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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02214-BNB

CYNTHIA M. MATTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendants.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

Following review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the Court has determined

that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the

case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED November 14, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02214-MSK-CBS Document 8 Filed 11/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2


                          AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT


The Rights Agreement dated February 25, 1997 between Foothill Independent
Bancorp and ChaseMellon Shareholder Services LLC is hereby amended as follows:

        1.     Registrar and Transfer Company, a New Jersey corporation ("R&T"),
               is hereby appointed as the successor Rights Agent with the same
               powers, rights, duties and responsibilities as if it had been
               originally named as Rights Agent.

        2.     Section 21 is hereby amended by deleting the fifth sentence and
               in its place substituting a new fifth sentence to read as
               follows:

                      "Any successor Rights Agent, whether appointed by the
                      Company or by such a court, shall be a corporation
                      organized and doing business under the laws of the United
                      States, (or of any state of the United States so long as
                      such corporation is authorized to conduct a stock transfer
                      business in the State of California, the State of New York
                      or the State of New Jersey) which is authorized under such
                      laws to exercise stock transfer powers and is subject to
                      supervision or examination by Federal or state authority,
                      is in good standing, is registered as a Transfer Agent in
                      accordance with the applicable provisions of the
                      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is
                      qualified to act as a Transfer Agent under the rules of
                      the New York Stock Exchange."

        3.     Section 26 is hereby amended by eliminating the name and address
               of ChaseMellon Shareholder Services LLC and in its place
               substituting the following:

                             Registrar and Transfer Company
                             10 Commerce Drive
                             Cranford, NJ 07016

                             Attn: Vice President
                             Corporate Relations

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties listed below have caused this Amendment
to be duly executed on this date.

Date: February 13, 2002


REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER COMPANY                 FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANCORP


By: /s/ WILLIAM P. TATLER                      By: /s/ GEORGE LANGLEY
    --------------------------------------         ----------------------------
        William P. Tatler, Vice President          Title: President & CEO
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

January 10, 2011

No. 09-2983

WAYNE A. SMITH, Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

(D.N.J. No. 2-08-cv-02875)

Present: BARRY, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

Motion by Appellee to request publication of the opinion.

Respectfully,

Clerk/ARL/awi

Opinion & Judgment filed 11/22/2010.

Mandate is to Issue on 01/13/2011.

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing is GRANTED. 

By the Court,

/s/Maryanne Trump Barry 

Circuit Judge

Dated: January 28, 2011
#### In the Matter of Kochumathen A. Babu, Petitioner, v Kenneth H. Lange, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to *911CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated February 28, 1990, which denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

Adjudged that the petition is granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the respondent, for a new determination in accordance herewith.

Before an application for a pistol permit may be denied, the petitioner must be given the specific reasons for the denial of the permit, and also an opportunity to respond to the objections to his application *(see, Matter of Savitch v Lange,*114 AD2d 372, 373; *Matter of Bobrick v Leggett,*71 AD2d 869; *Matter of Guida v Dier,*54 AD2d 86). In the instant case, the respondent based his decision denying the application in part on an unfavorable interview of the petitioner’s neighbors by the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. While there is evidence in the record that the respondent had before him the petitioner’s own statement, there is no indication that the petitioner was ever given an opportunity to respond to the objections raised by the commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the respondent to afford the petitioner that opportunity. After the receipt of the petitioner’s response, the respondent shall make a new determination on the petitioner’s application. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50782 Conference Calendar

REYNALDO REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STELLA SAXON, Judge, 81st Judicial District Court,
Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-96-CV-672

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 197 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo Reyes, Texas prisoner #648638, moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Reyes has complied with the certification requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) and his motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED.No. 96-50782 -2- Reyes is ORDERED to pay an initial partial filing fee of $1.53, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the initial partial filing fee, the remainder will be deducted from Reyes’s prison trust-fund account until the entire filing fee is paid. § 1915(b)(2). IT IS ORDERED that Reyes pay the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of Reyes forward the initial partial filing fee to the Clerk. Thereafter, the agency shall forward, in accordance with § 1915(b)(2), to the Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of Texas monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income each time the amount in Reyes’s account exceeds $10, until the appellate filing fee of $105 is paid. Reyes has identified no error in the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. His allegations concerning the state judge who presided over his guilty plea call into question the validity of his conviction and sentence and may not be considered in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Furthermore, to the extent that Reyes seeks damages from the judge, his claim is barred by absolute immunity. See Krueger v. Reimer , 66 F.3d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1995). Reyes’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5thNo. 96-50782 -3- Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Reyes that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Reyes is cautioned further to review

any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01966-LTB Document 5 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

MURRAY ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS 

AND 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 OF ILLINOIS PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 7, 1997 

v. Record No. 1860-96-3 

PATRICIA ANN CRAWFORD 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William Orr Smith, on briefs), for 

appellants. 

