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-01943-BNB

RODNEY RAY ZIMMERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOANN SHOEMAKER, 

CATHIE HOLST, 

MR. BURGONDO, 

DEEANN KAHLER, and 

JOSEPH WRIGHT, 

Defendants. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Rodney Ray Zimmerman, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado

Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Colorado State

Penitentiary in Cañon City. Mr. Zimmerman filed pro se a prisoner complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages and injunctive relief. He was granted leave to

proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 without payment of an initial partial filing fee. 

On August 24, 2011, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer ordered Mr. Zimmerman

to file an amended complaint that (1) was legible in compliance with Rule 10.1 of the

Local Rules of Practice for this Court, (2) complied with the pleading requirements of

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (3) alleged the personal participation

of each named Defendant. Magistrate Judge Shaffer warned Mr. Zimmerman that, if he

failed to file an amended complaint that complied with the directives of the August 24

order within the time allowed, the complaint and the action would be dismissed. On

Case 1:11-cv-01943-LTB Document 17 Filed 11/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

September 8 and October 21, 2011, Plaintiff was granted extensions of time in which to

file the amended complaint. Mr. Zimmerman has failed, within the time allowed, to file

an amended complaint as directed. Therefore, the complaint and the action will be

dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff,

Rodney Ray Zimmerman, within the time allowed, to file an amended complaint as

directed in the order of August 24, 2011, and for his failure to prosecute. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 16th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-01943-LTB Document 17 Filed 11/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1157 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the consumptive demand 

exception relating to the importation of goods made with forced labor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2007 

Mr. HARKIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the consumptive demand exception relating to the importation of 

goods made with forced labor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GOODS MADE WITH FORCED OR INDENTURED 

4 LABOR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of section 

6 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) is amend7 ed by striking ‘‘; but in no case’’ and all that follows to 

8 the end period. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1157 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 

2 15 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,435
<PP&E>                                         391,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                (108,237)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 354,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           404
<OTHER-SE>                                     215,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   354,810
<SALES>                                         40,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,468
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,097
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,224)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,224)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.23)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10343 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RAFAEL CUEVAS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-120-1-D

-------------------- September 23, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Rafael Cuevas appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Cuevas’ attorney has filed a Motion to File Brief and Appendix in Present Form in this court. That motion is GRANTED. Cuevas argues that the district court erred in denying him a safety-valve reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The district court denied this reduction based on a determinationNo. 99-10343 -2- that Cuevas had not, as of the time of the sentencing hearing, truthfully provided to the Government all the information that he had concerning the offense. There is no clear error in this determination. See United States v. Rodriguez , 60 F.3d 193, 195 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995). Cuevas next argues that he should have received a downward departure based on his age, health, and military service. He contends both that the district court was mistaken in its belief that it lacked authority to depart below the statutory minimum and that the district court erred in refusing to grant the departure. This court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant’s challenge to his sentence based on mere dissatisfaction with the court’s refusal to grant a downward departure, unless the court’s refusal was the result of a violation of law or a misapplication of the Guidelines. United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742). A refusal to depart is a violation of law if the court mistakenly assumed that it lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did state that it lacked the legal authority to depart below the statutory minimum. However, alternatively assuming that this belief was erroneous, the district court also stated as an “independent and alternative” reason for judgment that, assuming it had the authority to grant the departure, it refused to do so in the exercise of its discretion. There is thus no violation of law, and we lackNo. 99-10343 -3- jurisdiction to consider Cuevas’ contention that the district court erred in exercising his discretion to not grant the departure. Accordingly, Cuevas’ sentence is AFFIRMED.
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 plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order

and to Extend the Deadline for Filing Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. # 30, filed 5/15/2012] (the “Motion for Extension”), which is GRANTED as

specified.

The plaintiff asserts that it cannot respond to the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment until after certain depositions; those depositions have not yet been scheduled; and that

“several scheduling conflicts . . . make it difficult to schedule depositions until later this

summer,” necessitating an extension of the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion deadline.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension [Doc. # 30] is GRANTED to the

following extent:

(1) The plaintiff shall respond to Defendant State Farm’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. # 26] on or before August 31, 2012;

(2) The discovery cut-off is extended to and including August 31, 2012. All written

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 31 Filed 05/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

discovery must be served so that responses are due on or before the discovery cut-off; and

(3) The dispositive motion deadline is extended to and including August 31, 2012.

Dated May 17, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 31 Filed 05/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,789
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,834
<DEPRECIATION>                                     635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         54,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,262
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,447
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,224
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    994
<INCOME-TAX>                                       390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Boerne to Bergheim Coalition for Clean 

Environment, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and Vulcan Construction 

Materials, LLC,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00035-CV

Appeal from the

459th District Court

of Travis County, Texas 

(TC# D-1-GN-18-003134)

O R D E R

On January 7, 2021, the Court directed the District Clerk of Travis County to provide a 

supplemental record containing the administrative record in this case. On January 12, 2021 the 

District Clerk advised the Court that Leah Hayes, Court Reporter for the 459th District Court, is 

in possession of the administrative record. 

