alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02315-RPM

 

MICHAEL VAN DE WEGHE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL CHAMBERS, District Attorney, 18th Judicial District, in her official capacity;

JAY WILLIFORD, Deputy District Attorney, 18th Judicial District, in his personal capacity;

DETECTIVE GREGORY HOWDEN, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, in his personal

capacity; and

DEPUTY JASON WALTER, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, in his personal capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER FOR FILING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND APPLICABILITY OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

The plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 2, 2011, alleges one claim for relief styled as a

claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution in violation of the

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants

Howden and Walter moved for dismissal on January 30, 2012 [4]. Defendant Chambers moved

for dismissal on March 19, 2012 [14], and defendant Williford moved for dismissal on May 1,

2012 [19]. 

The plaintiff’s response briefs [15, 22, 31] included an alternative motion for leave to

amend the complaint. On June 12, 2012, the plaintiff moved to amend [32] and tendered an

amended complaint, again alleging one claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 for false arrest and

malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 37 Filed 02/14/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

United States Constitution. Defendants Chambers and Williford opposed the motion on the

ground that the new allegations in the amended complaint are speculative, conclusory, and do

not add any factual specificity to the initial complaint. It is now

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaint [32] is granted

and the amended complaint is filed and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss are deemed to be

addressed to the first amended complaint.

Dated: February 14, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

 

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02315-RPM Document 37 Filed 02/14/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,440
<SECURITIES>                                    23,038
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      2,059
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,470
<PP&E>                                           3,785
<DEPRECIATION>                                     746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,297
<SALES>                                          4,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,587
<CGS>                                            1,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                       850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        


</TABLE>
IV 

House Calendar No. 169 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 862 

[Report No. 110–490] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4299) to extend the Terrorism 

Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other 

purposes 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2007 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4299) to extend 

the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department 

of the Treasury, and for other purposes 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 4299) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the 

4 Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes. All 

5 points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

6 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

7 The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 862 RH 

1 against provisions of the bill are waived. The previous 

2 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 

3 passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

4 of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

5 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Finan6 cial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

7 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4299 pursuant 

8 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

9 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid10 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

11 the Speaker. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 169 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 862 

[Report No. 110

–490] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4299) 

purposes the Department of the Treasury, and for other to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of 

DECEMBER 11, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                            [BRIGHTWARE LETTERHEAD]



                                                                 EXHIBIT - 10.17



                   SECOND AMENDMENT TO OEM/RESELLER AGREEMENT


This second amendment ("Second Amendment") serves to amend that certain
OEM/Reseller Agreement dated December 22, 1998 (the "Agreement") by and
between Brightware, Inc., ("Brightware") having a place of business at 350
Ignacio Blvd., Novato, CA 94949 and Quintus Corporation ("Company") having a
place of business at 47212 Mission Falls Court, Fremont, CA 94539. This Second
Amendment is effective as of the Second Amendment Effective Date.

The parties agree as follows:

Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this First Amendment
shall have the same meaning as those used in the Agreement.

"Second Amendment Effective Date" means December 23, 1999.


SECTION 9 - TERM AND TERMINATION

Per Section 9.1 of the Agreement, both parties agree to extend the terms of
this Agreement for a period of ninety (90) days, commencing with the Second
Amendment Effective Date. Upon such termination, both parties shall negotiate
in good faith a new OEM agreement or a continuing extension of the terms of
this Agreement.


PRECEDENCE

In the event of conflict between this Second Amendment and the Agreement, this
Second Amendment shall take precedence over the Agreement. This Second
Amendment, the First Amendment and the Agreement are the entire agreement
between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and may only be
modified by an amendment executed by the parties authorized representatives.

This Second Amendment is made as of the Second Amendment Effective Date.



LICENSEE                              BRIGHTWARE, INC.

/s/ MICHELLE E. FIELDS                /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]
-----------------------               --------------------------
Authorized Signature                  Authorized Signature


Michelle E. Fields,
Business Admin Manager                CFO
-----------------------               --------------------------
Printed Name, Title                   Printed Name, Title



                                       1
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-67

Lower Tribunal No. 2016-CF-000508-XX

_____________________________

GEORGE BEATO,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Jalal A. Harb, Judge.

May 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Steven G. Mason, Special

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan S. Tannen, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.625 (4 5/8) percent for the October—December quarter of FY 2009. 

Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State. 

