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-02238-PAB-KLM

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LELAND ASAY,

SAMUEL VIDAL GOMEZ,

JERRY LEE RHEA,

DENNIS GLENN COEN, and

QUALITY PAVING CO., a Colorado corporation, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Stipulated Voluntary

Dismissal With Prejudice of Complaint Against Defendant Quality Paving Co. [Docket

No. 130]. The Court has reviewed the pleading and is fully advised in the premises. It

is

ORDERED that the Motion for Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of

Complaint Against Defendant Quality Paving Co. [Docket No. 130] is GRANTED. It is

further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), all claims asserted by plaintiff

against defendant Quality Paving Co. are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to

bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 133 Filed 04/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

DATED April 30, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02238-PAB-KLM Document 133 Filed 04/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7264
KENNETH FRANKLIN HUDDLESTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEON DIXON, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-699-AM) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Franklin Huddleston, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant, at most, alleges a disagreement with the prison doctors as to the course of medical treatment that he received. Such allegations are not cognizable under § 1983. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1207 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and extend the 

energy efficient commercial buildings deduction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and extend the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Giving Reductions to 

5 Energy Efficient New Buildings Act’’ or the ‘‘GREEN 

6 Buildings Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. INCREASE AND EXTENSION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT 

8 COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DEDUCTION. 

9 (a) INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION.—Section 

10 179D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1207 IS

1 energy efficient commercial buildings deduction) is amend2 ed— 

3 (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A) by striking ‘‘$1.80’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘$2.25’’, and 

5 (2) in subsection (d)(1)(A) by striking ‘‘$.60 

6 for $1.80’’ and inserting ‘‘$.75 for $2.25’’. 

7 (b) EXTENSION.—Section 179D(h) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is amend9 ed by striking ‘‘December 31, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘De10 cember 31, 2013’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to property placed in service in 

13 taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending June 9, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCHEMICAL BANK                                                                                                           * 18C
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 123 

To authorize the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza 

to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To authorize the project for hurricane and storm damage 

reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO 

4 PROJECT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army shall 

6 carry out the project for hurricane and storm damage re7 duction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, sub8 stantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 

9 conditions, described in the Reports of the Chief of Engi10 neers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 123 IS

1 total cost of $886,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

2 of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

3 $310,345,000. 

4 (b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the 

5 non-Federal share of the cost of the project elements the 

6 cost of design and construction work carried out by the 

7 non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 

8 agreement for the project elements if the Secretary deter9 mines that the work is integral to the project elements. 

10 (c) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper11 ation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replace12 ment of the Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and 

13 the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the 

14 project described in subsection (a) that provide for inland 

15 waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, 

16 in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources 

17 Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,503
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,869,593
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                   405,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            130,756
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                   (181,103)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,869,593
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,708
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          (3,708)
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 70,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,615)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (74,615)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (74,615)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Tarasovitch et al., Appellants, *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

April 25, 1938:

Argued April 13, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

Before Egan, J.

*Abe R. Cohen,*with him *Morris C. Levy*and *Levy & Crone,*for appellants.

*Robert D. Dalzell,*of *Dalzell, McFall <& Pringle,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The legal questions raised in this appeal are controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in *Di Marco v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company,*321 Pa. 568, 571, 183 A. 780.

On the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Hillard Man, Appellant.

County Court, Suffolk County,

November 20, 1956.

*Daniel D. Bier*for defendant.

*George W. Percy, Jr., District Attorney,*for respondent.

Fred J. Munder, J.

The defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of a Long Island State Park Commission ordinance and he appeals. Apart from any consideration of the merits of the case I conclude that the judgment of conviction must be reversed.

The conviction rests on a form of complaint upon which no defendant can get an impartial trial: At the bottom of the form and distinct from the body of the complaint itself appear these words: “Attitude of defendant — courteous, discourteous ” and the instructions “ Circle words needed ”.