Because it is not clear whether the court reporter or the District Clerk has current 

possession over the record, and because the Court needs this record to resolve this appeal, we 

therefore order both court reporter Leah Hayes AND the District Clerk to, by February 18, 2021, 

either 1) file the record (if the record is in the party's possession) or 2) to file a written 

explanation of the current status of the record (if the party is not in possession of the record).

Failure to comply with this order may result in further action by this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J., and Ferguson, Judge

(Ferguson, Judge, sitting by assignment)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB

ALVIN MOSCH,

PATRICIA C. MOSCH, and

DAVID K. MOSCH, each individually and d/b/a MOSCH MINING COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN HENRY, a/k/a JOHN T. HENRY a/k/a JOHN L. HENRY,

UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, and any one claiming by or through any

of the named persons,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

 This matter arises on a letter filed by defendant John Henry on January 23, 2012 [Doc.

#55] (the “Letter”). The Letter is STRICKEN.

The Letter is addressed to me, and Mr. Henry does not certify that it has been served on

counsel for the plaintiffs. The local rules of this Court prohibit ex parte communication with

judicial officers:

In the absence of previous authorization, no attorney or party to

any proceeding shall send letters, pleadings or other papers or

copies directly to a judicial officer. Unless otherwise instructed, all

matters to be called to a judicial officer’s attention shall be

submitted through the clerk, with copies served on all other parties

or their attorneys. 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 77.2. 

In addition, copies of papers filed in this court must be served on counsel for all other

parties (or directly on any party acting pro se) in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Rule 5

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 58 Filed 07/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

provides that all pleadings filed after the original complaint and all written motions, notices,

demands, or any similar paper must be served on every party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). “If a party is

represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney . . . .” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5(b). Service upon other parties may be by mail. Id. Proof that service has been made is

provided by a certificate of service. Id. at 5(d). This certificate should be filed along with the

original papers and should show the day and manner of service. Id. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Letter is STRICKEN; and

2. All papers shall be served on counsel for the plaintiffs in accordance with Rule 5 and

shall be accompanied by a proper Certificate of Service.

Dated July 19, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 58 Filed 07/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Community Based Participatory Research.                    

*Date:*                         October 31, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         1 pm to 4 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225,                         *aschulte@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 30, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E8-23599 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2061 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 245
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2061

                          [Report No. 107-102]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2001

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                           November 29, 2001

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of 
                               Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER OF SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY REGARDING 
              BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

    Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act for the relief of the 
Southeastern University of the Young Men's Christian Association of the 
District of Columbia'', approved August 19, 1937 (50 Stat. 697), as 
amended by section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to amend the charter 
of Southeastern University of the District of Columbia'', approved 
October 10, 1966 (80 Stat. 883), is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``, one-third of 
        whom'' and all that follows and inserting a period; and
            (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``elected for a 
        term'' and inserting ``elected by the board for a term''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CURRENT TRUSTEES.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall not affect the term of office 
of any individual serving on the Board of Trustees of Southeastern 
University as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                                       Calendar No. 245

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2061

                          [Report No. 107-102]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of 
                               Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 29, 2001

                       Reported without amendment
```
### NU M BER 13- 09- 0031 0-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ JA IM E A LB ERT O R ODR IGUE Z, A pp ellan t,
v . C A PI TA LO N E, N . A ., A p p el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL awN o. 1 of H ida lgoC ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re Ju st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam The appel lan t' s bri ef in the abov e cause w as due on Jul y 3, 2009. On Oct ober

23, 2009, the Cl er k of t he Cou rt noti fied appel lan t that the br ief had not b een t imel y fil ed and that the a ppeal was subj ectto dis mis sal fo r wan t o f p rosec uti on unde r Tex as Rul e of App ellate Proced ure 38 .8(a)(1), un less w ithin te n da ys f rom t h e d a t e of receipt of

this lette r, appe llant reaso nab ly ex plaine d the failure an d the a ppe llee w as no t sig nif icantly2

inj ured by

the appel lan t' s fai lure to ti mely file a br ief. To date, no respon se has been
re cei v ed from a ppel lan t. Appel lan t hasfail ed to ei ther reason abl y

ex pla in hisfa ilu re t o fil e a b ri ef, file a mo tion for

e xt ensio n of

time to f ile his brief , or f ile his brief . Accordingly , the app eal is DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF PR OSEC UTIO N. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.8( a) , 42. 3( b)

. P E RC U R I A M
Del iv ered and filed the 10th day of Dec ember , 200 9.