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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action: 11-cv-01972-PAB-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: June 8, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

ANETT HARP, 

Plaintiff,

Pro Se (appearing by telephone)

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendant.

Stephanie Lindquist Scoville

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 11:07 a.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Discussion between the court and Ms. Harp regarding the reason she is not physically present, as

expected, for this hearing. 

The court addresses the parties regarding the defendant’s MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses

And Extend Discovery And Dispositive Motions Deadlines (Docket No. 27, filed on 5/30/2012).

Ms. Harp informs the court that she has mailed out her responses to the defendant’s requests for

production. Discussion between the court and defense counsel regarding what has been received

(interrogatories) and what has not been received (requests for production). Discussion between the

court and Ms. Harp regarding exactly what she sent out, damages claim, imposing sanctions, and

Rule 37 (a)(5) pertaining to the awarding of attorneys fees and costs. 

ORDERED: The court DENIES without prejudice the defendant's MOTION to Compel

Discovery Responses And Extend Discovery And Dispositive Motions Deadlines

(Docket No. 27, filed on 5/30/2012).

Case 1:11-cv-01972-PAB-CBS Document 30 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Ms. Harp informs the court that she has signed and dated a release form but it is not notarized. Ms.

Scoville makes an oral motion to extend the discovery deadlines. Discussion between the court and

Ms. Harp regarding whether or not she plans to conduct any discovery and if she will have any

witnesses.

ORDERED: The court shall extend the discovery cut off date to July 15, 2012. The dispositive

motions deadline is extended to August 16, 2012.

Ms. Scoville makes an oral motion to discuss with Ms. Harp a new date for taking her deposition.

After discussion between the parties, Ms. Harp states that July 10, 2012 works for her. Ms. Scoville

will re-notice Ms. Harp of this deposition.

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 11:28 a.m.

Total time in court: 00:21

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303)

825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-01972-PAB-CBS Document 30 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Motion Granted; Order filed June 20, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00161-CV

____________

JJJ WALKER, LLC; DYNAFAB USA, LLC; RENAISSANCE 

PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC; PRIYA PROPERTIES, LLC; BD 

TEXAS, LLC; AND KW HOSPITAL ACQUISITION, LLC, Appellant

V.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK; MERENSKY REEF HOSPITAL 

COPORATION; LOUISIANA TEXAS HEALTHCARE 

MANAGEMENT, LLC; ERIC YOLLICK; AND THE YOLLICK 

LAW FIRM, P.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-41034

ORDER

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 26, 2012. On June 4, 

2013, appellants filed a motion to dismiss appellees First National Bank, Merensky

Reef Hospital Corporation, Louisiana Texas Healthcare Management, and Yollick 
Law Firm from the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is GRANTED. 

Appellees, First National Bank, Merensky Reef Hospital Corporation, Louisiana 

Texas Healthcare Management, and Yollick Law Firm, are ordered DISMISSED 

from the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              MASTECH CORPORATION
                      CALCULATION OF  PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      ----------------------------------
                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
                 ---------------------------------------------
                                   (Unaudited)
                                   -----------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   For the Three Months Ended
                                                                           ------------------------------------------
                                                                               March 31, 1998        March 31, 1997
                                                                           ----------------------  ------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                     <C>
Basic earnings per share
 Net income                                                                           $     6,508         $     2,309
 
Divided by:
 Weighted average common shares                                                        47,268,216          43,309,200
                                                                                      -----------         -----------
 
Basic earnings per share                                                              $      0.14         $      0.05
                                                                                      ===========         ===========
 
Diluted earnings per share
 Net income                                                                           $     6,508         $     2,309
 
Divided by the sum of:
 Weighted average common shares                                                        47,268,216          43,309,200
 Dilutive effect of common stock equivalents                                              881,832             161,192
                                                                                      -----------         -----------
 Diluted average common shares                                                         48,150,048          43,470,392
                                                                                      -----------         -----------
 
Diluted earnings per share                                                            $      0.14         $      0.05
                                                                                      ===========         ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          28,915
<SECURITIES>                                    14,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,051)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,714
<PP&E>                                          15,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,010)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,473
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,113
<SALES>                                         49,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,546
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,406)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,416
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned,
Michael W. Levin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|(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 operations of the Company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Michael W. Levin 
Michael W. Levin
Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 25, 2006

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard E. Gathright                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard E. Gathright                                         |   |
| Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                                |   |
| May 12, 2011                                                 |   |
|                                                         |   |
| /s/ Michael S. Shore                                         |   |
| Michael S. Shore                                             |   |
| Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Senior Vice President |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                                |   |
| May 12, 2011                                                 |   |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS

KATHRYN KIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Defendant.

