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-01731-CMA-MJW

AMANDA SULLIVAN, Individually, and as Personal Representative of

The Estate of Kiera Sullivan, a minor, deceased, and

CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN, Individually, and as Personal Representative of

The Estate of Kiera Sullivan, a minor, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELTA ENTERPRISE, CORP.,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF

PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN AND

ORDER TO AMEND CAPTION

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Dismiss

Christopher Sullivan as a Plaintiff, with Prejudice (Doc. # 36). The Court has reviewed

the Stipulation and ORDERS as follows:

The parties’ Stipulated Motion (Doc. #36) is GRANTED and Plaintiff Christopher

Sullivan is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall pays his or its own costs and

attorneys’ fees related to Plaintiff Christopher Sullivan. It is

Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 38 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

FURTHER ORDERED that the caption on all subsequent filings shall reflect the

removal of Christopher Sullivan as a Plaintiff in this case.

DATED: May 30 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01731-CMA-MJW Document 38 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John S. Briand

v. Civil No. 09-cv-003-SM

City of Berlin, et al.

O R D E R

This matter originally came before me for preliminary review

because Briand, at the time of filing, was a prisoner. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). After consideration of Briand’s complaint, I

recommended that it be dismissed for failing to state a claim

upon which relief might be granted (document no. 5). Briand has

now filed an additional pleading which was docketed as a motion

to reconsider (document no. 6). The filing raises two objections

to my Report and Recommendation: (1) that I mistakenly indicated

that Briand was proceeding in forma pauperis when, in fact, he

paid the filing fee in full, and (2) that my recommendation of

dismissal was based on an incorrect analysis of the legal claims

presented in the complaint.

As to the Briand’s first contention, I acknowledge that my

identification of Briand as an in forma pauperis plaintiff was in

Case 1:09-cv-00003-SM Document 9 Filed 05/07/09 Page 1 of 2
2

error. I therefore direct that the relevant language be stricken

from my Report and Recommendation. 

The central thrust of Briand’s most recent filing, however,

is that my Report and Recommendation was erroneous and should not

be accepted by the Chief Judge. As such, this filing is properly

considered as an objection to my Report and Recommendation, and

not a motion to reconsider. I have reviewed the objection, and

nothing in it alters my April 1, 2009 recommendation of

dismissal. Accordingly, I direct the Clerk’s Office to redocket

Briand’s April 9, 2009 filing as an objection to my Report and

Recommendation, and to forward it to the Chief Judge for his

consideration. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 7, 2009

cc: John Briand, pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00003-SM Document 9 Filed 05/07/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

                                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                  1000 Morgan Keegan Tower
                                                  Fifty North Front Street
                                                  Memphis, TN 38103
                                                  Telephone (901) 522 2000
                                                  Facsimile (901) 523 2045







                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 for TBC  Corporation's  1989 Stock Incentive Plan and TBC Corporation's
2000 Stock Option Plan of our reports  dated  January 29, 2001,  relating to the
consolidated  financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule  of TBC
Corporation and its  subsidiaries,  as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for the
years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, which reports are included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




Memphis, Tennessee
March 26, 2001

















                                      -99-


<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Wright, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 719]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 26, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second 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 identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50 *(see People v Hargroves,*296 AD2d 581 [decided herewith]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
---

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41998
          6
          -1
          3
          0
          5
          .022
          -.004
          .009
          .000
          .0161999
          15
          0
          3
          5
          7
          .051
          -.001
          .011
          .015
          .0222000
          12
          -12
          3
          8
          14
          .037
          -.037
          .009
          .022
          .0402001
          42
          10
          9
          5
          17
          .123
          .030
          .027
          .014
          .0492002
          35
          8
          6
          5
          16
          .097
          .022
          .017
          .014
          .0412003
          32
          4
          6
          8
          14
          .082
          .010
          .015
          .021
          .0342004
          18
          1
          5
          2
          10
          .044
          .003
          .012
          .005
          .0212005
          17
          2
          11
          4
          0
          .039
          .005
          .024
          .009
          .0002006
          20
          2
          6
          1
          12
          .042
          .003
          .012
          .002
          .0232007
          8
          -3
          0
          5
          6
          .015
          -.006
          .000
          .009
          .0112008
          54
          5
          8
          12
          29
          .093
          .008
          .013
          .020
          .0462009
          n.a.
          33
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .051
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                             237,831
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      173,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                     53,645,286
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,143,315
<PP&E>                                          33,192,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,309,420
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,799,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,858,777
<BONDS>                                          3,038,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            72,282
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,554,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,799,088
<SALES>                                         93,656,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,656,807
<CGS>                                           59,698,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,128,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,273,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (443,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (185,679)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (257,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (312,886)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (570,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.09)
        


