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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00346-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ENRIQUE LOPEZ-CORONA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter has been scheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge

Philip A. Brimmer in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A701, 7th Floor, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence on November 7, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. It is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by September 30, 2011 and

responses to these motions shall be filed by October 7, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall

be made no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any

challenges to such experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is

further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made

one week after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such

experts shall be made no later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is

further

Case 1:11-cr-00346-PAB Document 10 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is set for November 3, 2011 at

1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A701. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in

person. 

The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at the Trial

Preparation Conference:

1) jury selection;

2) sequestration of witnesses;

3) timing of presentation of witnesses and evidence;

4) anticipated evidentiary issues;

5) any stipulations as to fact or law; and

6) any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial. 

DATED September 7, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00346-PAB Document 10 Filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 893 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 19, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the 
Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the joint 
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 3.  During consideration of House Joint Resolution 72 or the motion to 
concur pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 
previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of either 
measure to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
    Sec. 4.  House Resolution 849 is laid upon the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 10.21



                                       January 12, 2000




  Carlton Turner, President/CEO
  Caraloe Incorporated
  2001 Walnut Hill Lane
  Irving, Texas 75038


  RE:  Letter of  Agreement  Extending Trademark  License  Agreement  and
       Supply Agreement


  Dear Mr. Turner:

       This will confirm  our understanding in  principle related to  the
  extension of the  respective Agreements as  attached hereto as  Exhibit
  "A"  -  "Supply  Agreement"  and  Exhibit  "B"  -  "Trademark   License
  Agreement", (collectively  the "Agreements")  executed by  and  between
  Mannatech[TM]  Incorporated  ("Mannatech")  and  Caraloe,  Incorporated
  ("Caraloe")  on  August   14  1997,   (hereinafter  collectively,   the
  "Parties") both Agreements to be incorporated  by reference as part  of
  this Agreement.   It  is the  intent  of the  Parties hereto  that  the
  Agreements shall remain in full force and effect with the exception  of
  that which the Parties  desire to incorporate  as additional terms  and
  conditions ("Terms and Conditions") as outlined herein.

       The term of the  Agreements shall be extended  for a two (2)  year
  period, commencing August 14, 2000 and ending August 14, 2002.

       Mannatech agrees to purchase from  Caraloe, and Caraloe agrees  to
  manufacture and  sell  to  Mannatech,  Manapol[R]  not  less  than  600
  kilograms per month, but in any event not more than as indicated on the
  attached Exhibits as attached hereto, Exhibit "C" - "2000 Manapol Usage
  Forecast" and Exhibit "D" - "2001 Manapol Usage Forecast" (collectively
  the "Forecasts") unless Mannatech shall notify Caraloe to the  contrary
  in accordance  with the  requirements of  the  Agreement set  forth  in
  Exhibit B.    In  the event  Mannatech  anticipates  or  requires  more
  Manapol[R] than as specified in  the Forecasts, Mannatech shall  afford
  Caraloe ninety (90) days written notice thereof.

       The Parties  further  agree that  Exhibit  A as  attached  to  the
  Trademark Licensing Agreement  shall be amended  to include  Argentina,
  Brazil and Chile and  other countries as  anticipated as indicated  and
  attached hereto as "Exhibit "E" - "Amended Exhibit A".
<PAGE>
       If the foregoing terms and conditions are agreeable to you, please
  execute and return a duplicate of  the original of the letter, such  to
  constitute the agreement between us.

                                Very Truly Yours,
                                MANNATECH INCORPORATED


                                /s/ Charles E. Fioretti
                                -----------------------
                                Chief Executive Officer


  ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
  Caraloe Incorporated


  By:  /s/ Carlton Turner
     --------------------
  Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

v.

Agro-Farma, Inc. Civil No. 08-cv-488-JD

v.

Schreiber Foods, Inc.

O R D E R

The court commends the parties and counsel on their efforts

in reaching a non-trial resolution of this case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 28, 2011

cc: 

Case 1:08-cv-00488-JD Document 307 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 

27 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 10 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
EFILED Document 

CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Filing Date: Nov 9 2010 3:36PM MST 

Filing ID: 34271276 

Review Clerk: Kari S Elizalde

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 10 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 10 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 

28 

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 11 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
EFILED Document 