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Stay of Execution on Judgment Pending

Resolution of Appeal [Doc. # 104, filed 6/17/2013] (the “Motion to Stay”); and

(2) Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Approval of Supersedeas Bond [Doc. #

105, filed 6/17/2013] (the “Motion to Approve Bond”).

The plaintiff does not object to either motion, stating that she “stipulates and agrees that

she will stay execution on the judgment pending resolution of appeal,” Response [Doc. # 107] at

¶1, and that she “does not require Defendant to post a supersedeas bond based on Plaintiff’s

agreement to stay execution of the judgment.” Response [Doc. # 106] at ¶1.

Rule 62(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides in relevant part:

(b) Stay Pending the Disposition of a Motion. On appropriate

terms for the opposing party’s security, the court may stay the

execution of a judgment--or any proceedings to enforce it--pending

disposition of any of the following motions:

* * *

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 108 Filed 06/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

(3) under Rule 59, for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment.

* * *

(d) Stay with Bond on Appeal. If an appeal is taken, the

appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond. . . . The bond

may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after

obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect

when the court approves the bond.

Although the Motion to Approve Bond recites that “State Farm will post a bond in the

amount of $4,500,000.00"; “[t]he bond to be posted by State Farm is in the form of a corporate

surety bond, issued by a corporate surety authorized to do business in the State of Colorado”;

and the bond “is accompanied by a power of attorney showing the authority of the agent for the

surety signing the bond,” no form of bond is provided for my review. I cannot approve a bond

without the opportunity to review its full terms.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion to Stay [Doc. # 104] is GRANTED pending the determination of the

defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment; and

(2) The Motion to Approve Bond [Doc. # 105] is DENIED without prejudice to being

renewed with a copy of the proposed bond attached to the renewed motion as an exhibit.

Dated June 24, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 108 Filed 06/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02451-PAB-MJW

TONYA DUNLAP,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SPEC PRO, INC.,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Vacate and Reset Settlement

Conference, DN 9, filed with the Court on February 10, 2012, is GRANTED. The

Settlement Conference set on February 23, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., is VACATED. The

parties may file a joint or unopposed motion to reset the settlement conference in this

matter at an appropriate time.

Date: February 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02451-PAB-MJW Document 11 Filed 02/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action:11-cv-02394-WJM-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: August 30, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

ANA ALICIA ORTEGA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Qusair Mohamedbhai 

Siddhartha Hardas Rathod

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, THE, et

al.,

Defendants.

Thomas Sullivan Rice

Brian Roberts Reynolds

Andrew David Ringel

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 9:19 a.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

The court addresses the parties regarding the Interested Party Richard Rosenthal’s MOTION to

Quash (Docket No. 70, filed on 8/17/2012), the plaintiff’s RESPONSE to #70 MOTION to Quash

(Docket No. 73, filed on 8/27/2012), and the defendant’s RESPONSE to #70 MOTION to

Quash(Docket No. 74, filed on 8/27/2012).

Mr. Ringel presents oral argument and engages in discussion with the court regarding related

opinion and case law, Rule 45(c)(2)(b), Rule 45(c)(3)(a), if Mr. Rosenthal's motion was timely,

when the parties will receive a trial date from Judge Martinez (trial is expected to be longer than 5

days), Judge Martinez’s practice standards, Rule 4(f), and 28 U.S.C. § 1783.

Mr. Rathod presents oral argument and engages in discussion with the court regarding proper

issuance and service of subpoenas, related opinion and case law, Rule 26(c)(2)(b), Rule 30, and 28

U.S.C. § 1783.

Case 1:11-cv-02394-WJM-CBS Document 76 Filed 08/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Discussion between the court and parties regarding Rule 16, Rule 45(a)(2), and Rule 45(c)(1). The

court cites relevant case law.

For reasons as stated on the record,

ORDERED: The court GRANTS the Interested Party Richard Rosenthal's MOTION to Quash

(Docket No. 70, filed on 8/17/2012). 

