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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00368-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ARTURO MIRANDA-CINTO,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On May 23, 2012, the court conducted a telephonic setting conference to reset

the sentencing hearing in this matter. After conferring with the parties and with their

consent,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That on August 17, 2012, commencing at 11:00 a.m., the court shall conduct

the sentencing hearing in this matter; and

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for this hearing.

Dated: May 23, 2012

1

 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3970
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         4
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               1697
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    15730
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         6866
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           6266
<LOANS>                                        52131
<ALLOWANCE>                                    559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 83002
<DEPOSITS>                                     72797
<SHORT-TERM>                                   52
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3072
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3975
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 83002
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4491
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1361
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               334
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               6185
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2832
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2909
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          32778
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  88
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1420
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1420
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   980
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.32
<LOANS-NON>                                    27
<LOANS-PAST>                                   42
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                823
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               843
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  49
<RECOVERIES>                                   7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              889
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           889
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>1

                              Subsidiaries



The Company has one subsidiary,  First Citizens National Bank,  Dyersburg,
Tennessee. The Company is the sole shareholder of the Bank. First Citizens
National  Bank is a National  Bank  organized  under the  authority of the
Comptroller of the Currency.

On January 28, 1985, First Citizens  Financial Plus, Inc. was chartered in
the State of  Tennessee as a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of First  Citizens
National Bank for the purpose of providing  investment advisory service to
the  community.  The  Corporation's  registration  with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission as an investment  advisor was effective  February 21,
1985.

On  December  19,  1988  First  Citizens  Financial  Plus,  Inc.  received
notification from the National  Association of Securities Dealers that the
Company's  registration as a broker/dealer was effective.  As a result, in
addition to being an investment advisor, the Company is now a full service
introducing broker/dealer.

On August 19, 1996,  Delta  Finance,  Inc.  was  chartered in the State of
Tennessee as a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Citizens National Bank for
the purpose of providing  consumer  financial  services to the  community.
Delta  Finance  will  operate as an  Industrial  Loan and  Thrift  Company
pursuant to Tennessee  Code Annotated  Section  45-5-101 and to acquire by
purchase,  lease or  otherwise,  and to hold,  operate,  manage,  develop,
encumber  and  otherwise  deal with any and all kinds of real and personal
property  and to engage in any business  not  prohibited  by law under the
laws of Tennessee; and to do any and all things necessary or incidental in
the operation of such business or  businesses.  A branch office was opened
September 21, 1998 in Milan, Tennessee.

On February 9, 1998, White and  Associates/First  Citizens Insurance,  LLC
was chartered in the State of Tennessee as a Limited  Liability Company of
Dyersburg  Insurance Agency and First Citizens  Insurance Interim Inc. for
the purpose of providing general insurance services to the community.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-01949-LTB-BNB

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON WHO SUBSCRIBED TO POLICY

NO. 759/JC098010P,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Voluntary Stipulation for

Dismissal With Prejudice of All Claims (Doc 8 - filed September 21, 2011), and the Court

being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore

ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to

pay their own fees and costs. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: September 26, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.9.1.6

                                     ANNEX A

                                   David T. Fu

                                Employment Terms

1.   1,400,000 shares of Common Stock.

2.   0 shares of Preferred Stock

3.   a check in the amount of $15,000 and a promissory note in the amount of
     $125,000, representing a total investment

4.   $140,000.

5.   State of Maryland

6.   700,000 shares of Common Stock.

7.   Vice President - Business Development & Marketing

8.   Chief Executive Officer

9.   The Executive is on the Board of Directors of Greenspring Fund, the Board
     of Advisors of the Taiwan Mezzanine Fund I and is a member of the
     Management Committee of PRC Equity Advisors, LLC.

10.  $170,000

11.  120 %

12.  Performance Cause is inapplicable to the Executive.

                                       1
REVISED

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-51018

Summary Calendar

Deborah Laufer, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Galtesvar OM, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CV-588

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Deborah Laufer is a person with a disability within the meaning of 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182 et seq. She sued Galtesvar, owner and operator of the Quality Inn & 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 30, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-51018 Document: 00515846513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2021
No. 20-51018

2

Suites in Carrizo Springs, Texas, alleging violations of federal regulations 

because third-party websites did not provide an option to book accessible 

rooms or information regarding whether such rooms were available at the 

Quality Inn & Suites. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1). She has filed hundreds 

of similar lawsuits across the country, considering herself an ADA “tester.” 

