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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01946-RPM

DAVID FALK,

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant.

Minute Order Entered by Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch:

s/M. V. Wentz

 Secretary

The motion to vacate the September 16, 2011, scheduling conference [7] is granted. 

The conference is rescheduled for September 29, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel shall submit

the proposed scheduling order in paper form directly to Chambers no later than 4:00 p.m. on

September 22, 2011.

DATED: August 5, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01946-RPM Document 8 Filed 08/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,008,119
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,870,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,571,990
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     21,592,871
<ALLOWANCE>                                    374,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,138,954
<DEPOSITS>                                  24,103,942
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            156,280
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,792,290
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,086,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              31,138,954
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,076,711
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              141,573
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               172,059
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,390,343
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             502,671
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             502,671
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          887,672
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  310,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                972,889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (258,627)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (258,627)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (258,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.57
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                72,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              375,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           375,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending April 28, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCOMMUNITY TRUST BANK, INC.                                                                                              * BranchCommunity Trust Bank, Inc., Pikeville, KY to establish a branch at Pullman Square, Huntington, WV.Newspaper: 04/25/2007Federal Register: Not applicableMINSTER BANK                                                                                                            * BranchMinster Bank, Minster, OH to provide mobile branch services to particular customers in Allen, Augulaize, Mercer, Shelby, Darke, Miami, and Montgomery Counties, OH.Newspaper: 05/05/2007Federal Register: Not applicable
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 10.40

                           DIGITAL SOUND CORPORATION

                          DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT'S
                     EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN FOR 1998


The Company's 1998 Executive Officer Bonus Plan (the "Plan") is based solely on 
achieving the Company's 1998 revenue target.  The Plan provides that if 100% of 
the revenue target is attained, a cash bonus equivalent to 20% of base salary 
will be earned.  If revenue exceeds the annual target by 50%, then the maximum 
bonus of 75% of base salary will be earned.  If revenue exceeds the annual 
target but by less than 50%, the percentage earned will be linearly prorated.  
There will be no bonus if the target is not reached.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**COSMO
      COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION**


**FORM
      10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2008**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


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




I,
      Carol
      Atkinson, Chief Financial Officer of Cosmo Communications Corporation (the
      "Company"), hereby 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
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the “Annual Report”) of the Company for the year
      ended March 31, 2008, which this certification accompanies (the "Annual
      Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





By:
            */s/
                Carol Atkinson*Dated:
                June 30, 2008
            
            Name:
                Carol Atkinson
              Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer and
              Principal
                Financial Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY E. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MOORE, Ms.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-15567 

D.C. No. 

2:18-cv-02427-RFB-VCF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 3, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Jerry E. Johnson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth 

Amendment violations arising from unsanitary conditions of confinement. We 

affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison staff

consciously disregarded an excessive risk to Johnson’s health by exposing him 

to unsanitary conditions when he was placed temporarily in an unclean cell for 

several hours during the transfer of a group of inmates to different cell placements

within the prison. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-58 (9th Cir.

2004) (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and 

disregard an excessive risk of serious harm to inmate health); Anderson v. County 

of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th Cir. 1995) (lack of sanitation must be severe 

and prolonged to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation).

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-31450

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN RAMOS PEINADO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-66-ALL-C

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

October 26, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan

Ramos Peinado on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw as

counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Peinado has filed a response to

counsel's motion and brief in which he asks for the appointment

of new appellate counsel.

Our independent review of the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion for 
No. 00-31450

-2-

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. Peinado's request for the appointment of new counsel is

DENIED.

DISMISSED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


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





I,
      Robert
      Scherne, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      New
      Generation Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended September 30,
      2008
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of New Generation Holdings, Inc.




/s/
                Robert Scherne*Robert
                Scherne*
              *Chief
                Financial Officer*
              *New
                Generation Holdings, Inc.*November
                11, 2008
#### Dox’s Estate.

