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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02107-PAB-KLM

JANE DOE # 1,

JANE DOE # 2, and

JANE DOE # 3,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVIS JON MASSE and

MATT SCHMIDT,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Status Report [Docket No. 86] filed

by plaintiffs Jane Does #1-3 and defendants Travis Jon Masse and Matt Schmidt. 

Plaintiffs filed this case on August 11, 2011. In their amended complaint,

plaintiffs brought seven claims for relief against nine defendants. See Docket No. 41. 

On September 25, 2012, the Court dismissed seven defendants from the case as well

as five of plaintiffs’ claims for relief. Docket No. 58 at 24. After the Court’s September

25, 2012 order, plaintiffs’ only remaining claims were those against defendants Matt

Schmidt and Travis Jon Masse for violations of the Colorado Child Protection Act of

1987, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-301 et seq., and plaintiffs’ claim against defendant Travis

Jon Masse for violations of plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due

Process rights. 
2

On October 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) [Docket No. 62] requesting that the Court certify the

September 25, 2012 order as final. In addition, plaintiffs requested that the Court stay

the litigation pending their anticipated appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Docket No. 62 at 3. 

On November 16, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment and

administratively closed the case pending the resolution of plaintiffs’ appeal. Docket No.

76 at 5. On August, 1, 2013, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the September 25, 2012 order. 

Docket No. 85. 

In the status report, the parties state that defendant Travis Jon Masse is

currently appealing his related state court criminal conviction and request that the Court

stay the case until the resolution of Mr. Masse’s appeal. Docket No. 86 at 2. 

The Court finds that there is good cause to continue the administrative closure of

this case. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that this case shall remain administratively closed pursuant to

D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. Either party may seek to reopen this matter for good cause,

including final resolution of Mr. Masse’s criminal appeal.

DATED August 28, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge
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 FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending January 18, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodADYEN N.V.                                                                                                              FBSEAAdyen, N.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, to establish a branch in San Francisco, California, pursuant to Section 7(d) of the International Banking Act.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge 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 GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN PARTIES AND CLAIMS

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Certain

Parties and Claims (Motion) (#111) filed February 7, 2013. Having reviewed the Motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and all claims which were asserted or

Case 1:11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS Document 115 Filed 02/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
could have been asserted by Plaintiffs Amber Decker, Julie Decker Karen Dietrich, Michael

Dietrich, and Dorothy Mason 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, and Kelli Jo Rusher, in her official

capacity as Mayor of the Town of Ordway, Colorado, and Dawn Scheck are dismissed with

prejudice. Each party shall pay its own costs and attorney fees as to the claims that

have been dismissed, except as otherwise specifically agreed to by the Parties.

DATED this 8th day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS Document 115 Filed 02/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Tina Verro, Respondent, *v.*Josephine Cale et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 1, 1956.

*939
      *David W. Wach*for appellants.

*Joseph F. Clements*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

It must be held on this record that landlord railed to sustain the burden of proof to warrant an eviction on the grounds of malicious damage, refusal to grant access for necessary repairs, or nuisance interfering with the safety and comfort of landlord and other tenants in the use of housing accommodations. The charges as to false complaints of forgery relate to the agent personally and may not serve as an independent ground of eviction, although admissible on the question of tenants’ intent. Such evidence, as well as that dealing with a similar forgery complaint concerning tenants ’ alleged filing of a wholly unwarranted application, for a rent decrease, was neither clear nor complete. Assuming that these charges are connected with the issue of nuisance in the use of housing accommodation, which is the basic ground for which an eviction is permissible, it would be necessary to produce the original evidence supporting them and not rely upon the testimony of interested persons. The final order in landlord’s favor is not justified on the basis of the evidence presented by her on this trial. There may be substance to her complaints, but the proof given fell short of the requirements reasonably imposed to protect tenants during this emergency period. This determination is not to be construed as a vindication of tenants’ position but simply as holding that the proof elicited was insufficient.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed in favor of tenants, with costs.

Eder, Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2 AWARENESS LETTER August 31, 2004 Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp.
2727 Diehl Road
Naperville, Illinois 60563 We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary for the
three-month and six-month periods ended July 31, 2004 and August 2, 2003, as
indicated in our report dated August 31, 2004; because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-92248, 333-98549,
and 333-108222 on Form S-8. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. /s/   Deloitte & Touche LLPChicago, Illinois
EXHIBIT
  21


A.G.
  EDWARDS, INC.

REGISTRANTS
  SUBSIDIARIES

The
  following listing includes the registrants directly-owned subsidiaries
  and indirectly-owned subsidiaries (certain subsidiaries that are not significant
  are omitted from the listing), all of which are included in the consolidated
  financial statements:

|Name
      of Company                      |  | State
      ofIncorporation/Organization |  | Subsidiary
      of            
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|                                           |  |                                          |  |                                
|A.G.
      Edwards & Sons, Inc.            |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     
|A.G.
      Edwards Technology Group, Inc.  |  | Missouri                                 |  | A.G. Edwards
      & Sons, Inc.
|AGE
      Commodity Clearing Corp.         |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     
|Edwards
      Development Corporation      |  | Missouri                                 |  | Registrant                     
|A.G.
      Edwards Trust Company FSB       |  | Federal Charter                          |  | Registrant                     
|A.G.E.
      Properties, Inc.              |  | Missouri                                 |  | Registrant                     
|AGE
      Investments, Inc.                |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     
|Beaumont
      Insurance Company           |  | Vermont                                  |  | AGE Investments,
      Inc.    
|A.G.
      Edwards Capital, Inc.           |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     
|AGE
      Capital Holding, Inc.            |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     
|AGE
      International, Inc.              |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     
|A.G.
      Edwards & Sons (UK) Limited     |  | United Kingdom                           |  | AGE International,
      Inc.  
|CPI
      Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc. |  | Delaware                                 |  | Registrant                     