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 10:11 a.m.

Total time in court: 00:52

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303)

825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-02394-WJM-CBS Document 76 Filed 08/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement No. 333-117881 of Shuffle Master, Inc. on
Form S-3 and in Registration Statements of Shuffle Master, Inc. on Form S-3 (No. 333-117830) and on Form S-8 (Nos.
33-88124, 33-88180, 333-09623, 333-39060, 333-39064, 333-39290, 333-61588, 333-101444,
333-100716, 333-104659, 333-117909, and 333-117910) of our reports dated February 21, 2006, relating to the financial statements and internal
control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness) appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shuffle Master, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2005.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
February 21, 2006

---



QuickLinks
#### Saledo Realty Corp., Appellant, *v. “*John ” Robinson, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 24, 1956.

*614
      *Melvin S. Brotman*for appellant.

*John T. Doles*and *Cora T. Walker*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The vacation of the final order especially after the warrant had been issued was not justified under the circumstances presented *(Hendricks*v. *Ergis,*66 N. Y. S. 2d 349; *Hanover Bank*v. *De Koenigsberg,*207 Misc. 1088, affd. 285 App. Div. 928).

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and final order for landlord reinstated, with costs.

Hoestadter, Hecht and Aurelio, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS

KATHRYN KIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Defendant.

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and

against the defendant in the amount of $4,480,948.60. Although I announced that I would direct

the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment based on the verdict, I am informed that there may be

certain sums to be offset against the verdict. See Pretrial Order [Doc. # 73] at Part 9.

IT IS ORDERED that on or before May 24, 2013, the parties shall file a status report

addressing the issue of any offsets and the amount of the judgment which should be entered.

Dated May 16, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 97 Filed 05/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23    

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 2-96332, No. 33-21569, No. 33-51965, No. 333-41077, No. 333-65995, No. 333-78941, No. 333-74244 and No. 333-105153 of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated August 15, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended May 31, 2003.

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00365-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. GUSTAVO BARELA-HOTOF, a/k/a Gustavo Roblero, a/k/a Lopez Gustavo Roblero,

a/k/a Alberto Gutierrez, a/k/a Alberto Zamora, a/k/a Juan Carlos Penagos, a/k/a

Zacarias Robledo, a/k/a Gustavo Cifuentes, a/k/a Edgar Salazar,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

Defendant Gustavo Barela-Hotof filed a Notice of Disposition in the above matter

on August 12, 2011 [ECF No. 11]. A Change of Plea Hearing is SET for Wednesday,

November 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM. 

Counsel for the parties shall deliver all change of plea documents separately to

Judge Daniel’s chambers AND to the Probation Department not later than 72 HOURS

before the hearing date. If the documents are not timely submitted, the hearing will be

VACATED. There will be no exceptions to this policy, and sanctions may be

imposed for failure to comply.

Dated: September 20, 2011.
#### Ronald M. Terlizzese, Appellant, v Robinson’s Custom Service, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 418]

*548In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated February 15, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate a judgment of the same court entered May 13, 2002, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 24, 2002, granting the defendants’ unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants submitted an affidavit of service attesting that a copy of the default judgment entered May 13, 2002, with written notice of its entry, was mailed to the plaintiff, who was pro se at that time, at his residence on July 19, 2002, thus raising a presumption of proper mailing, and of receipt (see *Engel v Lichterman,*62 NY2d 943, 944-945 [1984], *affg*95 AD2d 536, 538 [1983]). The plaintiffs mere denial of receipt of the default judgment did not overcome the presumption of proper mailing, and failed to raise an issue of fact requiring a hearing (see *Kihl v Pfeffer,*94 NY2d 118, 122 [1999]; *Engel v Lichterman, supra*at 944-945; *Kendall v Kelly,*283 AD2d 401 [2001]; *Wieck v Halpern,*255 AD2d 438 [1998]; *Facey v Heyward,*244 AD2d 452, 453 [1997]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground of excusable default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), which was made over two years after service of the judgment, was properly denied since it was untimely (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Hartcorn v Hartcorn,*299 AD2d 395 [2002]; *Kachar v Berlin,*296 AD2d 479 [2002]; *Nahmani v Town of Ramapo,*262 AD2d 291 [1999]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.