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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A DEPOSITION UNDER C.R.C.P. 69(i)

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff Sampson Construction Co. Inc.’s Motion for an

Order Granting a Deposition Under C.R.C.P. 69(i) and being otherwise fully informed, finds that

the motion has merit and should be granted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Plaintiff Sampson Construction Co. Inc.’s Motion for an Order Granting a

Deposition Under C.R.C.P. 69(i) is GRANTED;

2. That Plaintiff Sampson Construction Co. Inc.’s request to subpoena the deposition

testimony of Rex Weiderspahn in his personal capacity and his capacity as former president of

Quality Electric, Inc is GRANTED.

3. That Plaintiff Sampson Construction Co. Inc.’s to subpoena the production of

documents by Rex Weiderspahn for his deposition is GRANTED.

Dated: January ___, 2013 at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02329-REB-CBS Document 17 Filed 02/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                       333
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,676
<PP&E>                                           2,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                     593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,347
<SALES>                                         28,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,595
<CGS>                                           20,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (24)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Charles S. PENNICA, Appellant, v. Ann PENNICA, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 5, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending May 14, 2022

----

Bank Holding Companies            Texas State Bankshares, Inc., and Texas Regional Bank (TRB), both of Harlingen, Texas -- (1) Texas State Bankshares, Inc. to merge with Access Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire AccessBank Texas, both of Denton, Texas; (2) TRB to merge with AccessBank Texas; and (3) TRB to establish branches at the locations of AccessBank's current branches.            -Approved, May 13, 2022            Change in Bank Control            Peoples Financial Corporation, Biloxi, Mississippi -- Stilwell Activist Investments, L.P, Stilwell Activist Fund, L.P., and Stilwell Value Partners VII, L.P., collectively "The Stilwell Group," with Stilwell Value LLC, the general partner of each of the limited partnerships, all of New York, New York; and Joseph D. Stilwell, San Juan, Puerto Rico, each individually and as a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Peoples Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Peoples Bank, Biloxi, Mississippi.            -Permitted, April 28, 2022            (A/C)          Forms            Forms -- final Board review to extend without revision the Notice Claiming Status as an Exempt Transfer Agent (FR 4013).            -Approved, May 13, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend without revision the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation II (FR II).            -Approved, May 13, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend without revision the Recordkeeping Provisions Associated with the Interagency Statement on Complex Structured Finance Activities (FR 4022).            -Approved, May 13, 2022                        Forms -- initial Board review to extend without revision the Disclosure and Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Regulation CC (FR CC).            -Approved, May 13, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend with revision the Application to Become a Savings and Loan Holding Company or to Acquire a Savings Association or Savings and Loan Holding Company (FR LL-10(e)).            -Approved, May 13, 2022                        Forms -- final Board review to extend without revision the Notice of Proposed Declaration of Dividend (FR 1583).            -Approved, May 13, 2022            Enforcement            Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch, New York, New York -- consent cease-and-desist order against Orlando Romero, a former institution-affiliated party.            -Announced, May 12, 2022            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01934-DME-BNB

JEFFERY A. BOARDMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DYLAN HAUCK, and

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Submit

Amended Witness List [docket no. 45, filed June 6, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and the attached Exhibit A, Amended

Witness List, is accepted for filing.

DATED: June 7, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01934-DME-BNB Document 47 Filed 06/07/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Ashley A., a Person Alleged to be in Need of Supervision, Appellant. Amy Wayman, as Probation Officer for the Schoharie County Probation Department, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 121]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Bartlett III, J.), entered June 7, 2001, which granted petitioner’s application, *628in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to revoke respondent’s probation.

Respondent was placed on probation after having been adjudicated a person in need of supervision. Thereafter, petitioner charged her with several violations of the terms and conditions of probation. Family Court accepted admissions from respondent that she had, in fact, violated several of the terms of probation. Family Court, however, did not advise petitioner, as required by Family Court Act § 741 (a), that she had the right to remain silent. Such failure is reversible error and compels us to vacate the order of disposition (see, *Matter of Shaun U.,*288 AD2d 708, 709). As a result, we need not consider the balance of respondent’s arguments.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Schoharie County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            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 National Healthcare Technology,  Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the period from January 27, 2005  (Inception)  through  March
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that to the  best of his
knowledge:

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

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



                                         /s/
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Name:  Linda Contreras
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer/
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                        Dated: May 16, 2007
#### In the Matter of Arthur D. Twyman, an Infant.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

February 26, 1957.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Philip Sokol*of counsel), for Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York.

*Leo J. Ross*for Veterans’ Administration.

*Herbert Shapiro*for general guardian.

Maximilian Moss, S.

The commissioner of welfare of the City of New York seeks reimbursement from the estate of an infant for moneys expended by his department for. the infant’s care and maintenance from October 2, 1950 to November 16, 1955. The material facts are not in dispute.

In *Matter of Beddia*(201 Misc. 486) this court had occasion to pass upon a similar application. In that case the commissioner of welfare sought to be reimbursed for past expenditures made in behalf of the care and maintenance of an infant. The Veterans’ Administration interposed objections to the application upon the ground that section 454a of title 38 of the United States Code and section 667 of the Civil Practice Act exempts funds derived from payment of veteran’s benefits from the *“*claims of creditors.” The application was granted only to the extent of current and future expenditures. The decision of this court in the *Beddia*case made in 1951 will be limited to the facts in that case and will not be deemed controlling.