50

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Debra Franchi

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00395-JL

New Hampton School

 PROCEDURAL ORDER

As discussed in yesterday’s telephone conference with

counsel, plaintiff shall submit a memorandum on or before August

23, 2009, explaining, with reference to this court's decision in

Brodeur v. Claremont School District, 2009 DNH 082, and any other

relevant authority, how her first amended complaint states a

claim for (a) breach of fiduciary duty, see id. 53 at n. 24, 

(b) breach of contract, (c) negligent infliction of emotional

distress by Deborah Franchi in her individual capacity, and (d)

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff shall

also explain how her negligence claims (counts 9 and 10) are not

simply duplicative of, respectively, her breach of contract claim

(count 7) and her federal statutory claims (counts 1, 2, and 4). 

Defendant shall file a response, if any, on or before August 28,

2009. The clerk shall schedule oral argument for the week of

August 31, 2009.

Case 1:08-cv-00395-JL Document 17 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 4, 2009

cc: Donna-Marie Cote, Esq.

Peter E. Hutchins, Esq.

Andrew W. Serell, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00395-JL Document 17 Filed 08/04/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Quarterly Report of iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Sunil Wadhwani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2006                                                                    
|                                                                                          
|/S/    SUNIL
WADHWANI                                                                     
|Sunil Wadhwani Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
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, 

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 DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the filing of the Stipulation for Dismissal of the

Board of Education of the Crowley County School District With Prejudice (Stipulation) (#92)

filed November 29, 2012, and the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Defendants The Board of

Directors of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District; Peter Moore, in his

Official Capacity; and Jay Winner, in his Official Capacity, With Prejudice (Motion) (#98) filed

December 17, 2012. Having reviewed the filings and docket, the Court

Case 1:11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS Document 99 Filed 12/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
FINDS that on March 13, 2012, this matter was administratively closed and a Special

Master was appointed. No motion pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 has been filed; however,

the Court sua sponte reopens this matter for the limited purpose of dismissing claims against

certain defendants pursuant to the filings at #92 and #98. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the following Defendants

are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, each party to bear his, her or its own costs and attorney

fees:

1. The Board of Education of the Crowley County School District, a body corporate

and politic;

2. The Board of Directors of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy

District, a quasi-municipal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado;

3. Peter Moore, in his official capacity as President of the Board of Directors of the

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District; and

4. Ralph “Jay” Winner, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Lower

Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all future captions shall omit reference to these Defendants.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01942-MSK-CBS Document 99 Filed 12/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

                                 LEASE AGREEMENT

                                                               LEASE NUMBER  103

                                                         DATE OF LEASE  09-01-97

LESSOR:     LESLIE RUDD INVESTMENT COMPANY
            314 South Galena Street
            Aspen, Colorado  81611
            303-925-5866

LESSEE:     Dean & Deluca Brands, Inc.          LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT
            560 Broadway                        2526 E. 36th St.
            New York, NY  10012                 North Circle
            212-226-6800                        Wichita, KS  67219

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


TERM: 36 Months                       COMMENCEMENT DATE: 09-01-97


                             RENTAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE

$192.84 per month including sales and use tax for the first 36 months followed
by $61.26 per month including sales and use tax until the Lease Agreement is
terminated.


                                SECURITY DEPOSIT

$0 payable at time of signing of the Lease to be applied, if not used, to the
last 0 rental payments, plus sales and use tax, in the inverse order of their
respective maturities.


                              EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION
                    (Model #, Serial #, or Other Description)
                        AAA Restaurant Supply - Equipment
           Four (4) EA 24x52 Nexel Shelving Sets & Four (4) 74" Posts

<PAGE>



                                LEASE NUMBER 103


                                 LEASE AGREEMENT

This Lease shall constitute an agreement of lease and nothing herein shall be
construed as conveying to Lessee any right, title, or interest in any of the
Equipment. The undersigned agree to all terms and conditions set forth above and
in witness thereof hereby execute this Lease.


                                 NAME OF LESSEE:
                           Dean & Deluca Brands, Inc.


SIGNED BY:  /s/ DANE J. NELLER
            ------------------------------------------------
            Dane J. Neller
            Chief Executive Officer                                     Seal

This Lease shall not become effective until accepted by Lessor.


                                 NAME OF LESSOR:
                         LESLIE RUDD INVESTMENT COMPANY

ACCEPTED DATE:  09-01-97

SIGNED BY:  /s/ JON BOWMAN
            ------------------------------------------------
            Jon Bowman
            Secretary

LESSEE'S SIGNATURE IN INK REQUIRED ON ORIGINAL LEASE AND LESSEE'S COPY.




                                       2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3965

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Adrian Carillo-Guzman, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Wesley Unknown, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2000

Filed: December 20, 2000

___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Adrian Carillo-Guzman seeks to withdraw his

guilty plea to a drug conspiracy charge, arguing the district court did not inquire

expressly whether he understood the Spanish translation of his change-of-plea

proceeding. Given Carillo-Guzman's answers to the questions contained in his petition

to plead guilty and posed at the change-of-plea hearing, as well as the availability of

a Spanish interpreter before the hearing and the presence of two interpreters at the
-2-

hearing, we are confidant Carillo-Guzman understood the proceeding. See United

States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1104-05 (8th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11473 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CURTIS LEE CHILDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-015-1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender, appointed counsel for Curtis Lee Childers, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Childers has filed a response to the motion. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Childers’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.