</TABLE>
Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Peter Horak, Principal Executive Officer of
Cosmo Communications Corporation (the "Registrant"),
certifies that to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the annual report on 10KSB for the
period ended March 31, 2002 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of the
Section 13(a) [15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
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 Registrant.


______Peter Horak______________________

Name: _Peter Horak_________________

Date:  ___September 15,_____, 2002
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 962 

Congratulating the city of Inglewood, California on its 100th anniversary 

and commending the city for its growth and resilience. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2008 

Ms. WATERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the city of Inglewood, California on its 100th 

anniversary and commending the city for its growth and 

resilience. 

Whereas the city of Inglewood is proud to celebrate its 100th 

anniversary as an incorporated city; 

Whereas the centennial is a milestone reflecting hard work 

and accomplishment made possible by a dedicated community; 

Whereas over the years, the city of Inglewood has grown and 

flourished from what was once considered a sleepy settlers’ town into a thriving and vibrant metropolitan community with booming business and a demonstrated commitment to providing public services and community outreach, supporting economic development, and providing 

housing to the community; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 962 IH 

Whereas this proud city, and the community members and 

staff who support it, proudly accept the challenge to better and grow a thriving city; 

Whereas in light of the theme ‘‘Cherishing our Past, Embracing our Future’’, the city of Inglewood envisions a centennial that celebrates Inglewood’s rich legacy and provides opportunities for the community to come together, 

and to learn and appreciate the city’s magnificent heritage; 

Whereas the city also looks forward to welcoming another 

100 years of success through community spirit, unity, 

and dedication; 

Whereas the centennial will be the biggest celebration 

Inglewood has held since the year of incorporation in 

1908, at which time the population was 1,200; 

Whereas today, Inglewood continues to grow with a population of 120,000 and over 11,000 businesses; and 

Whereas the city appreciates and is grateful for the positive 

and dynamic elements of the community including residents, students, artists, educational institutions, businesses, community service organizations, houses of worship, and neighborhood associations who have helped 

make Inglewood the ‘‘City of Champions’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the United States House of Rep2 resentatives congratulates the City of Inglewood, Cali3 fornia on its 100th anniversary and commends the city 

4 for its growth and resilience. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Pablo Acosta

v. Civil No. 07-cv-00181-JL

N.H. State Prison, Warden

 AMENDED ORDER

The warden’s motion for summary judgment (document #11) is

denied without prejudice due to its age and the delays resulting

from the petitioner’s lack of counsel.

The respondent may re-file the motion supplemented with new

information obtained since the motion’s original filing in

December, 2007. Alternatively, if the respondent would like to

proceed on the motion in its current form, simply file a Notice

of Reinstatement, and the court will consider it in its current

form.

This order vacates doc. #19 (order dated 8/11/08). 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 11, 2008

cc: Philip H. Utter, Esq.

Karin M. Eckel, Esq.

Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00181-JL Document 20 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      30,072,740
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,000,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,375,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                123,076,038
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      20,196,377
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        20,650,858
<LOANS>                                    294,523,715
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,712,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             494,570,422
<DEPOSITS>                                 439,042,612
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,016,475
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,977,855
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,533,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             494,570,422
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             24,915,315
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            8,775,297
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             1,648,864
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            35,339,476
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          11,160,623
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,169,265
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       24,170,211
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  940,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,625)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             19,888,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,019,068
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   9,019,068
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,384,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.61
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,129,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   953,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,411,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  800,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   162,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,713,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,713,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Ranger Insurance, as Subrogee of Glo Gas Service of Rome, Inc., Respondent, v Bonnie Smith et al., Appellants.

