alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7499

RALPH EDWARD RHODES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

REUBEN PENA, Unit Manager, MOCC, Box 582, Mt.

Olive, WV 25185; WILLIAM FITZWATER, Correctional Officer, MOCC, Box 582, Mt. Olive, WV

25185; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ELLANIE, MOCC, Box

582, Mt. Olive, WV 25185; GEORGE TRENT,

Warden, MOCC, Box 582, Mt. Olive, WV 25185;

WILLIAM DAVIS, Commissioner, West Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-98-927-5)

Submitted: January 10, 2002 Decided: January 18, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Ralph Edward Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se. Charles R. Bailey, John

Thomas Molleur, BAILEY & WYANT, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Leslie K. Tyree, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ralph Edward Rhodes appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. To

the extent Rhodes appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment, we

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

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

Rhodes v. Pena, No. CA-98-927-5 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2001). To the

extent Rhodes seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his

request for appointment of counsel, we find no abuse of discretion

by the district court. 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
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending May 3, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodESB BANCORP MHC                                                                                                         * 3A1
#### AREX INDEMNITY v. HERMAN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### Isaac HANEY v. Gladys DUNN.

No. 3802.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1954.

*902Nealon Stracener, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Homer J. Belanger, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

ELLIS, Judge.

This case was considered on a previous appeal which resulted in a decree by this court remanding it to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge for the reception of evidence as to the value of the real estate in controversy, and it was further ordered that the record herein plus the additional testimony be returned to this court within sixty days from the finality of this decree. 71 So.2d 363. An extension was granted in which to complete the taking of the testimony, and the record together with the testimony as to the value of the property is now before us again.

The testimony of the two expert witnesses as to the value of the real estate and improvements shows it to be approximately $6,500. Both witnesses value the 53.38 acres of land at $50 per acre and the improvements consisting of two houses at $4,000. It is clear that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and not this court.

It is therefore ordered that this case be transferred to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the finality of this decree, otherwise the appeal will be dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01982-LTB

BYRON KYLE GAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY ROJAS,

KRIS KRONCKE,

JOHN DOE (Police Officer) #1,

JOHN DOE (Police Officer) #2,

JOHN DOE (Police Officer) #3,

JOHN DOE (Police Officer) #4,

JOHN DOE (Police Officer) #5, and

OTHERS TO BE NAMED LATER,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Correct Misapprehended Facts by the Court Pursuant to

Fed. R. Evidence Article I, Article IX and Article XI” (Doc. #11) filed October 14, 2011, is

DENIED.

Dated: October 17, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01982-LTB Document 12 Filed 10/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.28

**Summary of Director Compensation Policies****(As of February 10, 2006)**

Retainers and Fees.  Non employee directors serving on the board of directors of West Coast Bancorp (“Bancorp”) are paid annual retainers for board service and meeting fees.  Directors who are employees of Bancorp or the Bank receive no fees for their services as a director.

The chairman of the board of directors receives annual cash compensation of $38,000 per year, the chairman of the audit & compliance committee receives $32,000 per year, and each other committee chair receives $26,000 per year.  All other directors receive annual cash compensation of $20,000.

All directors also receive $300 for each committee meeting that they attend (whether as a member of a committee or at the request of a committee).  Directors who also serve on the board of directors of Bancorp’s subsidiary, West Coast Trust Company, Inc. (“West Coast Trust”), also receive $300 for each meeting of the board of directors of West Coast Trust.  The chairman of the West Coast Trust board receives an additional $1,000 per year. 

In addition, members of the Company’s audit & compliance committee receive $300 for attending meetings with the committee’s chairman, the Company’s management, and/or the Company’s independent auditors for analysis, review, and discussion of the Company’s quarterly earnings releases, Form 10 Ks and 10 Qs, and related matters.

Equity Incentive Awards.  Directors are entitled to participate in Bancorp’s 2002 Stock Incentive Plan.  Recent practice has been to grant all directors a fully vested option to purchase shares of Bancorp’s common stock on an annual basis and to make periodic restricted stock grants to directors.  In 2005, each director was granted a fully vested option to purchase 2,050 shares with an exercise price equal to the market price on the date of grant.  Each director was also granted 700 shares of restricted stock vesting in a single installment on the first anniversary of the date of grant.  Whether to grant awards, the type of award, the number of shares to be granted each year, and the terms of each award are at the discretion of Bancorp’s board of directors.

