

*

* No. 12 -740V
Petitioner, * * Chief Special Master Dorsey

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Amended Application for Attorneys’

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Costs; Reasonable Costs.

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Donald P. Edwards, Law Offices of Donald P. Edwards, Atlanta, GA, for petitioner.

Glenn McLeod

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNE YS’

FE ES AND C OS TS 1

One June 5, 2017, the undersigned issued a decision awarding petitioner and his attorney, Mr. Donald P. Edwards, a total of $75,879.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Decision
dated June 5, 2017 (ECF No. 197). Judgment entered on June 7, 2017. On July 26, 2017, petitioner filed a supplemental motion for attorneys’ costs, requesting an additional $1,919.00 for payment to petitioner’s life care planner, Ms. Charlene Butler -Raih. Petitioner’s Supplemental Application (“Pet. Supp. App.”) dated July 26, 2017 (ECF No. 202). Petitioner stated that his initial application for fees and costs inadvertently omitted Ms. Butler- Raih’s updated invoice for the services she provided from May 8, 2016, through September 21, 2016, which total $1,919.00. Id. Petitioner filed this supplemental invoice setting forth the billing

entries for Ms. Butler-Raih for these dates. Pet. Supp. App. at 4. Respondent does not object to petitioner’s request for additional costs. Id. at 2.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule
18(b).2

The u ndersigned finds this additional cost is reasonable and awards it in full. Accordingly, she awards:

A lump sum in the amount of $ 1,919.00

, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs, in the form of a check payable to petitioner and his counsel, the Law

Offices of Donald P. Edwards.

In absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the

C ourt SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this decision. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey



### Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vac cine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, August 4-8, 200Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,333,060 20,819 117,795 663,176 405,146 24,309 6Number of loans 16,401 261 1,741 8,777 3,027 491 Weighted average maturity (months)1 23.12 11.66 16.60 29.25 18.46 13.00 37.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 3.70 9.88 4.36 3.92 2.58 1.18 34.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.24 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate 4 4.97 5.90 4.92 4.98 4.70 5.69 6.4

 Standard error5 .27 .27 .29 .33 .61 .51 .

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.65 6.01 6.00 5.65 5.13 6.62 6.2 25th percentile 4.03 5.92 3.82 4.03 4.03 4.59 5.9 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.36 5.78 5.13 5.05 5.79 4.61 n Other livestock 4.86 n.a. 7.79 5.27 3.87 3.85 n Other current operating expenses7 5.14 6.04 5.66 5.21 4.67 5.56 6.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.82 6.65 6.07 5.76 5.81 3.31 9.9 Farm real estate 5.91 n.a. 5.47 5.64 6.34 n.a. n Other8 4.51 4.65 3.80 4.51 4.60 6.21 5.9

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 86.99 9.51 71.49 91.39 88.85 93.42 39.7 Under commitment 76.87 41.44 77.87 73.67 93.42 99.87 91.9 Callable 16.26 32.24 29.07 16.94 11.14 6.97 52.2 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 3.65 39.79 11.69 2.62 1.94 2.16 n Other livestock 7.41 n.a. .63 10.26 7.16 4.21 n Other current operating expenses7 44.88 49.94 44.49 35.88 48.41 55.68 60.2 Farm machinery and equipment 3.76 5.34 4.19 5.10 2.30 .87 8.0 Farm real estate 4.78 n.a. 1.30 5.70 4.06 n.a. n Other8 35.53 4.93 37.71 40.44 36.13 37.08 31.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 19.57 n.a. 6.02 27.47 14.77 3.51 52.2 Other 75.80 97.40 88.61 69.51 84.81 95.93 45.7 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
<PAGE>
 
                                                          Item 6 (a), Exhibit 11



                  Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund
              Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                For the Periods

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                  April 1, 1997            January 1, 1997
                                     through                   through
                                  June 30, 1997             June 30, 1997
                                  -------------             -------------
                                    (unaudited)               (unaudited)
<S>                               <C>                       <C>

Net Loss                           $  5,516                   $  13,689
                                   ========                   =========

Weighted Average Number of          250,000                     250,000
                                   ========                   =========
Common Shares Outstanding

Earning (Loss) per Common Share    $   (.02)                  $    (.05)
                                   ========                   =========

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,899
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               330,060
<PP&E>                                         202,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          812,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                    (357,029)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,886
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,550
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               153,556
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (200,411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (201,211)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (201,211)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (23.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (23.74)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Tucker, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 587]

*383Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J., on motion; Dorothy Cropper, J., at suppression hearing, jury trial and sentence), rendered June 1, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony and a key recovered from his person as fruits of an allegedly unlawful arrest. Defendant precisely matched a radioed description of a person who had just completed a drug sale. The description of a black male dressed in all-black clothing and a black hat, sitting on a crate at a specified location, was sufficiently specific to provide probable cause, given the very close temporal and spatial proximity between the sale and the arrest, and the fact that defendant was the only person matching the description *(see e.g. People v Ortiz,*291 AD2d 273 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 679 [2002]; *People v Rampersant,*272 AD2d 202 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 870 [2000]).

The hearing court properly precluded defendant from raising an issue concerning the search of a mailbox, in which the police found drugs and money after they opened the mailbox by means of the key they had recovered from defendant’s person. This issue was beyond the scope of the suppression hearing granted by the motion court. In his moving papers, defendant had not raised any issue about this search and had not made any attempt to establish a privacy interest in the mailbox *(cf. People v Jose,*252 AD2d 401 [1998], *affd*94 NY2d 844 [1999]). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dion Greene, Also Known as Dion (King) Greene, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 433]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 4, 2002 *(People v Greene,*291 AD2d 410 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 17, 1998.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.