It happens here that the word ‘ ‘ discourteous ’ ’ was stricken, indicating that in the opinion of the policeman the motorist was “ courteous ”. The policeman’s opinion on this point is of no consequence. What is important is that such information has but one purpose to serve and that is to improperly influence the court.

*853This kind of information may be properly supplied to a judge after a defendant is convicted. It is then of value in aiding the judge to determine the extent of the punishment to be inflicted. Before conviction, however, it is highly prejudicial and, whether favorable or unfavorable to a defendant, militates against an impartial hearing or trial. If unfavorable it would virtually preclude a fair trial. In any case, a conviction resting on such a foundation should not be permitted to stand.

In these days of crowded traffic courts and mail-order justice (General Municipal Law, art. 14-B) defendants generally are loath to resist charges of traffic violations. This fact apparently inspired the Legislature to classify such violations as traffic infractions rather than as crimes. But such prosecutions are penal in nature and though inferior in grade require the same full observance of all the constitutional rights of a defendant that must be accorded in the prosecution of major crimes.

It has been consistently held that no practice may be permitted which destroys the fundamentals of a fair trial. A verdict found on strong and convincing proof of guilt will be set aside if this right is not respected. *(People*v. *Mleczko,*298 N. Y. 153; *People*v. *Savvides,*1 N Y 2d 554; *People*v. *Hetenyi,*304 N. Y. 80, 88.) In *People*v. *Lovello*(1 N Y 2d 436) the unsworn statements of a prosecutor were condemned. The unsworn statements of a complainant are entitled to no better fate.

Without considering the merits I decide as a matter of law alone that this complaint violates the inflexible rule of fundamental fairness and it must be dismissed.

Judgment of conviction reversed and information dismissed and fine remitted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

(Docket No. 10) is denied without prejudice. Counsel cannot be appointed and paid

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but the court has broad discretion to direct the Clerk

of Court to attempt to obtain volunteer counsel for a party in a civil case. See Murphy v.

Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 2009 WL 2959205 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2009) (citing

DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993)). When making such a decision,

the court “should consider a variety of factors, including the merits of the litigant’s

claims, the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to

present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Long v.

Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991). Having considered the current record in

this case, the court finds that, even assuming the plaintiff has a colorable claim, he

currently appears to be able to present his case adequately. The factual and legal

issues raised are not so numerous or complex that the plaintiff is unable to present his

case adequately at this early stage of the litigation.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s letter motion requesting to have the

summons issued on all parties/defendants (Docket No. 17) is denied as moot. On

September 9, 2011, Judge Ebel issued an Order Granting Service by United States

Marshal (Docket No. 16).

Date: September 19, 2011
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 31
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Haim Tsuff certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Isramco, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2005;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and I have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and
procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of the internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2006                     /S/ HAIM TSUFF
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         HAIM TSUFF
                                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                         (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
                                         OFFICER)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE NOTES
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          36,044
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,662
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                19,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     35,631
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,739
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,505
<LOANS>                                        281,587
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (4,084)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,897
<DEPOSITS>                                     379,035
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,748
<LONG-TERM>                                        146
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,080
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 420,897
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,798
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,195
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   107
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,100
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,819
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,827
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,273
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      331
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,424
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,424
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,147
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>For purposes of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01952-PAB

GRENADA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RACHEL S. GRYNBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer

On November 2, 2011, the Court granted [Docket No. 27] plaintiff’s Motion to

Accept and Disburse Funds [Docket No. 22], ordering that the Clerk’s Office accept

funds in the amount of $303,986.69 received from garnishee Chase Bank and, upon

receipt and acceptance of funds, disburse the funds in the amount of $303,986.69 to

plaintiff’s counsel. The Clerk’s Office accepted funds in the amount of $303,986.69

received from garnishee Chase Bank on November 10, 2011, see Docket No. 30, and

disbursed the funds to plaintiff’s counsel on November 15, 2011. There being no other

pending issues in this matter, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be closed in its entirety.

DATED November 28, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-01952-PAB Document 31 Filed 11/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1