Reimbursement and Fees for Attendance at Director Education Programs.  Directors are entitled to payment or reimbursement of all out of pocket costs of attendance at approved director education programs.  In addition, Bancorp will compensate directors for time spent at education programs at a rate of $200 per day (or partial day) spent at an approved program. 

Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.  Non employee directors are also entitled to participate in Bancorp’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (“Directors’ DCP”).  Under the Directors’ DCP, directors may elect to defer payment of some or all of their directors’ fees.  Contributions are transferred to a so called “rabbi trust” and may be invested in a number of investment funds or in Bancorp common stock.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58684-58685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23607]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

[OMB Control No. 3206-0206; Form RI 25-37]


Submission for OMB Review; Request for Comments on a Revised 
Information Collection

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information 
collection. This information collection, ``Evidence to Prove Dependency 
of a Child'' (OMB Control No. 3206-0206; form RI 25-37), is designed to 
collect sufficient information for OPM to determine whether the 
surviving child of a deceased federal employee is eligible to receive 
benefits as a dependent child.
    Approximately 250 forms are completed annually. We estimate it 
takes approximately 60 minutes to assemble the needed documentation.

[[Page 58685]]

The annual estimated burden is 250 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Margaret A. Miller by 
telephone at (202) 606-2699, by FAX at (202) 418-3251, or by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1ecc0d3c6c0d3c4d58fecc8cdcdc4d3e1ced1cc8fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98d5f9eafff9eafdecb6d5f1f4f4fdead8f7e8f5b6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include your mailing address with your 
request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days of the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to: Ronald W. Melton, Deputy 
Assistant Director, Retirement Services Program, Center for Retirement 
and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E 
Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500, and John W. 
Barkhamer, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 
Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW.,--Room 4H28, Washington, DC 
20415, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Howard Weizmann,
Deputy Director.
 [FR Doc. E8-23607 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No.: 11-PO-00136-DLW 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. WASH KMUSH BUCKSKIN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

The Defendant was arrested on a Warrant due to Violation of Probation. After an appearance

before the Magistrate Judge on July 11, 2012, it was determined that due to the time the Defendant

had already spent in custody he had served the maximum amount of time for this offense, therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s probation is terminated and that he be

immediately released from custody of the U. S. Marshal’s Service.

DATED: July 11, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 22 Filed 07/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### BRANDAO v. BISSO.

No. 14115.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 27, 1932.

Leslie P. Beard and Chester A. Peyronnin, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Prowell, McBride & Ray, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

Brandao seeks to recover from Bisso $117.-50 to reimburse him for the cost of repairing damages sustained by his automobile when, at the corner of Upperline and Dryades streets, there was a collision between the Brandao automobile and that of Bisso.

Braitdao was driving down Dryades street and Bisso was on his way out Upper-line street towards the lake. Bisso approached the intersection from Brandao’s right, and therefore, under the provisions of the traffic ordinance of the city of New Orleans, No. 7490, C. C. S., he was entitled to the right of way to cross the intersection, unless Brandao’s car had, at the time at which Bisso arrived at the intersection, already entered and pre-empted it.

The judge of the court a Qua believed that Bisso should have seen that Brandao’s car had already entered the intersection and should have stopped his car, and judgment was therefore rendered for Brandao as prayed for.

We cannot agree that the evidence shows that when Bisso reached the corner Brandao had preceded him. The point at which the impact occurred was the lower lake corner of the intersection which, in itself, shows that each car had traversed about two-thirds of the distance across, and, while Bisso’s car may have struck the other car a few feet back of the foremost part of the latter, the respective fronts of the two cars were so near together that it can fairly be said that neither had actually gained a position which entitled it to the right to proceed.

We believe that it appears from the evidence that Brandao’s car entered the inter-, section at a higher speed than did the other, and from this it follows that, had it entered the danger zone at a time substantially sooner than did the other, it would have completed the crossing before the other car could strike it, since it was going faster. Therefore, from the fact that a collision occurred, we infer that, if Brandao’s car entered the intersection sooner than did the Bisso car, there was not more than a fraction of a second's difference between its entry and that of Bisso. . The latter had the right of way and was entitled to proceed, and he did not lose that right of way by reason of the fact that the other may have entered the danger zone a fraction of a second ahead of him.

The judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed, at his cost.

Reversed.
ん 蘊

眼 ∫∫D STATESOFAMEК AGRANЮ R m嶼 E DALTON ASィ レ

キ

|」

C市l Action No.

