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

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

 JUDGE PHILIP A. BRIMMER

 COURTROOM MINUTES

Courtroom Deputy: Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Court Reporter: Janet Coppock

Probation Officer: Justine Kozak

Date: May 25, 2012

Time: 31 minutes

Interpreter: n/a

CASE NO. 11-CR-00356-PAB

Parties Counsel

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Thomas O’Rourke

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICKEY MARIE PALMORE, Brian Leedy

Defendant.

SENTENCING

2:37 p.m. COURT IN SESSION

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Defendant is present and on bond .

ORDERED: The statement of facts in the Plea Agreement and the Presentence Report

are not disputed by the parties and are adopted in the Court's factual findings in this

case. The report is incorporated by reference as part of the Court’s findings and

conclusions.

Case 1:11-cr-00356-PAB Document 48 Filed 05/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Page Two

11-CR-00356-PAB

May 25, 2012

Mr. Leedy requests a continuance to supplement defendant’s motions for variant

sentence and downward departure.

No objection by Mr. O’Rourke.

Court addresses defendant’s objections to the presentence investigation report.

ORDERED: Objections regarding 6-level enhancement because the offense involved

more than 250 victims and the 2-level enhancement for an abuse of a

position of trust are SUSTAINED.

ORDERED: Government’s Motion for (Possible) Variance (Doc #32) is DEEMED

MOOT.

ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Restrict Access (Doc #38) is GRANTED in PART,

as stated on the record. Defendant shall file redacted motions for

downward departure and for a variant sentence.

ORDERED: Defendant may supplement her motions (Docs #36 and # 37) by July 3,

2012.

ORDERED: Sentencing hearing continued to July 13, 2012 at 8:00 a.m. 

ORDERED: Bond is continued.

3:08 p.m. COURT IN RECESS

Total in court time: 31 minutes

Hearing continued

Case 1:11-cr-00356-PAB Document 48 Filed 05/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58174-58179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-62]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-62 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.040


[[Page 58176]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.041


[[Page 58177]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.042


[[Page 58178]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.043


[[Page 58179]]


 [FR Doc. E8-23348 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Chart 1

Number, Size, and Volume of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2010

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

1

2

3

4

5

Number of non-real-estate farm loans Millions, annual rate

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans

Thousands of dollars

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

25

50

75

100

125

Volume of non-real-estate farm loans

3

Billions of dollars, annual rate
Chart 2

Maturity and Interest Rate of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, 1980-2010

 Note. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other

 terms of the loans and weighted by loan size.

 -- Four-quarter moving average.

 Source. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

4

8

12

16

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans 20

Months

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

4

8

12

16

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans 20

Percent

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

0

25

50

75

100 Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

4

Percent
H. Res. 970 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 26, 2008. 

Whereas the Chevrolet Corvette is America’s first sports car; 

Whereas the first production Corvette rolled off a Flint, 

Michigan, assembly line on June 30, 1953; 

Whereas the Corvette is now manufactured in Bowling Green, 

Kentucky; 

Whereas the Corvette is the most widely respected production 

sports car in United States history; 

Whereas the Corvette is truly a symbol of American pride; 

Whereas General Motors is celebrating its 100th anniversary 

in 2008; and 

Whereas the 30th of June would be an appropriate day to 

designate as ‘‘National Corvette Day’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives supports the designation of a ‘‘National Corvette Day’’ 

to honor the Chevrolet Corvette. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE MATTER OF THE

APPLICATION OF BARRY

RICHARD LENK TO RESIGN FROM

THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN

MARYLAND *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 5 9

September Term, 202 3

ORDER

Upon consideration of the application to resign from the practice of law filed by

Barry Richard Lenk on July 8, 2024

, and Bar Counsel’s response to the application filed

on July 22, 2024

, advising that Bar Counsel conducted an investigation and is satisfied that

the requirements of Rule 19

- 735(b) have been met and requests that the application be

accepted

, it is this 24th day of July 2024

,

ORDERED , by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the resignation of Barry

Richard Lenk from the Bar of the State of Maryland is accepted; and it is further

ORDERED , that , pursuant to Rule 19

- 735(e), the Clerk of this Court shall remove

the name Barry Richard Lenk from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that

fact to the Tru stees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the Clerks of

all judicial tribunals in this State ; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall give any notice required by Rule 19

-

707(e).