The district court dismissed Laufer’s claims for lack of standing because her 

injuries were insufficiently “concrete” to confer standing. We AFFIRM.

We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction de novo. Campos v. United States, 888 F.3d 724, 729 (5th Cir. 

2018). Laufer bears the burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. 

See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Standing 

requires an injury in fact that is “an invasion of a legally protected interest 

which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not 

conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 

(1992) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

This court recently issued a decision that addressed the identical issue 

presented here by the same plaintiff. See Laufer v. Mann Hosp., L.L.C., No. 

20-50858, slip op. (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021). The result therefore must be the 

same. Laufer’s injury is insufficiently concrete to confer standing, as she 

never alleged in either case that she tried or intended to book a room at the 

relevant defendant’s hotel. See id. at 4. Just as in that case, she made only a 

general assertion of her “plans to travel to Texas as soon as the Covid crisis 

is over and it is safe to travel.” See id. at 4.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-51018 Document: 00515846513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2021
**IN THE SUPREME COUR T OF**  **THE ST AT**  **E OF MONT**  **ANA DA**  **2 1**  **- 0**  **253** ST AT E OF MONT

ANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KENT ALLEN TICHENOR, Defendant and Appellant . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief, and good cause appearing; **IT IS HEREBY**

**ORDERED** that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 4, 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s Opening Brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 27 2022

01/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0253
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Date: May 2, 2013 

Courtroom Deputy: Julie Dynes FTR: BNB COURTROOM A-401 

 Parties Attorney(s) 

KATHERYN KIPLING Thomas G. Tasker 

Bradley A. Levin 

Daniel J. Caplis 

Stephen W. Wahlberg 

 Plaintiff(s) 

v. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

Franklin D. Patterson 

Katelyn S. Werner 

 Defendant(s) 

COURTROOM MINUTES 

STATUS/TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE 

Court in Session: 9:09 a.m. 

Appearance of counsel. 

Discussion held on admission of insurance policy and limits. 

Discussion held on jury instructions. 

Argument presented on [78] Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion in Limine Regarding Her Present 

Financial Condition. 

ORDERED: [78] Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion in Limine Regarding Her Present Financial 

Condition is DENIED without prejudice. Issue may be raised at trial. 

Argument presented on [77] Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony of Her StepChildren. 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 90 Filed 05/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119

ORDERED: [77] Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony of her Step-Children is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Argument presented on [79] Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion in Limine Regarding Other Sums 

Received By Plaintiff. 

ORDERED: [79] Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion in Limine Regarding Other Sums Received 

By Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice. Issue may be raised at trial. 

Argument presented on [80] Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Her Subsequent Relationship 

with Michael McCasky. 

ORDERED: [80] Plaintiff’sMotion in Limine Regarding Her Subsequent Relationship with 

Michael McCasky is DENIED. 

Argument presented on [82] Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Quicksilver Evidence. 

ORDERED: [82] Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Regarding Quicksilver Evidence is 

GRANTED. 

Discussion held on time limits. 

ORDERED: Time limits previously set by the court for voir dire, openings, and closings will 

not be enforced. 

Case to be tried to a jury of eight (8), each side will be allowed three (3) peremptory challenges. 

Court in Recess: 09:49 a.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 00:40 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 90 Filed 05/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01953-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01953-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-01953-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
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 FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending March 3, 2018FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodMACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                          * 4c8Mackinac Financial Corporation, Manistique, Michigan, with its wholly owned subsidiary, MFNC Acquisition, LLC, Manistique, Michigan, to acquire 100 percent of shares of First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc., Alpena, Michigan, and thereby indirectly acquire First Federal of Northern Michigan, Alpena, Michigan.Newspaper: 03/17/2018Federal Register: 03/23/2018
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STENLY LALOAN RANTUNG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73832

Agency No. A078-020-447

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Stenly Laloan Rantung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

FILED

SEP 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73832

Rantung’s only argument is that his case should be remanded for the agency

to assess his withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis. 