 (Roger A. Ritchie; Roger A. Ritchie & 

Partners, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Murray Electrical Products and its insurer contend that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Patricia 

Ann Crawford proved she sustained an injury by accident arising 

out of and in the course of her employment on November 23, 1994. 

 Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we 

conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 In rendering its decision, the commission found as follows: 

 At the hearing on July 13, 1995, the 

claimant clearly described the sudden onset 

of pain as she sat down at her workstation 

after returning with a pan of hubs which she 

had just removed from a barrel. The onset of 

pain was sudden and commenced almost 

immediately upon her removal of the hubs from 

the barrel, which was necessary to tip in 

order to "rake" them out. The weight of the 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

pan of hubs was reported to Dr. Brothers as 

being some 30 to 40 pounds. The injury 

itself is documented by the medical evidence. 

 "In order to carry [the] burden of proving an 'injury by 

accident,' a claimant must prove that the cause of [the] injury 

was an identifiable incident or sudden precipitating event and 

that it resulted in an obvious sudden mechanical or structural 

change in the body." Morris v. Morris, 238 Va. 578, 589, 385 

S.E.2d 858, 865 (1989). Crawford's testimony provides credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding that she proved an 

identifiable incident resulting in a sudden mechanical change in 

her body. Thus, that finding is conclusive on this appeal. 

James v. Capitol Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 

S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). 

 In rendering its decision, the commission considered the 

various medical histories and Crawford's recorded statement, and 

the commission resolved any inconsistencies in this evidence in 

favor of Crawford. "In determining whether credible evidence 

exists, the appellate court does not retry the facts, reweigh the 

preponderance of the evidence, or make its own determination of 

the credibility of the witnesses." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. 

Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). "The 

fact that there is contrary evidence in the record is of no 

consequence if there is credible evidence to support the 

commission's finding." Id. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 
 3 

 Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (see File No. 333-17883, effective December 31, 1996) of
our report dated February 25, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Inrad, Inc. and Subsidiary included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.




/s/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
Melville, New York
April 11, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                                       September 13, 2000

Daniel Wark



RE: EMPLOYMENT TERMS

Dear Dan,

Volterra is pleased to offer you the position of Vice President of Operations on
the following terms.

You will report to Jeff Staszak. You will work at our facility located at 3839
Spinnaker Ct, in Fremont, California. Of course, Volterra may change your
position, duties, and work location from time to time as it deems necessary.

Your compensation will be $5,846.15 bi-weekly ($152,000 per year), less payroll
deductions and all required withholdings. You will be eligible for the following
standard Company benefits: medical, dental, life, and vision insurance, 401(k),
Personal Time Off (PTO), and holidays. You will receive options on 150,000
shares of common stock pursuant to the Company's stock option plan. Your
benefits and options will begin to accrue on the 1st day of the first month
following your start date. Additional details about these benefit plans are
available for your review. Volterra may modify your compensation and benefits
from time to time as it deems necessary.

As a Volterra employee, you will be expected to abide by Company rules and
regulations, and sign and comply with a Proprietary Information and Inventions
Agreement, which prohibits unauthorized use or disclosure of Volterra
proprietary information.

Normal working hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. As
an exempt salaried employee, you will be expected to work additional hours as
required by the nature of your work assignments.

You may terminate your employment with Volterra at any time and for any reason
whatsoever simply by notifying Volterra. Likewise, Volterra may terminate your
employment at any time and for any reason whatsoever, with or without cause or
advance notice. This at-will employment relationship cannot be changed except in
writing signed by a Company officer.

<PAGE>

The employment terms in this letter supersede any other agreements or promises
made to you by anyone, whether oral or written. As required by law, this offer
is subject to satisfactory proof of your right to work in the United States.

Please sign and date this letter, and return it to me by September 20, if you
wish to accept employment at Volterra, under the terms described above. If you
accept our offer, we would like you to start October 2.