Grady B. Hedgespeth, 

Director, Office of Financial Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-23110 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,617
<SECURITIES>                                   166,106
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                       294
<INVENTORY>                                      4,028
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,582
<PP&E>                                         230,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 418,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,889
<BONDS>                                        239,611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           790
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   418,367
<SALES>                                         45,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,868
<CGS>                                           28,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   362
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (15,835)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,322)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,555)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   6,483
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (238)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,310)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)


</TABLE>
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19
Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 89 Filed 08/12/05 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19
**BOVIE
        MEDICAL CORPORATION**
 
 
 EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 Certification
        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Bovie Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Andrew Makrides, President,
        Chief
        Executive Officer,  Chairman of the Board and Director of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 USC §1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in
        all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 
 
 Date:
        March 28, 2006
 
 
 
 /s/
                  Andrew MakridesPresident,
                  ChiefExecutive
                  Officer, Chairmanof
                  the Board and Director
 
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
        and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 7 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY THOMSON and

NATHALIE THOMSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

SCHLUMBERGER WELL

SERVICES, a division of

Schlumberger Technology

Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-6406

(D.C. No. CIV-96-1409-T)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , McKAY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
1 Appellee’s motion to strike appellants’ reply brief is granted to the extent

that appellants have attached to that brief evidence that was not before the district

court. See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman , 27 F.3d 500, 506

(10th Cir. 1994).

-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s orders granting defendant summary

judgment on their claims stemming from the termination of plaintiffs’

employment. Plaintiff Nathalie Thomson asserted a claim for sex discrimination

under Title VII, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and Oklahoma state law

claims for breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional

distress. Plaintiff Jeffrey Thomson asserted an Oklahoma state law claim

for fraud.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This court reviews the district court’s summary

judgment determination de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party. See Byers v. City of Albuquerque , 150 F.3d 1271, 1274

(10th Cir. 1998). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, 1 we affirm
2 Appellants have notified this court that they have filed for Chapter 7

bankruptcy relief. Those proceedings, however, do not preclude our resolution of

this appeal. See Mason v. Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. , 115 F.3d 1442, 1449-50

(10th Cir. 1997). 

-3-

the district court’s decisions for substantially the reasons stated in that court’s

orders dated October 22, 1997. 2

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District

of Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

                                 April 30, 1999


G.M. O'Connell
Chief Executive Officer
Modem Media . Poppe Tyson, Inc.
230 East Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06855

Dear G.M.:

This letter serves to advise you that effective May 1, 1999, I resign from
my position as Executive Vice President of Modem Media. Poppe Tyson, Inc.
I agree to remain with the company as a regular employee (not an officer
or executive) with an annual salary of $25,000.00.

                                        Sincerely,


                                        /s/ Douglas C. Ahlers
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23406]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / 
Notices

[[Page 58110]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee and the 
Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Eastern Washington Cascades Provincial Advisory Committee 
and the Yakima Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, 
October 23, 2008 at the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters 
office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA. This meeting will begin at 9 
a.m. and continue until 3 p.m. During this meeting Provincial Advisory 
Committee members will share information on new developments relating 
to the Northwest Forest Plan, receive an update on the Access Travel 
Management Plan and the Recreation Facilities Analysis Master Plan, and 
offer input on the future role of the Provincial Advisory Committee. 
All Eastern Washington Cascades and Yakima Province Advisory Committee 
meetings are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Becki Heath, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Okanogan-
Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 
98801, 509-664-9200.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
Rebecca Lockett Heath,
Designated Federal Official, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
[FR Doc. E8-23406 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
1

“[#26]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02265-REB-KLM

VICTORIA CARBAJAL,

HEBER MARTIN CARBAJAL, and

DEAN CARBAJAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO, a corporation,

MELVA JACKSON, manager for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity,

CARROL DWYER, supervisor for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity,

IRMA LORENA HOLGUIN, lead teller for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity, and

UNKNOWN EMPLOYEE, teller or banker for Wells Fargo, in her individual capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on plaintiffs’ Voluntary Motion To Dismiss Without

Prejudice [#26]1

 filed October 28, 2011. On October 31, 2011, the Defendants’

Response To Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice [#28] was

filed. Defendants do not object to the dismissal of this case without prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That plaintiffs’ Voluntary Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice [#26] filed

October 28, 2011, is GRANTED; and

Case 1:11-cv-02265-REB-KLM Document 29 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated November 1, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02265-REB-KLM Document 29 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2