/s/ Shirley M. Watts

Senior Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING GOVERNMENY’S MOTION TO DISCLOSE

MATTERS OCCURRING BEFORE GRAND JURY TO DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Disclose Matters

Occurrin Before Grand Jury to Defendant (Motion) (#22), pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 (e) (3)

(E) (i).

Having reviewed the motion and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court finds

that good and sufficient cause supports the same, and it is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Testimony of witnesses before the

grand jury and exhibits presented to the grand jury may be disclosed to the defendants and

their counsel in the course of discovery in this case. It is further

ORDERED that such materials shall only be used in defending this case; that such

materials may be disclosed only to the defendants and their attorneys; that if copies are

made, the defendants’ attorneys shall maintain custody of such copies, and shall not

reproduce or disseminate them; and that any material provided pursuant to this Order shall

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 23 filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
be returned to the plaintiff at the completion of the case.

DATED this 15th day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 23 filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Charles Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Healthcare
Technology, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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 we have:

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

<PAGE>

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: May 20, 2005

                   /s/ Charles Smith
                  Charles Smith
                  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Bronxwood Homes, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Alfonse Bivona, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

March. 20, 1957.

*Robert Goldstein*for plaintiff.

*Robert J. Perillo*for defendant.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

So much of my decision dated February 25, 1957 (which grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment) as allows $527 for expense of title examination and $315 for survey charges is amended as follows: (1) The sum for title examination is, on consent, fixed.at $300. (2) The sum for survey charges is disallowed as not covered by the contract.

*“*Where the vendee in good faith is at expense for investigating the title, or for attorney fees, or other similar expense, and the contract of sale fails, due to the fault of the vendor, such expenditures of the vendee may be recovered for, in addition to the amount he has paid on the purchase price.” (48 A. L. R. 59 and cases cited.) However, the parties to a contemplated sale, by their contract, may limit a recovery of damages in the event of breach to such damages as the agreement provides for. *(Northridge*v. *Moore,*118 N. Y. 419, 423.) The present contract limits the purchaser’s recovery — in the event of the seller’s default — to a return of the purchase price, plus the “ net cost of title examination ” or the “ net cost of examining the title ” (in one place the clause is typed in the agreement and in another place it is printed). These phrases do not ordinarily include survey charges. *(Terzo*v. *Stratford,*
      *892104 N. Y. S. 2d 278, 282.) In 17 A. L. R. 2d 1354, the headnote of section 17 is entitled “ Title, legal, and survey fees ”, which is some indication that survey fees are considered as separable from the cost of title insurance and attorneys’ services. In *Ledsal Realty Cory.*v. *Demkin*(141 N. Y. S. 2d 686, 690) the court employs the expression ‘ ‘ but without damages for title expenses or survey ”, also indicating noninclusion of survey charges in the cost of title examination. In *Weiss*v. *Sachs*(112 N. Y. S. 2d 97, 99) a survey charge was again listed as separate from *1*‘ the reasonable expense of examining title ’ ’ and “reasonable attorney fees”. The present contract does not in terms contemplate a survey, and no proof has been presented to me that the survey here was necessarily a part of the instant title examination.