UNI「ED STATES OF AMEttCへ 皿 VIIIlullIII III 皿 III VIIIIII ‖III ::::880

2011075506 LP

Plaintl]l o8ノ 18/201l o2104:34 PM 2 Page〈 s)

」effersOn county′ cotorado

V  ́ ‐ ‐ ~

927 COLE STREET,GOLDEN,COLORADO,and

2∞8 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER VIN#JTEES42A182076495;

Dcfcndants

NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

NAME OF RECORD TITLE OWNE& Marie Dalton

Notice is hereby giveu ofthe pendcncy ofa civil action brought by the piaintitragaimt

the below described rcal pmperty by a verified compiaint of forfeiture fi.lcd with the Clerk ofthc

United States Distict Court for thc Distict ofColorado, which action was hrrought for the

forfeitwe ofthe defendad real property pursuaat to t8 U.S.C. S 98f.

The property which is the subject ofthis action is located at 927 Cole ShE€t, Golde!,

Colorado, more particululy desctibed as:

Parcel B, Exemption Suwey Section 6, Tomship 4 South, Range 69 Wes! El 8-3-93

according to the Exemption Survry Recorded Jrme d 1993 at Reception No.

930796114 in Book I 13 at Pagc 26, County ofJefferson, State ofcolorado.

- 1

Case l:11く、

「

02106 PAB― CBS tSEALED☆ D9fttnt4剛ed 08/11ノ 1l USDC Cdorado Page

 ́^a

N THE UNIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

: GOヒ長1罷「評

NT

言__型墜_

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 78-12 filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado pg 1

of 2
" .3 dSel:11‐

cv_o2106‐ PAB―CBS tSEALED・ 0叩 nt 4 F‖ ed 08ノ 11ノ1l USDC Colorado Page

For further information conceming the action for forfeiture, reference may be made to the

records of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Distriot of Colorzdo, 901

196 Stre€t, Denver, Colorado 8A294.

DATED this 1 16 day of Augrst, 201 1.

Respectftrlly submitted,

ERIC HOLDER

AttomeyGeneral of the United States

BARRY R. GRISSOM

. 

United States Attorney

/s/Richard L. Hathawav

RICHARD L. HATHAWAY #07767

Special Attomey

4445.E. Quincy, Suite 290

Topeka, KS 66683-3592

Tel: 785-295-2850

Fax:785-295-2853

rich.hatte wav@gsdo i. eov

/s/Christine E. Kennev

CHRISTINE E. KENNEY #13542

Special Attorney

christine-kennev@usdoi - gov

多

2

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 78-12 filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado pg 2

of 2
|Exhibit 32.1                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to
|Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002                          

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cannabis Science, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. Dorothy Bray, Chief Executive 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; and                               
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Dr. Dorothy BrayDr. Dorothy BrayChief Executive Officer

November 20, 2013





|
|
|
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 65 Filed 07/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Shuffle Master, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K, asamended, for the year ended October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark L. Yoseloff,Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, certify, pursuant to section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 2, 2003                          |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| /s/ Mark L. Yoseloff                             |   |
| Mark L. Yoseloff                                 |
| Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS 

KATHRYN KIPLING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota 

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 

Defendant. 

MINUTE ORDER

Entered By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang 

 This civil action comes before the court on the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to 

File Motions for Summary Judgment in Excess of Page Limit (the “Motion”). [#147, filed May 

20, 2015]. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion [#147] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed 

to accept [#147-1] through [#147-16] for filing as Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 

exhibits thereto. 

 

DATED: May 22, 2015 

 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 148 Filed 05/22/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22883]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-832]


Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Extension of 
Time for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

Effective Date: September 29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478.

Background

    On June 9, 2008, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published the preliminary results of review for the period May 1, 2006, 
through April 30, 2007. See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 32549 (June 9, 2008). The final results of review are 
currently due no later than October 7, 2008.

Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Review

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to issue final results within 120 days 
after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, 
if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time 
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend 
the time period to a maximum of 180 days. Completion of the final 
results of the administrative review within the 120-day period is not 
practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze 
new surrogate value information, to analyze case and rebuttal briefs, 
and to hold a public hearing.
    Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for 
issuing the final results of the administrative review to 180 days, 
until December 6, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act. Because December 6, 2008 falls on a Saturday, the new deadline for 
the final results will be the next business day, Monday, December 8, 
2008. We are publishing this notice pursuant to sections 751(a) and 
777(i) of the Act.

     Dated: September 19, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-22883 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P