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-01954-BNB UNTER EVER, COLORADO
CORNELIUS MOORE, SEP 13 201!
Plaintiff, GREGORY C. LANGHAM
CLERK

Vv.

ADAMS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,
MS. DIANE, Medical Supervisor,

JANE DOE, SUZANNE, Acting Lieutenant,
ADAMS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY,
JOHN DOE, Adams County Sheriff,
ROBYN, NURSE,

JOHN DOE, Doctor,

MR. JIM, Nurse Practitioner,

JANE DOE, Doctor, and

JOHN DOE, Doctor,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 28, 2011, Plaintiff, Cornelius Moore, acting pro se, submitted a civil
complaint. Mr. Moore, at the time he initiated the instant action, was detained at the
Adams County Detention Facility in Brighton, Colorado.

On August 4, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order
instructing Mr. Moore to file his claims on a Court-approved form used in filing prisoner
complaints. Magistrate Judge Boland further instructed Mr. Moore either to pay the
$350.00 filing fee in full or in the alternative to submit a request to proceed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915 on a proper Court-approved form. Mr. Moore also was directed to

submit a certified trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately


preceding the filing of this action and was warned that the action would be dismissed
without further notice if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days.

The August 4 Order to Cure was returned to the Court on August 10, 2011, and
the envelope in which the Order was sent to Mr. Moore was marked “RETURN TO
SENDER REFUSED UNABLE TO FORWARD” and “RETURN TO SENDER Addressee
No Longer at this Address.” Rule 10.1M. of the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado-Civil states that a party must file a
notice of a new address within five days of any change of address. Nonetheless, Mr.
Moore now has failed to communicate with the Court, and as a result he has failed to
cure the deficiencies within the time allowed. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiencies and for failure to
prosecute.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this _13"_ day of _ September , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Judge
United States District Court


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01954-BNB
Cornelius Moore
Prisoner No. 11-6812
Adams County Detention Facility
PO Box 5001
Brighton, CO 80601

| hereby certify that | have mailed a copy of the ORDER and JUDGMENT to the
above-named individuals on September 13, 2011.

GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK

Deputy Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02409-CMA-MJW

THERMAPURE, INC.,a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DISASTER RESTORATION, INC., a Colorado corporation, 

RESTORATION LOGISTICS, INC., a Colorado entity and 

DURACLEAN MASTER CLEANERS, INC., a Colorado corporation,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order Granting Motion for Order Enforcing Settlement

Agreement and Entry of Judgment of Judge Christine M. Arguello entered on January

27, 2015 it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff Thermapure In, recover from the Defendant Disaster

Restoration, Inc., Restoration Logistics, Inc., and Duraclean Master Cleaners, Inc., the

amount of $34,019.34. Post-judgment interest at the rate of 3.25% percent per annum.

Case 1:11-cv-02409-CMA-MJW Document 24 Filed 01/28/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 28th day of January, 2015.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/ Sandra Hartmann

Sandra Hartmann

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02409-CMA-MJW Document 24 Filed 01/28/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-mj-01145-MJW Document 11 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
174 La. 899

#### WITBECK v. WITBECK.

No. 30993.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 1932.

Cook & Cook, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Foster, Hall, Barret & Smith and W. H. Sebeen, all of Shreveport, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

The plaintiff and defendant were married some time prior to 1929. During that year the plaintiff obtained a judgment against her husband decreeing a separation from bed and board, a dissolution and partition of the community of acquets and gains existing between them, and awarding the plaintiff the custody of a minor child, the issue of the marriage.

This suit is based upon the judgment of separation, and is for an absolute divorce. The defendant excepted to the suit upon the ground that the petition does not allege a cause of action. After a hearing thereon, the defendant’s exception was maintained, the suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment.

 The appellee has not answered the appeal nor made an appearance in this court, but the appellant has filed in the record, and has had the ease submitted upon the following formal acquiescence in the judgment appealed from, viz.:

“Now into court, through undersigned counsel, comes Mrs. May B. Witbeek, plaintiff, appellant, and respectfully shows:

“That she concurs in the judgment rendered herein by the First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and that she desires that a judgment of affirmance be entered against her, and that the costs of the appeal be taxed against her. Wherefore, she prays that the judgment of the Lower Court be affirmed, at her cost.”

It appears that the appellee was served with a copy of the foregoing acquiescence in the judgment, was given timely notice of the assignment of the case, and has made no objection to the proposed disposal of it.

This is not an application for the withdrawal of an appeal, but one in which the appellant submits the case on the record, and prays for an affirmance of the judgment. Code Prac. art. 901, does not apply to such a case.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02527-DME-KMT

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff,

v.

BROCK USA LLC, and 

THE CITY OF COQUITLAM,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order Granting Joint Motion For Entry Of Final Judgment [Docket

No. 97] of Senior Circuit Judge David M. Ebel entered on October 15, 2013 it is

ORDERED that the Joint Motion For Entry Of Final Judgment [Docket No. 96] is

GRANTED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Orders reflected in Docket Nos. 79 and 91 resolves

the claims and counterclaims presented to the Court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the above-referenced Orders are

reversed and remanded to this Court, the parties will be allowed to pursue all claims,

counterclaims and defenses asserted in this matter prior to the entry of this Final

Judgment, consistent with the remand order and the issues presented by the parties on

appeal. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 98 Filed 10/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment shall enter in favor of Plaintiff,

Colorado Casualty Insurance Company and against the Defendants Brock USA LLC

and The City of Coquitlam.