We reject Rantung’s argument in light of our prior decision, Rantung v. Mukasey,

No. 05-75377, 2008 WL 4155280 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2008), in which this court

applied the disfavored group analysis to Rantung’s withholding of removal claim

and rejected his claim. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 10.9.1



 Exhibit 10.9.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 VISUAL NETWORKS, INC. 
 2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H: 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 7(f) of the Visual Networks, Inc. 2003 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) authorizes the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Visual Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), to amend the Plan at any time; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board now finds it desirable and in the best interests of
the Corporation to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan by 3,000,000 shares, for an aggregate of 4,250,000 shares. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective as of April 21, 2004, subject to stockholder approval, as follows:

  
 First and Only Change 
  
 The first sentence of Section 4 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to
read as follows: 
  
 “Subject to adjustments
as provided in Section 7(d) of the Plan, the shares of Common Stock that may be issued with respect to Awards granted under the Plan shall not exceed an aggregate of 4,250,000 shares of Common Stock.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment No. 1 to
be executed by its duly authorized officer this 21st day of April, 2004. 
  

									
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 VISUAL NETWORKS, INC.

					
	By:	 	 /s/ Nancy A. Spangler
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Lawrence S. Barker
----

|   | (1) | To      my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ John      D. Thomas |
| John      D. Thomas          |
| Chief      Executive Officer |

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-77,011

EX PARTE EARL STEPP, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F-2010-1176-E IN THE 367 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DENTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of

aggravated assault and one count of assault family violence. He was sentenced to twelve years’

imprisonment on each count. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his convictions violate the Double JeopardyClause of the

US Constitution. Both counts of assault were alleged to have been committed against the same

victim on the same day and involved the same criminal act. Each victim constitutes the allowable
2

unit of prosecution under the Texas assault statute. See Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 337

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing to Philips v. State, 787 S.W.2d 39, 394–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)

and comparing assault to burglary wherein the unlawful entry is the allowable unit of prosecution).

We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Applicant has suffered multiple punishments for the

same offense. Applicant is entitled to relief. 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Count II of Cause No. F-2010-1176-E in the 367 Judicial th

District Court of Denton County is vacated and set aside. All remaining issues challenging the

judgment in count one are denied. 

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Parole Division.

Delivered: April 17, 2013

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1270 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1270

  To amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, in the case 
 of airline pilots who are required by regulation to retire at age 60, 
  to compute the actuarial value of monthly benefits in the form of a 
                   life annuity commencing at age 60.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2007

Mr. Akaka (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Obama, Mr. Durbin, 
  Mr. Harkin, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Isakson) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, in the case 
 of airline pilots who are required by regulation to retire at age 60, 
  to compute the actuarial value of monthly benefits in the form of a 
                   life annuity commencing at age 60.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Pilots Equitable Treatment Act''.

SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR AIRLINE PILOTS.

    (a) Single-Employer Plan Benefits Guaranteed.--Section 4022(b)(3) 
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
1322(b)(3)) is amended by inserting at the end the following: ``If, at 
the time of termination of a plan under this title, regulations 
prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration require an individual 
to separate from service as a commercial airline pilot after attaining 
any age before age 65, this paragraph shall be applied to an individual 
who is a participant in the plan by reason of such service by 
substituting such age for age 65.''.
    (b) Aggregate Limit on Benefits Guaranteed; Criteria Applicable.--
Section 4022B(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
(29 U.S.C. 1322b(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``If, at the time of termination of a plan under this title, 
regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration require 
an individual to separate from service as a commercial airline pilot 
after attaining any age before age 65, this subsection shall be applied 
to an individual who is a participant in the plan by reason of such 
service by substituting such age for age 65.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to benefits payable on 
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Key Tronic Corporation

Spokane, Washington



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-70917 and 333-61202) of Key Tronic Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated August 19, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended July 3, 2004, which
appears in this Form 10-K.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
|                    
|September 17, 2004  
|Spokane, Washington