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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT

The United States of America, by and through UnitedStates Attorney John F. Walsh

and Assistant United States Attorneys Linda Kaufman and Martha Paluch, respectfully

moves to restrict Document, any order revealing the contents of that document, and the

brief filed in support of this motion, for the reasons stated in the brief filed in support of this

motion. The United States requests a “Level 3" Restriction which would make the

document, any order revealing the contents of that document and the brief filed in support

of this motion, “Viewable by Filer & Court” only. 

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of July, 2013.

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

By: s/ Linda Kaufman 

Linda Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney’s Office

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100 / Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Linda.Kaufman@usdoj.gov

1

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 307 filed 07/09/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 3
By: s/ Martha A. Paluch 

 Martha A. Paluch, Assistant United States Attorney

1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0100 / Facsimile: (303) 454-0404

E-mail: Martha.Paluch@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Government

2

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 307 filed 07/09/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 9th day of July, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO RESTRICT DOCUMENT with the Clerk of the Court using

the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail

addresses:

Martin Adam Stuart

E-mail: martinstuartlaw@solucian.com

William Lewis Taylor

E-mail: wltaylorpc@gmail.com

Darlene Ann Bagley

E-mail: bagley@ridleylaw.com

Paula M. Ray

E-mail: paulamray@earthlnk.net

 By: s/ Solange Reigel 

SOLANGE REIGEL

Legal Assistant

United States Attorney's Office

1225 - 17th Street, Suite 700

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 454-0244

Fax: (303) 454-0402

E-mail: Solange.Reigel@usdoj.gov

3

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 307 filed 07/09/13 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Odell OWENS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-21349.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Counsel appointed to represent Danny Odell Owens has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Owens has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Benjamin and

DLC Services Corporation,

Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 08-cv-422-SM

Riley, More & More, LLC,

176 Webster Street, LLC,

New England All Star Consulting,

LLC, Mile High Real Estate, LLC,

Vatche Manoukian and Linda Haytayan.

Defendants 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41.1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

June 30 , 2010 ________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Jay Joseph Friedrich, Esq.

Jeffrey A. Zall, Esq.

Christopher J. Pyles, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00422-SM Document 148 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 1
#### SPEARS v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION.*

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit

June 14, 1935.

For former opinion, see 161 So. 351.

M. R. Stewart, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

*

 Writ of error refused by Supreme Court July 1, 1935.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the petition of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation for rehearing is refused.

In regards to the petition of the plaintiff, June B. Spears, for rehearing, our attention is called to the fact that our opinion fixes his compensation at 65 per cent, of a daily wage of $3, for a period of 150 weeks, when his petition alleges and the answer of the defendant, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, admits that his wages were 80 cents per hour, or $6.40 per day, or $32 per week.

The statement in our opinion that plaintiff’s daily wage was $3 is due to mistake and inadvertence on our part in the preparation and writing of our decree. It was our purpose and intention to state his compensation as alleged in the petition and admitted in the answer, and to fix his compensation under our decree at $20 per week for a period of 150 weeks.

We think we have the right to correct our oversight and mistake in the preparation of our decree in acting on plaintiff’s petition for rehearing without granting same. Our original decree herein is therefore corrected and amended so as to conform to our intention as hereinabove expressed, and to that end, plaintiff, June B. Spears’, compensation is now fixed at 65 per cent, of his daily wage of $6.40 per day, or $32 per week, but as the amount stated would exceed $20 per week, the maximum amount allowed by the law, the amount is reduced to $20 per week, for a period of 150 weeks, to be paid weekly, commencing August 13,1934, subject to a credit for one week paid; each weekly amount is to bear 5 per cent, per annum interest from the time it was due, as herein stated, until paid. There is further judgment in favor of the plaintiff, June B. Spears, and against the defendant, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, for $17 on account of medical expenses incurred by him.

Defendant-appellee to pay the costs in both courts.

As thus amended and corrected, the judgment heretofore rendered is now made final, and the application of the plaintiff, June B. Spears, for rehearing is refused.
215 La. 776

#### PLAUCHE et al. v. ALBERT.

No. 39024.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 31, 1949.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1949.

George S. Womack, Kemble K. Kennedy, Durrett & Hardin, Baton Rouge, for defendant and appellant.