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff is AWARDED costs, to be taxed by the

Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 16th day of October, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

s/Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 98 Filed 10/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
No. 72-6257.

#### Mitchell *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         814,908
<SECURITIES>                                 1,490,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,433,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,684
<INVENTORY>                                  3,772,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,679,405
<PP&E>                                      12,602,155
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,358,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,300,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,246,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,570
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,742,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,300,896
<SALES>                                     19,288,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,288,537
<CGS>                                        9,286,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,286,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,075,377
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,938,651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (685,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,253,651)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,253,651)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)


</TABLE>
#### In re BEYOND the VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.

No. 9230.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

July 28, 1972.

Rolland L. Comstock, Springfield, for appellant.

Barnes Griffith, Pros. Atty., Greenfield, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The transcript on appeal was timely filed on March 11, 1972. Rule 81.18.1 Appellant was required by Rule 84.05(a) to file his brief “within 60 days after the date on which the transcript on appeal [was] filed,” or no later than May 10, 1972, but he did not do so. On July 26, 1972 (137 days after the transcript was filed and 77 days after his brief was due), appellant filed a motion for leave to file his brief “en retard.” The pleading states that a seasonable motion was not filed and a timely brief was not presented because “both client and counsel, . . . [were] trying to determine whether or not the cost of appeal and the burden of the court were outweighed by the justice to be served to the individual and to the community by the Appellant asserting his right.”

Rule 44.01(b) provides that this court may, “in its discretion,” enlarge the time within which an act may be done if the failure to timely do so “was the result of excusable neglect.” On the other hand, Rule 84.08 “requires us to dismiss [appellant’s] appeal for failure to comply with [Rule 84.05] unless there is a showing that justice requires otherwise.” Lane v. Katt, Mo.App., 421 S.W.2d 544, 546(5).

The Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to accelerate litigation— they do not permit appellants to decide ex parte at what times, if ever, they will function to perform the various processes involved in an appeal. Kattering v. Franz, 360 Mo. 854, 857, 231 S.W.2d 148, 149. Courts do not “relegate themselves to limbo in anticipation that a vagary of a litigant may somehow move him towards terminating the litigation at hand” (World Franchisers, Inc. v. Birk, Mo.App., 456 S.W.2d 606, 607); neither do courts seek repose awaiting an appellant’s determination as to whether there is sufficient merit vel non in his cause to justify expenditure of the money and effort necessary to perfect an appeal. We have been tardily asked to exercise our discretion for reasons that do not demonstrate excusable neglect, and since there is no showing that justice requires otherwise, appellant’s motion is denied and the appeal herein is ordered dismissed.

All concur.

1

. References to rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Y.A.M.R.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          32,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,762,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                   339,744
<INVENTORY>                                 10,087,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,900,476
<PP&E>                                      10,056,335
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,539,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,667,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,425,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,471
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,365,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,667,762
<SALES>                                     44,688,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,688,775
<CGS>                                       27,580,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,580,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,526,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,656,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (181,096)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (229,715)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
#### JOSEPH F. EGAN, APPELLANT, v. LA FERA CONTRACTING CO., INC., ETC., RESPONDENT.

Argued October 22, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

*573For the appellant, *Abraham M. Herman.*

Pot the respondent, *Budd & Lamer (Samuel A. Lamer,*of counsel).

*574Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
EXHIBIT 32.02



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of iGate
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Zugay, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (Section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (Section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL ZUGAY                                           
|Michael Zugay Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



May 10, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

                             CAMPBELL RESOURCES INC.
                            SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
                                December 31, 2004


The following significant subsidiaries are consolidated in the financial
statements submitted as a part of this report:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Jurisdiction of           Percentage of Voting
                                                                     Incorporation              Securities Owned
                                                                     -------------              ----------------
<S>                                                               <C>                       <C>
Controlled by Campbell Resources Inc.:
         Meston Resources Inc.                                          Quebec                        100%
         MSV Resources Inc.                                             Quebec                        100%
         GeoNova Explorations Inc.                                      Canada                        100%
         Sotula Gold Corporation Inc.                                   Canada                        100%

Controlled by Meston Resources Inc.
         Meston Investments Limited                                 Cayman Islands                    100%

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-01974-JLK Document 2 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01974-JLK Document 2 Filed 08/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#206) on January 29, 2013, by Defendant John Phillip Gallegos. The Court construes this

Notice as a motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’

plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for February 11, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for May 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for March 14, 2013, and the March 18,

2013, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 29th day of January, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CLAYTON HOMES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,680
<SECURITIES>                                    19,047
<RECEIVABLES>                                  716,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,541
<INVENTORY>                                    184,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         373,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,417,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,579
<BONDS>                                         96,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,237
<OTHER-SE>                                     933,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,417,245
<SALES>                                      1,040,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,344,283
<CGS>                                          705,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,072,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                245,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                    91,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   154,968
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06


</TABLE>