*Decedents’ estates*— Executors *and administrators*— Practice, *O.*C.— ’ *Review of accounts.*

A petition for a review of an executor’s accounts is only granted as of right for error on the face of the record or new matter arising after the decree of confirmation, or as a matter of grace for new proofs discovered after the decree which could not have been obtained before.

Argued Feb. 22, 1910.

Appeal, No. 9,

Jan. T., 1910, by Eugene Frantz, surviving joint-petitioner, from decree of O. C. Lackawanna Co., No. 55 of 1904, dismissing petition for review of the account of M. J. Martin, executor in Estate of Mary Augusta Dox.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for review of an executor’s accounts. Before Sando, P. J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Error assigned was*the decree dismissing the petition.

*607
      *Samuel B. Price,*with him *James E. Davis*and *Cole B. Price,*for appellant.

*Ralph W. Rymer,*with him *John P. Kelly,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

March 28, 1910:

This appeal is from an order dismissing a petition for a review of the account of an executor. The appellant was a legatee to whom, in the distribution account, certain bonds were set apart in payment of his legacy. This was done in pursuance of a power given the executor by the will. The petition for review was filed a year after the final confirmation of the executor’s account and the distribution account filed with it, and after distribution had been made of all other assets of the estate. The appellant had notice by advertisement and personally of the filing of the accounts and had full opportunity to object to them. Under this state of facts he had no standing as of right to a review. There was no error on the face of the record, or new matter that had arisen after the decree of confirmation: LeMoyne’s App., 104 Pa. 321. He had no standing as a matter of grace because of new proofs discovered after the decree which could not have been obtained before.

The order is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS

KATHRYN KIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Defendant.

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Testimony of Her Step-Children

[Doc. # 77, filed 4/3/2013] (the “First Motion in Limine”);

(2) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion In Limine Regarding Her Present Financial

Condition [Doc. # 78, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Second Motion In Limine”);

(3) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion In Limine Regarding Other Sums Received By

Plaintiff [Doc. # 79, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Third Motion In Limine”);

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Her Subsequent Relationship With

Michael McCasky [Doc. # 80, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Fourth Motion In Limine”); and

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Quicksilver Evidence [Doc. # 82,

filed 4/18/2013] (the “Fifth Motion In Limine”).

I held a hearing on the motions in limine this morning and made rulings on the record,

which are incorporated here. 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 91 Filed 05/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The First Motion In Limine [Doc. # 77] is GRANTED to preclude examination

concerning disputes the step-children “claim to have had with Plaintiff since their father’s death,

including disputes regarding life-insurance proceeds and access to personal property kept at the

marital home,” and DENIED in all other respects. In particular, the step-children may testify

concerning the plaintiff’s claim to physical and emotional injuries;

(2) The Second Motion In Limine [Doc. # 78] is DENIED without prejudice. The

defendant may inquire about the plaintiff’s financial condition in the event she opens the door to

such inquiry. Otherwise, the objection may be interposed at trial, if appropriate and necessary;

(3) The Third Motion In Limine [Doc. # 79] is DENIED without prejudice. The

defendant may inquire about other sums received by the plaintiff and her financial condition in

the event she opens the door to such inquiry. Otherwise, the objection may be interposed at trial,

if appropriate and necessary;

(4) The Fourth Motion In Limine [Doc. # 80] is DENIED; and

(5) The Fifth Motion In Limine [Doc. # 82] is GRANTED.

Dated May 2, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 91 Filed 05/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02222-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02222-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02222-BNB Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### Sylvia Linden et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Maurice Gastoldi et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Cesar Di Monda et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Ruth Goldberg et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

January 11, 1957.

*Jacob S. Spiro*for plaintiffs in Action No. 1.

*Jones & Lynch*for defendants in Action No. 1, and Maurice Gastoldi and another, defendants in Action No. 2.

*John J. Ferris*for plaintiffs in Action No. 2.

*Hartsell, Harrington & Jacobs*for Sylvia Linden and another, defendants in Action No. 2.

James S. Brown, J.