De Blieux & Hinton, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs and appellees.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant, the owner of a lot of ground located in North Goodwood, a subdivision located in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, has appealed from a judgment enjoining him from using a' building located thereon for any other purpose than a single family dwelling or a garage located not nearer than seventy-five feet from Donmoor Avenue as provided in the building restrictions of the subdivision.

On examination of the record, we find no affirmative showing to vest this Court with jurisdiction. There is no affirmative, allegation or proof that the amount in controversy or the right in contest exceeds the value of $2000.00, exclu-: sive of interest. Under the plain provisions of the Constitution, the amount in dispute must exceed $2000.00, exclusive' of interest, to vest this Court with jurisdiction. Article 7, Paragraph 10 of the Constitution of 1921. The amount in dispute as used in the Constitution includes within ■its meaning the value of the thing in contest, where a thing, instead of an amount, is in dispute. Baker v. Duson, 192 La. 391, 188 So. 40. We cannot entertain the appeal even though no - motion to dismiss has been made for the reason of our lack of jurisdiction. Nelson v. Continental Asphalt & Petroleum Co., 157 La. 491, 102 So. 583.

Under the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, we are authorized to transfer the appeal to the proper court rather than dismiss it.

For the reasons assigned, this case is ordered transferred to the Court of Appeal *678for the First Circuit, provided the appellants file the record in that court within thirty days from the date that this decree becomes final; otherwise, the appeal shall be dismissed. The appellants to pay the cost of the appeal to this Court and all other costs aré to await the final disposition of the cause.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no part.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NINA Y. WANG

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Date: August 20, 2015

Courtroom Deputy: Brandy Simmons FTR: NYW COURTROOM C-204

Parties Attorney(s)

KATHERYN KIPLING, Bradley Aaron Levin

Kerri J. Atencio

Stephen W. Wahlberg

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Franklin D. Patterson

Defendant.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 10:03 a.m.

Appearance of counsel.

Discussion and argument held on Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Remand [146] filed May 20, 2015. 

ORDERED: Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Remand [146] is 

SUBMITTED and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.

Discussion held on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [149] filed May 22, 2015. 

ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [149] is SUBMITTED and TAKEN 

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 163 Filed 08/20/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [150] was previously TAKEN UNDER 

ADVISEMENT on July 10, 2015. 

Written Opinion to issue on all three Motions. 

Court in Recess: 10:56 a.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 00:53

* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Stevens-Koenig Reporting at (303) 988-8470.

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 163 Filed 08/20/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
212 La. 884

#### STATE v. DE LA MONICA.

No. 38620.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1948.

Robert S. Link, Jr. and Alex W. Swords, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., and M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herve Racivitch, Dist. Atty., and Girard J. Fernandez, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

FOURNET, Justice.

A. G. Rickerfor, surety on the appearance bond of Sylvester de la Monica, prosecutes this appeal from a judgment forfeiting the bond because of de la Monica’s failure to appear on the date set for his trial, it being Rickerfor’s contention that the judgment is illegal because the state failed to prove his signature on the bond.

There was no special denial of his signature by the appellant. Its genuineness was not, therefore, at issue. The bond is in the record and it appears on its face to have been signed and acknowledged under oath by the appellant in the presence of Julian M. Hogan, Chief Deputy Criminal Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans. As such it became an official act, the authenticity of which is presumed, and it makes full proof of itself. State v. Lewis, 7 La.Ann. 540. It is not necessary, therefore, that the signatures thereto be proved. State v. Gossin, 13 La. 96; State v. Boisseau, 1 Rob. 388; 1 Marr’s Criminal Jurisprudence 433, Section 290. Compare with Hughes v. Harrison, 8 Mart. (N.S.) 297; Miller v. Cohea, 1 La. 486; Hyde v. Brown, 5 La. 33; and Union Nat. Bank v. Succession of Lee, 33 La.Ann. 301.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek Josey, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 309]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 1, 2004 *(People v Josey,*5 AD3d 398 [2004]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 6, 2001.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         369,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,536,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (99,009)
<INVENTORY>                                    219,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,244,818
<PP&E>                                      12,971,120
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,810,136)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,935,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,986,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           26,745
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,427,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,935,891
<SALES>                                     53,730,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,730,805
<CGS>                                       49,163,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,163,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,957,149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             804,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                837,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,791
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            835,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   835,294
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000717238
<NAME> MACNEAL SCHWENDLER CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          24,645
<SECURITIES>                                     1,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,056
<PP&E>                                          33,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,858
<BONDS>                                         56,574
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,250
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,937)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,786
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,081
<CGS>                                           20,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (157)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   382
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,386
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,711
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,711
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
1

