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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS

BARTON ARBUTHNOT, 

BLENDA ARBUTHNOT, 

BLAINE ARBUTHNOT, 

PAMELA ARBUTHNOT, 

LYNN CHUBBUCK, 

AMBER DECKER, 

JULIE DECKER, 

KAREN DIETRICH, 

MICHAEL DIETRICH, 

DOROTHY MASON, 

C.D., a minor, by and through her parents and next of friends, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORDWAY, COLORADO a municipal corporation of the

State of Colorado, 

THE CROWLEY COUNTY CHILD CARE CENTER, a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a KIDS

CAMPUS, 

ANNETTE BOONE, an individual, 

ORVAL L. COLLINS a/k/a LAWRENCE O. COLLINS a/k/a LARRY COLLINS, individually, and in

his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Ordway, Colorado, 

WILLIAM FERRITTO, individually, and in his official capacity as Marshal of the Town of Ordway,

Colorado, 

PETER MOORE, individually, and in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town or Ordway, Colorado,

KELLI JO RUSHER, in her official capacity as Mayor of the Town of Ordway, Colorado, 

DAWN SCHECK, an individual, 

CARRIE STEELE-COLLINS a/k/a CARRIE COLLINS a/k/a CARRIE ELEANOR STEELE,

individually, 

DOES 1-20, individuals 

Defendants. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

______________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER, having come before the Court, the Court having received and reviewed

the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal of Remaining Claims of C.D. against Defendants The Board

of Trustees of the Town of Ordway a/k/a The Town Council of the Town of Ordway, Larry

Case 1:11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS Document 119 Filed 08/29/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Collins, individually, and in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Ordway, Colorado,

Pete Moore, individually, and in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of Ordway,

Colorado, William Ferritto, individually and in his official capacity as Marshal for the Town of

Ordway, Kelli Jo Rusher, in her official capacity as Mayor of the Town of Ordway, Colorado,

and Carrie Steele-Collins (#118), with prejudice, and the file, and being fully advised in the

premises, the Court hereby

ORDERS that the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal of Remaining Claims of C.D. against

Defendants The Board of Trustees of the Town of Ordway a/k/a The Town Council of the Town

of Ordway, Larry Collins, individually, and in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town of

Ordway, Colorado, Pete Moore, individually, and in his official capacity as Trustee of the Town

of Ordway, Colorado, William Ferritto, individually and in his official capacity as Marshal for

the Town of Ordway, Kelli Jo Rusher, in her official capacity as Mayor of the Town of Ordway,

Colorado, and Carrie Steele-Collins, with Prejudice is GRANTED. Each party is to bear their

own attorneys fees and costs as agreed between the parties.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS Document 119 Filed 08/29/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-117-01/02-SM

Isaac Lindsay and

Amy Galica

O R D E R

Defendant Galica’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 14). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2009 

trial period. Defendant Galica shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than October 27, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: March 6, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: March 17, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00117-SM Document 15 Filed 10/14/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 14, 2008

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Mark Howard, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00117-SM Document 15 Filed 10/14/08 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 15.1

                                                        SAMSON BELAIR/DELOITTE &
                                                        TOUCHE S.E.N.C.R.L.

                                                        1 Place Ville Marie
                                                        Suite 3000
                                                        Montreal QC
                                                        H3B 4T9
                                                        Canada

                                                        Tel: 514-393-5246 Fax:
                                                        514-390-4113
                                                        www.deloitte.ca

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (registration Nos. 33-28296, 33-91824, 333-93063 and 333-6236)
pertaining to the Corporation's Employee Incentive Plan and Directors' Stock
Option Plan of our report dated February 23, 2005, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 20-F of Campbell Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2004. We also consent to incorporation by reference in the aforementioned
registration Statements of our Comments by Independent Registered Chartered
Accountants for U.S. Readers on Canada-U.S. Reporting Differences dated February
23, 2005.