The order, as submitted herein, has been corrected and signed accordingly.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2126** 

In R e: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER; LOUIS A. JENNINGS , Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 1:15

- cv - 00149

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : December 9, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017

Before AGEE , KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Beverly L. Hennager , Louis A. Jennings, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Beverly L. Hennager and Louis A. Jennings petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that this court quash an order of the district court and direct the district court judge to recuse himself from the underlying dissolution action

. Petitioners h ave also filed a motion to expedite. We deny mandamus relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003 ). In fact, mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see Moussaoui , 333 F.3d at 517 , and the party has established they have a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought , see In re Braxton , 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). It is well established that m andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Will v. United States , 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007); see Moussaoui , 333 F.3d at 517. Although “a district judge’s refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this circuit by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus [,] ” a writ of mandamus will not issue “when all that is shown is that the district court abused its dis cretion when making the challenged ruling.” In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826

- 27 (4th Cir. 1987)

.3 We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that Petitioners have not established a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We deny as moot Petitioners’ motion to expedite . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00358-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY PAUL BREAUX,

Defendant.

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR SUBSTITUTE ASSETS

This matter is before the Court on the United States' Motion for Final Order of

Forfeiture for Substitute Assets (Doc. # 47). The Court having reviewed said Motion,

FINDS as follows:

THAT the United States commenced this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982,

as set forth in the Indictment returned on September 1, 2011; 

THAT a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture for Substitute Assets was entered on

April 17, 2013, forfeiting Defendant Anthony Paul Breaux’s interest in the following

property (“substitute assets”): 

a. Pacific Life Section 79 Policy #VF52096860, held in the name of

Anthony P. Breaux, and

b. $10,000.00 in United States Currency in the custody of, and paid by

Defendant to Western Colorado Business Development Corporation

d/b/a Business Incubator Center;

Case 1:11-cr-00358-CMA Document 48 Filed 01/22/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

THAT all known interested parties were provided an opportunity to respond and

that publication has been effected as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n); 

THAT no Petition for Ancillary Hearing has been filed as to the subject property,

and the time for so doing expired on November 3, 2013; 

THAT it further appears there is cause to issue a forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C.

§ 982. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED: 

THAT judgment of forfeiture of the substitute assets described above shall enter

in favor of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982, free from the claims of any

other party; 

THAT the United States shall have full and legal title to the forfeited substitute

assets; and 

THAT the substitute assets shall be applied to Defendant’s Forfeiture Money

Judgment in the amount of $3,417,376.27. 

SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2014. 

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00358-CMA Document 48 Filed 01/22/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Henry K. Laboda, Respondent, v VJV Development Corp. et al., Appellants.

[745 NYS2d 67]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered January 16, 2001, which, upon, inter alia, a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $385,816.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his cause of action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff tripped over one or more of many bricks strewn in front of the house he was constructing, and the jury was able to reasonably conclude that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) was violated, since this was a working area as contemplated by the regulation *(see Canning v RFD 82nd St.,*285 AD2d 439; *McCormack v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*233 AD2d 203, 204; *White v Sperry Supply & Warehouse,*225 AD2d 130, 134; *Baird v Lydall, Inc.,*210 AD2d 577, 578; *Samiani v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*199 AD2d 796, 797-798).

The defendants failed to preserve for appellate review their argument that, because the condition was open and obvious, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence on the cause of action to recover damages for violation of Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence *(see Calabrese v Cheung W. Chan,*244 AD2d 376). Their defense was merely that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent because he was aware of the presence of bricks at the construction site.

Since the defendants failed to object to the alleged defects in the jury charge and the verdict sheet, these issues are not preserved for appellate review, and, in any event, their contentions are without merit *(see Surjnarine v Brathwaite,*290 AD2d 436; *Calabrese v Chan, supra).*Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2


Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
 of Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO
 
 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Bovie Medical Corporation. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: March 31, 2010
 
 /s/ Gary D. Pickett
 Gary D. Pickett
 Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01761-RPM

CARLOS BASSATT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and

PATRICK SANCHEZ,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion to File a third Amended Complaint, filed

March 11, 2012, and the Defendants’ response, filed March 22, 2012, it is

ORDERED that the Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint is denied.

DATED: March 23rd, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01761-RPM-BNB Document 28 Filed 03/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1