In *Matter of Simpson*(270 App. Div. 902) the court held that the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene was entitled to recover from the incompetent’s committee for past expenditures out of funds received by the incompetent under World War Veterans’ Act, 1924 (U. S. Code, tit. 38, § 421 *et seq.).*A comparison of section 24 of the Mental Hygiene Law and sections 101 and 104 of the Social Welfare Law reveals that they are similar insofar as a statutory liability is created on the part of a committee or a general guardian to pay the reasonable cost of his ward’s maintenance when it appears that he has funds in his possession with which to make such payment.

*340The money received by the infant’s guardian from the Veterns’ Administration was intended for the care and maintenance of the infant herein. A guardian may be reimbursed out of the infant’s property for reasonable expenditures made for his support and education (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, §§ 40, 194). Such allowances may be made for past, current or future expenditures *(Hyland*v. *Baxter,*98 N. Y. 610; *Beardsley*v. *Hotchkiss,*96 N. Y. 201, 219; *Matter of Lapides,*144 Misc. 19; *Matter of Boulware,*144 Misc. 235). There appears to be no reason why petitioner should not have the same right to reimbursement as is afforded a general guardian.

Under the facts and circumstances herein the sum of $2,300 sought to be recovered by petitioner in reimbursement for moneys expended for the care and maintenance of the infant is fair and reasonable and the proposed compromise is approved. The general guardian is authorized to pay petitioner the said sum out of the infant’s funds. Settle order on notice.
#### Herman Allhusen, Plaintiff, *v.*Caristo Construction Corp., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 26, 1950.

*Max E. Greenburg*for defendant.

*David M. Berenson*for plaintiff.

*750Bernard Botein, J.

In *Sacks*v. *Neptune Meter Co.*(144 Misc. 70), the prevailing opinion of the Appellate Term expressed the view (pp. 71, 77) that had the contract involved in that case provided that the claim for salary earned by the employee was nonassignable or that no rights could be acquired by an assignee, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. Recovery was allowed only because the contract contained merely a personal covenant of the employee not to make an assignment. The Appellate Division affirmed (238 App. Div. 82). The opinion of the court stated that it agreed with the view taken by the majority of the Appellate Term that there was only a personal covenant not to assign, but the court went on to say that in its opinion a contract could be drawn so as to prevent or invalidate an assignment, notwithstanding the provisions of section 41 of the Personal Property Law. In the instant case, the contracts between defendant and the original owner of the claims herein sued upon all provided that an assignment by the original owner of the claims of either the contracts “ or of any money due or to become due ” thereunder without the written consent of the defendant “ shall be void.” On the authority of *Sacks*v. *Neptune Meter Co. (supra)*this court is constrained to hold that contractual provisions invalidating any assignments by the original owner of the claims here involved must be given effect. Admittedly, no written consent of the defendant to the assignments was obtained. Nor, in the court’s opinion, was there any waiver of the contractual prohibition against assignments. Even if it be assumed that Bruno was told that assignments were intended and even if it be further assumed that he had authority to waive the contractual prohibition against assignments, no showing of waiver has been made out by the plaintiff. There is no statement in the affidavit of Gallagher, submitted by plaintiff, that Bruno affirmatively indicated, directly or indirectly, that the assignments would be recognized as valid or that the prohibition against them would be waived. Gallagher’s affidavit states merely that Bruno failed to advise him that there was a prohibition against assignments. Bruno was under no duty to Gallagher to give such advice and his mere silence is insufficient basis for a finding of waiver. The motion for summary judgment is granted. Settle order.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23464]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11454 and <greek-i>11455]


Pennsylvania Disaster <greek-i>PA-00019

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 09/25/2008.
    Incident: Apartment Building Fire.
    Incident Period: 09/19/2008.

DATES: Effective Date: 09/25/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/24/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/25/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Montgomery.
Contiguous Counties:
    Pennsylvania: Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lehigh, 
Philadelphia.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.750
Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.875
Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      8.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11454 5 
and for economic injury is 11455 0. The State which received an EIDL 
Declaration <greek-i> is Pennsylvania.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    September 25, 2008.
Sandy K. Baruah,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-23464 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1664WM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Michael Dean Warren, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 18, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Dean Warren pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On appeal, Warren contends the district court improperly rejected his request for a

downward departure. Warren also complains the government failed to comply with

the plea agreement. We reject Warren's arguments. After a careful review of the

record, we conclude the district court correctly resolved Warren's claims, and an

opinion by this court would have no precedential value. We thus affirm Warren's

conviction and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,876)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,470
<PP&E>                                          63,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,529)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,299
<BONDS>                                         26,218
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,112
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,818
<SALES>                                        102,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,401
<CGS>                                           65,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   577
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,278
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,278
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02376-LTB-MJW

FELISA R. WEATHERALL,

Plaintiff,

v.

VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2, the parties have filed a unanimous consent to

Magistrate Judge, 28 U.S.C. § 636 jurisdiction. I exercise my discretion pursuant to

D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2(e) to decline to enter an Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636( c )

Consent Jurisdiction to a Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Reference to United States Magistrate

Judge entered October 12, 2011 (Doc 8) remains in full force and effect.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: January 12, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02376-LTB-MJW Document 25 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1