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

paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing 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-02329-REB-CBS

SAMPSON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Nebraska corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALITY ELECTRIC, INC., a Colorado corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [#10]1

 filed

November 11, 2011. I deny the motion without prejudice.

On September 13, 2011, the defendant, Quality Electric, Inc., was served with a

copy of the summons and complaint. Defendant failed to answer or otherwise respond

to the complaint within the time permitted by law, and, thus, has admitted the factual

allegations of the complaint other than those relating to damages. See FED. R. CIV. P.

8(d); see also Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Huddleston, 94 F.3d 1413, 1415

(10th Cir. 1996). Entry of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) was made by the

clerk of the court on October 19, 2011, [#7]. 

Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment against defendant. However, its motion

Case 1:11-cv-02329-REB-CBS Document 11 Filed 01/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

 Plaintiff is advised further that, if it is entitled to costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), such costs

are recoverable only in the time and manner prescribed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

2

fails to apprise the court about how the facts set forth in the complaint, and now

admitted by defendant’s failure to answer or otherwise appear in this action, prove up

any of its three common law claims for relief. I decline plaintiff’s implicit invitation to

divine the legal basis for a judgment in its favor. Thus, the motion must be denied

without prejudice.2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

[#10] filed November 11, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated January 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02329-REB-CBS Document 11 Filed 01/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 02-cr-00518-LTB-01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TRACY DEAN NUNEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Upon report of the probation officer that the defendant has requested foreign

travel and he remains in compliance with the conditions of supervised release, it is 

ORDERED that the defendant, Tracy Dean Nunez, be allowed to travel to

Toluca, Mexico, from April 10, 2015, to April 25, 2015. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of February, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

United States District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00518-LTB Document 46 Filed 02/13/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02286-REB-CBS

CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER, LTD., LLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAROLD B. KRAFT, d/b/a EXOTIC MOTORS,

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

VAL SIMONE,

ERIC TUERS,

RANDOLPH G. CURRIER, and

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Bank of Choice,

Third-Party Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS ERIC TUERS AND

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR BANK OF

CHOICE, ONLY

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice of

Third-Party Defendants Eric Tuers and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as

Receiver For Bank of Choice [#62]1

 filed April 23, 2012. After reviewing the stipulation

and the file, I conclude that the stipulation should be approved and that the claims of

third-party plaintiff Garold B. Kraft against third-party defendants Eric Tuers and Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Bank of Choice, should be dismissed

1 “[#62]” 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.

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 63 Filed 04/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice of Third-Party Defendants

Eric Tuers and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver For Bank of

Choice [#62] filed April 23, 2012, is APPROVED;

2. That the claims of third-party plaintiff Garold B. Kraft against third-party

defendants Eric Tuers and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for

Bank of Choice, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each of the affected parties to

pay its own attorney fees and costs; and

3. That third-party defendants Eric Tuers and Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, as Receiver for Bank of Choice, are DROPPED as named parties to this

action, and the case caption is amended accordingly.

Dated April 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

2

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 63 Filed 04/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01959-MSK-MEH

KELLY NUANES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01959-MSK-MEH Document 6 Filed 08/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Henry Frank LETTS et al. v. KRAUSE & MANAGAN, Inc., et al.

No. 2816.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 28, 1946.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Letts v. Krause & Managan, Inc., and Shell Oil Company, Inc., v. Same defendants, 26 So.2d 838, it is ordered that the judgment in favor of Henry Frank Letts be and the same is hereby reduced from the sum of $1,466.56 to the sum of $766.20, and as thus amended affirmed. It is further ordered that the judgment in favor of Grace Louise Cox Letts be and the same is hereby reduced from the sum of $60 to $45, and as thus amended, affirmed, the plaintiffs-appel-lees to pay the costs of this appeal and all others to be paid by defendants.