Motion to consolidate two actions arising out of an automobile collision. One action is pending in this court and one is pending in the City Court. Both actions have not been noticed for trial. The attorney for plaintiffs in Action No. 2 opposes this motion on the grounds the City Court action is a nonjury case and will be tried in the near future and that Action No. 1 has not yet been preferred under rule 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Buies for Trial Terms. However, he indicated that he would consent to consolidation when Action No. 1 obtains a rule 9 preference. Accordingly, this motion is denied as premature.

Submit order.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Patricia A. Sipos, Respondent. Kidspeace National Centers of New York, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 913]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 2001, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant, a Child Care Counselor II at a residential facility for troubled children, was fired for making a false statement on her job application. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that, in the absence of evidence that claimant was aware that her injury to her left knee would have an adverse impact upon her ability to perform her job-*748related duties, her failure to provide this information at her prehiring medical evaluation did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct.

Whether a claimant is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of the Labor Law is a factual issue for resolution by the Board, and its decision will not be disturbed so long as it is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, *Matter of Santa [Eastman Kodak Co.*—Sweeney], 236 AD2d 776). Here, the employer’s human resources manager testified that to her knowledge, claimant was not given a copy of her job description, which contained a specific weight-lifting requirement, prior to being hired. In her testimony, claimant agreed that she had not been shown a job description, nor was it mentioned during the course of her interview that she would be required to lift 50 pounds. We therefore conclude that the Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, despite the fact that the record may contain evidence that could support a contrary conclusion.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 17 filed 09/07/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### COUDRAY et al. v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.

No. 16022.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 10, 1935.

Charles J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Eugene J. McGivney and Solomon S. Goldman, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

LECHE, Judge.

From a judgment dismissing their suit, plaintiffs have appealed. The suit was for the purpose of claiming the proceeds under a certain policy of life insurance issued by the defendant company. The policy is dated May 2,1898, and insures the life of Solomon Parker in the sum of $160, and plaintiffs, as sisters of the insurer, claim the proceeds thereof. It appears that the premiums were regularly paid until some time in the month of May, 1919, by plaintiffs’ mother, and from that date paid by one of plaintiffs until March 6, 1933. After this date several weeks elapsed, and one of petitioners paid an agent of the company the sum of $1 to revive said policy. Subsequently the insured died, and defendant company refused payment under the following provision of the policy contract:

> “If, after the payment of the weekly premium hereon for five or more years, this Policy shall become void by reason of default in the payment of premiums, the company agrees to issue a non-participating Paid-up Policy for an amount computed according to the first table below, the said Paid-up Policy to be continued in force for the Full Expectation of Life of the Insured, at the date of issue of the Paid-up Policy, according to the second table below, provided that this Policy shall be legally surrendered to the Company and application for said Paid-up Policy made in writing on the blank obtainable from the Company for that purpose within eight weeks after said default.”

The precise question was presented to this court in the case of Clark v. Life Ins. Co. of Va., 160 So. 461, and for the reasons set forth in our opinion in that case, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10006 Conference Calendar

__________________ RICHARD ENGLISH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ROBERTSON MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ROBERTSON UNIT, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CV-177

- - - - - - - - - - (March 23, 1995) Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard English, a Texas state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Robertson Medical Department, Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, denied him reasonable medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it lacks an arguable basis in law orNo. 95-10006 -2-

fact. Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). If it appears that "insufficient factual allegations might be remedied by more specific pleading," this court considers whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without affording any effort to amend. Id. "To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of medical treatment, a [convicted] prisoner must allege deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs." Woodall v. Foti , 648 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981) (citing Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 296-97 (1991). Deliberate indifference is equivalent to subjective recklessness in the criminal law. It is more than negligence but less than intent to harm. Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1978-79 (1994). The prison official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health. Id. at 1979. An inmate's disagreement with his medical treatment does not establish a constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). English's allegations do not suggest that he had a serious medical need. To the extent that English's allegations amount to claims of delay in receiving medical treatment, delay that results in substantial harm is evidence of deliberate indifference. Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.No. 95-10006 -3-
1993). As English did not allege that his condition worsened during the delay, an Eighth Amendment claim on this point is not stated. Id. at 195.
AFFIRMED.