/s/ Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche s.e.n.c.r.l.
Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche s.e.n.c.r.l.
Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Canada
March 31, 2005
Executive Order 13474

# Amendments to Executive Order 12962

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1.**Executive Order 12962 of June 7, 1995, is hereby amended:  (a) in the preamble, by striking “and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801-1882)” and inserting before “, and other pertinent statutes,” the following:                

                    “the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431*et seq*.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee), the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1*et seq*.), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470*et seq*.), Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131*et seq*.), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801*et seq*.), the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451*et seq*.), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331*et seq*.)”; and                

(b) by redesignating subsections (d) through (i) in section 1 as subsections (e) through (j), respectively, and inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:

“(d) ensuring that recreational fishing shall be managed as a sustainable activity in national wildlife refuges, national parks, national monuments, national marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas, or any other relevant conservation or  management areas or activities under any Federal authority, consistent with applicable law;”.

**Sec. 2.**                     This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.                

[FR Doc. E8-23235

Billing code 3195-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

 

ORDER

 

THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on the Government’s Unopposed

Motion to File Motion Out of Time, and the Court, having considered the motion and being

fully advised, concludes that the government’s motion should be granted.

It is therefore, ORDERED that:

1. The government’s motion to file its Unopposed Motion for Variance in the

Numbering of its Trial Exhibits out of time is hereby GRANTED. 

The government shall file said motion no later than April 3, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 76-1 filed 04/02/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2007...... 64.8 5.6 5.6 32.5 5.5 15.6 2.7 5.7 14.8 41.6 2004: Q4... 71.0 12.6 9.2 28.6 7.4 13.2 2.6 4.8 14.7 48.9 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Q4... 74.4 9.3 8.3 31.2 5.5 20.1 2.7 5.7 16.3 49.7 2008: Q1... 83.7 6.6 5.9 47.7 3.2 20.3 2.3 5.6 14.0 61.9  Q2... 76.7 4.5 6.3 39.4 5.8 20.7 2.9 5.6 16.5 51.6  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on 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.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Annual Report of TBC Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas W. Garvey,
Executive Vice 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:

       (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




March 11, 2003                                 By  /s/ Thomas W. Garvey
--------------                                     --------------------
                                                   Thomas W. Garvey
                                                   Executive Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer























                                               -72-
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Russell Skippon, Appellant, v T.M. Kenney’s Inc. et al., Respondents. Workers’ *635Compensation Board, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 116]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 12, 2001, which ruled, inter alia, that the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier timely raised the Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 defense.

Claimant sustained work-related injuries to his neck and back in 1991 and timely filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. In 1994, he was classified as permanently partially disabled and the case was closed. In March 1999, claimant’s treating physician sought authorization to treat carpal tunnel syndrome, which he attributed to the 1991 accident. At the initial hearing on this claim in May 1999, the attorney for the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier stated that he was “going to raise all issues.” Based upon this statement, the Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately concluded that the carrier had timely raised the statute of limitations defense established by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which barred the claim.

On this appeal, claimant contends that the carrier’s general reference to “all issues” was insufficient to raise a specific objection based on claimant’s failure to file the claim within the two-year period required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Board could rationally conclude that the carrier’s reference to “all issues” included an objection based upon the timeliness of a claim filed in 1999 for an injury allegedly sustained in a 1991 accident. The record leaves no doubt that the parties and the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge understood that the carrier’s statement encompassed a timeliness objection. Indeed, the carrier’s statement was preceded by the acknowledgment of claimant’s attorney that the carrier “is probably going to raise issues.” In addition, the carrier’s use of the all-encompassing phrase “all issues” was an appropriate means of preserving the timeliness issue in light of the discussion immediately preceding the statement with respect to whether claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome would be pursued as a consequential injury or as a direct injury from the 1991 accident — a distinction which is relevant because the limitations period of Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 is inapplicable to a claim arising out of a consequential injury related to a prior injury for which a claim was timely filed (see, *Matter of Traver v Rickkard Constr. Co.,*286 AD2d 808). On this record, we find no basis to disturb the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02222-LTB 

MILAGRO TAURUS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

U.S. DEPT. OF SOCIAL SEC., State Office, and

COMM. MICHAEL ASTRUE, of His State Rep, 

Defendants. 

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Appeal” (Doc. # 11) and “Motion to Close the Denver

Colorado Case” (Doc. # 13) are DENIED as unnecessary.