CO Denver County District Court 2nd JD 

Filing Date: Jan 6 2011 3:59PM MST 

Filing ID: 35240181 

Review Clerk: Kari S Elizalde

Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 11 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 11 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dawn M. Viele, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 476]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 31, 2005, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insur*1063anee benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was hired as a waitress to work the swing shift at a restaurant but quit her job after three days of training. Claimant thereafter applied for unemployment insurance benefits, representing that she lost her job due to a lack of work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits of $2,025 and reduced her right to receive future benefits by eight effective days. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. General dissatisfaction with working conditions, including an inability to get along with coworkers or having to work undesirable hours, does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see *Matter of Chereshnev [Commissioner of Labor],*296 AD2d 804, 805 [2002]; *Matter of Solano [Sweeney],*234 AD2d 845, 846 [1996]). Claimant testified that she left her job because she did not receive the proper training and was disgusted with the unprofessional manner in which the younger workers conducted themselves on the job. Although claimant stated that the employer would not accommodate her desire to work a different shift, the record reveals that she did not voice her concerns to management until after she quit her job. Under these circumstances, and inasmuch as claimant specifically was hired to work the swing shift, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that she left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons. Similarly, given that claimant falsely stated on her application that continuing work was not available to her, she was properly charged with a recoverable overpayment (see *Matter of Greco [Commissioner of Labor],*286 AD2d 796 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations and
consolidated statements of cash flows and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.6929
<CASH>                                          18,219
<SECURITIES>                                     7,958
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,527
<PP&E>                                         178,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,107
<BONDS>                                          3,718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       125,339
<OTHER-SE>                                    (49,666)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,134
<SALES>                                         22,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,465
<CGS>                                           32,644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,254)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,702)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-485-JL

Douglas Ross 

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 24, 2009, no objection having been filed, despite repeated

extensions.

SO ORDERED.

July 10, 2009 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Kevin Hall, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00485-JL Document 22 Filed 07/10/09 Page 1 of 1
#### MAISON BLANCHE CO. v. MEFSUT.

No. 16859.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 10, 1938.

Maurice B. Gatlin, of New'Orleans, for appellant.

Baldwin J. Allen, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

The appellee moves to dismiss this appeal" on the ground that it was not taken within ten days from the date the judgment was signed by the trial court — the judgment having been signed on October 27, 1937, and the motion for appeal filed on November-18, 1937.

 An investigation of the record in* the case reveals that the judgment was rendered on October 22, 1937. On October 25,. 1937, two days before the judgment was-, signed, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial, and the court issued its order for the appellee to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. On-November. 5,. 1937, while the motion for new trial was. still pending, the appellant, by agreement with counsel for appellee and with the approval of the court, withdrew his motion for a new trial and substituted a new motion ini its place. The court set down the second motion for new trial for hearing on November 12, 1937, and on that date an order was. issued overruling it.

Under article 558 of the Code of Practice, the party aggrieved by the judgment of the-trial court is given the right, within three judicial days after such judgment is rendered, to apply for a new trial, and it is firmly-established in the jurisprudence that, while-such motion for new trial is pending, the judge is without right to sign the judgment, and that, if he does so, his action is without legal effect. In Herold v. Jefferson, 172 La. 315, 134 So. 104, the Supreme Court observes : “It is also the rule that the signing; of a judgment before the expiration of the delay allowed by law for filing a motion fora new trial does not affect the right of the party cast to move for a new trial, and if the motion be timely filed, the judgment rendered, though signed, is considered as. not becoming legally effective unless and until the motion is overruled. Succession of Gilmore, 12 La.Ann. 562; Mercer v. Nat*825chez, B. & S. Ry. Co., 136 La. 187, 66 So. 774.”

The appellant having timely applied for a new trial, the judgment did not become final until the motion was disposed of on November 12, 1937! It follows that the motion for appeal filed on November 18, 1937, was well within thé ten days allowed to the appellant to appeal from the judgment of the First city court. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied. .

Motion to dismiss denied.
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1995...... 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.3 8.8 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.0 1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2005...... 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.5 7.1 6.5 2006...... 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.7 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.0 2003: Q3... 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.4 6.5 6.2 5.6 4.6  Q4... 5.0 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.4 6.4 6.2 5.7 4.2 2004: Q1... 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.6 5.5 4.6 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.0  Q2... 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.4 4.7 6.5 6.2 5.5 4.7  Q3... 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.0 6.6 6.5 5.9 5.1  Q4... 5.5 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 4.9 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.1 2005: Q1... 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4  Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Q3... 6.7 6.9 6.8 7.1 6.9 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 6.3  Q4... 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.7 6.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.1 2006: Q1... 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 7.8  Q2... 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.8  Q3... 8.6 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 8.3 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4  Q4... 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 7.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.1 2007: Q1... 8.5 8.9 8.3 8.7 8.9 8.1 9.2 9.1 8.8 8.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, Carol
Atkinson, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cosmo Communications Corporation,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.


/s/
      Carol AtkinsonCarol
      Atkinson
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)
              
              Date:
      February 26, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2240]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,404]


Motor Wheel Commercial Vehicle Systems, Full Cast/Assembly Area, 
Berea, KY; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    On January 8, 2008, the Department of Labor (Department) received a 
request for administrative reconsideration of the Department's Notice 
of Negative Determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on 
November 30, 2007. The Department's Notice of Determination Regarding 
ATAA was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 
70346).
    The negative determination was based on the Department's findings 
that the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are easily 
transferable.
    In the request for reconsideration, a worker alleged that 
``salaries at other factories in similar jobs are much lower'' than 
wages paid by the subject firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and has determined that the Department will conduct 
further investigation.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-2240 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P