[745 NYS2d 449]

In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid to the plaintiffs insured, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated July 13, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to “restore” the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff was not required to meet the standards applicable to a party seeking to restore an action to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. Since there is no evidence that a note of issue placing the action on the trial calendar was filed *(see*CPLR 3402), the action could not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 *(see Murray v Smith Corp.,*286 AD2d 377; *Cioffi v Kennedy,*284 AD2d 491; *Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190, 193). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to “restore” the action to the calendar. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Sammy Sayed, Plaintiff, v Joseph T. Macari, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. 89-11 Northern Blvd. Food Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants; National Surety Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Tower Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 509]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the second third-party defendant, Tower Insurance Company, appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated September 25, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the second third-party plaintiffs for partial summary judgment, denied its cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that it is obligated to defend and indemnify Joseph T. Macari in the main action.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and it is declared that Tower Insurance Company is not obligated to defend or indemnify Joseph T. Macari in the main action.

*397Where an insurance policy, such as the one in this case, requires an insured to provide notice of an accident or loss as soon as practicable, such notice must be provided within a reasonable time in view of the facts and circumstances (see *Travelers Indem. Co. v Worthy,*281 AD2d 411). Providing an insurer with timely notice of a potential claim is a condition precedent, and thus “[ajbsent a valid excuse, a failure to satisfy the notice requirement vitiates the policy” *(Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.,*31 NY2d 436, 440).

The second third-party defendant, Tower Insurance Company (hereinafter Tower), established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the excuses offered by Tower’s additional insured, Joseph T. Macari, and his primary insurer, National Surety Corporation, a Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (hereinafter Fireman’s), failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the nearly three-month delay in notifying Tower was reasonable. The excuse asserted by Macari and Fireman’s to explain Macari’s failure to notify— that Fireman’s was investigating the claim — was insufficient as a matter of law to excuse the almost three-month delay *(see Travelers Indem. Co. v Worthy, supra*at 412; *Safer v Government Empls. Ins. Co.,*254 AD2d 344). The fact that Tower acquired actual knowledge of the occurrence from the primary insured did not excuse Macari’s noncompliance with the notice provision, since the primary insured held a position adverse to Macari’s *(see National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v State Ins. Fund,*266 AD2d 518, 520; *American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v CMA Enters.,*246 AD2d 373).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that Macari’s delay in providing Tower with notice of the accident was reasonable (see *Travelers Indem. Co. v Worthy,*281 AD2d at 412).

Tower’s remaining contentions are academic in light of this determination. Santucci, J.P., Altman, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. WELCH,

AMRA WELCH, as nominee/alter ego of James D. Welch,

JAMES D. WELCH, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust, and

CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AGAINST CELESTIAL PURSUITS TRUST, JIM D. WELCH,

EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE

The Court having reviewed the United States’ motion for the entry of default

judgment against Defendant Jim D. Welch, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits

Trust, and good cause having been shown, said motion is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of the United

States and against Celestial Pursuits Trust, Jim D. Welch, Executive Trustee, as to all

counts of the United States’ Complaint.

DATED: December 17 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM Document 93 Filed 12/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Amendments to




 

Amendment

to Separation Agreement, by and between

Alpharma Inc. and Kurt Orlofski, dated January 20, 2004

(the "Separation Agreement")


 

The parties hereto agree to amend the Separation Agreement as follows:

1.      Section 1 shall be amended such that the "Termination Date" shall mean March 16, 2004.


2.      Section 2(b) shall be amended such that the "Severance Period" shall commence on March 17, 2004 and end on September 17, 2005.


3.      Section 2(d) shall be amended such that all references to "April 12, 2004" shall instead read "March 16, 2004".


4.      All other terms and conditions of the Separation Agreement shall remain valid and enforceable as written.




The undersigned parties agree to this Amendment to the Separation Agreement, as set forth above, and intending to be bound, hereby execute below as of March 16, 2004:


 

ALPHARMA INC.


 

By:  /s/ Jeffrey Kuc     3/18/04

Jeffrey Kuc, Vice President, Human Resources




 

/s/ Kurt Orlofski       3/16/04

Kurt Orlofski