Dated: December 16, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02222-LTB Document 18 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

I, John Lackland, Chief Financial Officer of Power EfficiencyCorporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company forthe quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements 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 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date:  November 11, 2005

 
|   | BY:  | /s/ John Lackland                                   |   |
|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |      | John Lackland                                       |   |
|   |      | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Factory Card and Party Outlet Corp.
Naperville, Illinois

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Factory Card and Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of August 3, 2002
(Successor Company balance sheet), and the related condensed consolidated
statements of operations and cash flows for the three month and four month
periods ended August 3, 2002 (Successor Company operations), and the two month
period ended April 6, 2002 (Predecessor Company operations). These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and of making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them to be in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

As discussed in Note 10, the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements for the two month period ended April 6, 2002 (Predecessor Company
operations) have been restated.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Chicago, Illinois
September 16, 2002 (March 5, 2003 as to the effect of the
restatement described in Note 10)
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23212]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EG08-75-000; EG08-76-000; FC08-6-000; FC08-7-000; FC08-8-
000; FC08-9-000]


Notrees Windpower, LP; Windthorst-1, LLC; SunEdison 
International, LLC; P.P.C. Limited; Atlantic Equipment & Power (Turks 
and Caicos) Ltd.; Belize Electric Company Limited; Notice of 
Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company 
Status

September 26, 2008.
    Take notice that during the month of August 2008, the status of the 
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign 
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's 
regulations 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23212 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### TAYLOR v. OAK APPLIANCE CO., Inc.

No. 18163.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 9, 1945.

Claude W. Duke, of New Orleans, for appellant.

R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

The plaintiff, Robert Taylor, delivered a washing machine to the defendant, Oak Appliance Company, Inc., for the purpose of having it repaired. Four months later the machine was returned to him without having been repaired and, he claims, without essential parts and worthless. He brings this suit for $185 the purchase price of the washing machine.

The defendant denied all responsibility for the missing parts and averred that the machine, which had been dismantled when it was delivered to it, was returned to plaintiff in the exact state in which it had been received. In other words, there were missing parts when the defendant got the machine and the parts could not be obtained and, therefore, the defendant could not make the repairs.

There was judgment below in plaintiff’s favor as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

On the question of fact presented, that is to say, the responsibility for the loss of the parts, we have concluded that the evidence in the record does not justify overruling the judgment of the trial judge as it does not appear that he was manifestly wrong.

As to the quantum, however, we cannot agree that plaintiff should have judgment for $185. The machine was twelve years old when it was delivered to the defendant and was out of order, otherwise there would have been no point in having it repaired, and while it is clear from the record that missing parts of old washing machines, as well as new washing-machines, are not available to the public and cannot be purchased because of the wartime restrictions, nevertheless, it seems to us that the measure of plaintiff’s damage is the value of the machine at the time it was rendered useless. There is testimony in the record that the ceiling price as fixed by the Office of Price Administration, for a machine of this type, is $47, consequently, and

*744For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is amended by reducing the award from the sum of $185 to $47, and as thus amended it is affirmed. The plaintiff and appellee to pay the costs of this Court.

Amended and affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Philip Cearv

V.

New Hampshire Department of

Corrections , Interim Warden

Case No. 07 -fp-116

O R D E.R

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $18.56 is due no later than May

23, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month's income

credited to plaintiff's account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff's request for in

forma pauperis has been granted.

This case has been assigned number -cv- ^- IPA

SO ORDERED.

01

United tates Dis rict Judge

Date: 1j loe- / A g/°7

cc: Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison , Inmate Accounts

Case 1:07-cv-00116-PB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 1

Geary v. NH State Prison, Interim Warden Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
**Exhibit 10.1**

10.1         Description of Chief Financial Officercompensatory arrangement.

William J. Kenealy, theCompany’s Chief Financial Officer as of September 29, 2006, receives an annualbase salary of $150,000 for 2006, to be increased on January 1, 2007 to$170,000.  He is also eligible toparticipate in the Company’s Bonus Plan.  In addition, Mr. Kenealy wasgranted options to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock onSeptember 29, 2006.  The options vest in increments of 10,000 shares per yearcommencing on September 29, 2007, at an exercise price of $2.45 per share, theFair Market Value per share of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant,as described in the Company’s stock option plan under which such options wereissued.

1

----