We look forward to your favorable reply and to a productive and enjoyable work
relationship.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jeff Staszak

---------------------------
Jeff Staszak
President & CEO

ACCEPTED:

/s/ Dan Wark

---------------------------
Dan Wark

September 20, 2000

---------------------------
Date
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

October 11 , 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00851- CV

IN RE LOYD LANDON SORROW, SR., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 334th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-33383



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 1, 2018, relator Loyd Landon Sorrow , Sr. filed a petition for writ
of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West Supp. 2017 );
see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Steven Kirkland, presiding judge of the 334th District Court of Harris2

County, to reduce to writing rulings on all pending m otions, objections, and judicial
notices.
In his petition for writ of mandamus relator lists objections, motions for discovery, and several other pleadings and motions he asserts have not been disposed of by the trial court. Relator has not attached any copies of the objections, motions, and pleadings on which he claims the trial court has not issued a ruling. Relator’s petition notes that the trial court granted final summary judgment on August 24,
2018.
With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A final appealable judgment has been entered in the underlying cause; therefore, relator has not shown he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Relator has not shown he is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000052409-MAY-201308:52 AM
1The record suggests that plaintiff’s parental rights have

been terminated, but for purposes of this order I will assume

that is not so.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey M. Gray

v. Civil No. 08-cv-443-PB

Lisa A. Sorenson

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a “guardian ad litem/next

of friend/attorney for children” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).

Plaintiff has no right to be representing his children.1 It

is clear that a non-lawyer parent, appearing pro se, may not

represent his children in federal court. See Ethan H. v. New

Hampshire, 1992 WL 167299 (1st Cir. 1992); United States District

Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule 83.6(b). Neither “28

U.S.C. § 1654 nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 (c) permits a parent to

represent his/her child in federal court.” Devine v. Indian

River County Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997).

Unless an attorney appears for the minors within twenty (20)

days, I recommend that they be dismissed from the case. Should

counsel appear, a new motion under Rule 17(c) may be filed if

counsel deems it appropriate. Plaintiff Gray’s rule 17(c) motion

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 19 Filed 02/06/09 Page 1 of 2
2

is denied.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 6, 2009

cc: Jeffrey M. Gray, pro se

 Lisa Sorenson, pro se 

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 19 Filed 02/06/09 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit      32.2**

----

| (1)   | such                Form 10QSB of ZAP for the six months ended June 30, 2005, fully complies                with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities                Exchange of 1934; and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the                information contained in such Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the six months                ended                June 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial                condition and results of operations of ZAP                . |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                         |                                    |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                         |
|                            |                                    |                               |
| Date:                August 12, 2005 | By:                                | /s/ William                Hartman |
|                                 | William                Hartman               |
|                                 | Chief                Financial Officer  |
Exhibit 21

                         TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.
                            LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES


Subsidiaries of TransFinancial Holdings, Inc.   State of Incorporation



TFH Logistics & Transportation Services, Inc.   Kansas

   Subsidiaries of TFH Logistics & Transportation Services, Inc.


   Crouse Cartage Company                       Iowa

   Specialized Transport, Inc.                  Kansas

   Phoenix Computer Services, Inc.              Kansas

   Custom Client Services, Inc.                 North Carolina

   Transport Brokerage, Inc.                    North Carolina

American Freight System, Inc.
 (d/b/a AFS, Inc.)                              Delaware

Agency Premium Resource, Inc.                   Kansas

TFH Properties, Inc.                            Kansas

Universal Premium Acceptance Corporation        Missouri
   Subsidiaries of Universal Premium Acceptance Corporation


   APR Funding Corporation                      Delaware

   Oxford Premium Finance, Inc.                 Illinois

UPAC of California, Inc.                        California

TransFinancial Acceptance, Inc.                 Kansas

Presis, L.L.C.                                  Kansas




(All companies do business under same name unless otherwise indicated).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7303

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ENRICO SALAZAR SANCHEZ, a/k/a Juan Sanchez,

a/k/a Carlos Pun,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA00-36-DKC)

Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enrico Salazar Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Ranganath

Manthripragada, Assistant United States Attorney, Gina Laurie

Simms, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Enrico Salazar Sanchez appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Sanchez, No. CA-00-36-DKC (D. Md.

filed Aug. 19, 2002; entered Aug. 20, 2002). 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
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Bennie Paul Lewis III v. Alexis Brittany Lewis

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00857

- CV

Trial court case number: 14

- FD

- 1399

Trial court: County Court at Law No 1 of Galveston County

The Court issued an order on July 7, 2020 threatening dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the request for findings of fact and conclusions of law appeared to be untimely filed. However, the Court has discovered that the reques t for findings and conclusions was timely filed and therefore the notice of appeal filed on November 4, 2020 was timely filed.

The Court withdraws the order of July 7, 2020. Appellant’s brief is due within 30 days of

the date of this order

.
It is so ORD ERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Peter Kelly

_________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ December 22, 2020

____