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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01952-PAB

GRENADA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RACHEL S. GRYNBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Notice to Garnishee, Application of

Funds to Judgment, and Release of Funds to Judgment Creditor, and Attached Writ of

Execution [Docket No. 11]. The Court having reviewed plaintiff’s submissions, it is

ORDERED that the Notice to Garnishee, Application of Funds to Judgment, and

Release of Funds to Judgment Creditor is approved. It is further

ORDERED that the Writ of Execution be executed upon Garnishee. It is further

ORDERED that the Motion to Provide a Status Report [Docket No. 14] is denied

as moot.

DATED October 6, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01952-PAB Document 16 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3791

___________ Devon Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Quality Furniture, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 2, 2001 Filed: April 27, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Devon Smith appeals following the district court’s 1 grant of judgment as a matter of law to his former employer in his employment-discrimination action. Having reviewed the record (including the trial transcript) and the parties’ appellate submissions, we affirm.
We conclude first that the district court properly dismissed Smith’s claim ofsystemic discrimination as not administratively exhausted. See Williams v. Little Rock

Mun. Water Works , 21 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir. 1994) (prior to filing federal lawsuit, Title VII plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing timely Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission charge and receiving notice of right to sue; plaintiff will be deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies as to allegations that are like or reasonably related to substance of charge). We further conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s (1) motion for appointed counsel, see Stevens v. Redwing , 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998); (2) motion for continuance, see Myers v. Norfolk Livestock Mkt., Inc. , 696 F.2d 555, 557-58 (8th Cir. 1982); (3) request to subpoena a nonparty’s cellular telephone records, see United States v. Oates , 173 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 890 (1999); or (4) oral request during trial to subpoena witnesses, see id. ; E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(C)(1). Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s exclusion of certain hearsay testimony. See Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co. , 128 F.3d 1267, 1270 (8th Cir. 1997).
To the extent that Smith contends the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to Quality Furniture on his discrimination claim, we reject this argument as meritless. See Clearwater v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 166 , 231 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (8th Cir. 2000) (direct evidence of discrimination requires showing that actual motive behind termination was racial animus, and indirect evidence requires showing that members of other racial groups were treated more favorably); Hawkins v. City of Farmington , 189 F.3d 695, 700-01 (8th Cir. 1999) (de novo standard of review). Finally, we deny Smith’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHAWN JONES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 786 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 28, 2009

s1021 

# Order

October 28, 2009

139112

KENSINGTON HEIGHTS COOPERATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139112 COA: 289817 Oakland CC: 2008-008807-AV PATRICIA OROZCO, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 12, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE th e judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the district court’s April 14, 2008 order granting a default and default judgment. In granting the plai ntiff’s motion to compel discovery, the district court placed
the defendant on notice that she was subject to a default judgment for failu re to comply with the discovery request. Such a sanction was reasonable given the facts of this case and the defendant’s repeated failure to comply with discovery requests. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the default judg ment for the plaintiff.
February 9, 2015 

Via Electronic Filing: 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle 

Clerk, Third Court of Appeals 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, TX 78711 

RE: Cause No. 03-14-00397-CV

Appellant, American Multi-Cinema, Inc. // Cross-Appellants, Glenn Hegar, 

Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney 

General of the State of Texas 

v.

Appellees, Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, 

and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas // Cross-Appellee, 

American Multi-Cinema, Inc. 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, American-Multi Cinema, Inc. received your 

correspondence advising the parties that submission and oral argument in the above 

referenced appeal has been set for March 11, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Please be advised that 

I intend to argue this matter before the Court. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Doug Sigel 

Counsel for American Multi-Cinema, Inc. 

Cc: Charles Eldred (Charles.Eldred@texasattorneygeneral.gov) 

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 950 | Austin, Texas 78701 | 512.459.6600 Main | 512.459.6601 Fax

www.ryanlawllp.com 

DOUG SIGEL

Partner

Direct Dial: 512.459.6611

E-Mail: Doug.Sigel@ryanlawllp.com

ACCEPTED

03-14-00397-CV

4069934

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

2/9/2015 11:21:57 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/9/2015 11:21:57 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
#### DEFILICE v. AUTIN.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1933.

For former opinion, see 149 So. 889.

Harvey Peltier and Hubert A. Lafargue, both of Thibodaux, for appellant.

Howell & Deramee, of Thibodaux, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Our attention is directed. on rehearing to the fact that the extract of the minutes of court which show that an order of appeal was granted in open court was inadvertently omitted from the record.

Pretermitting the question as to whose fault the omission should be attributed, we have decided to recall our previous order dismissing the appeal herein and reinstate the case on the docket of the court for further argument so that it can be heard before the whole court, one of the judges having been absent at the last hearing.

For the foregoing reasons it is ordered that the judgment herein rendered dismissing the appeal of date October 5th, be and the same is hereby avoided, set aside and annulled, and it is further ordered that this case be reinstated on the docket of this court for further hearing and argument at the court’s next session at Thibodaux, La.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Annual Report of Key Tronic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald F. Klawitter, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:  September 19, 2003



/s/ Ronald F. KlawitterRonald F. KlawitterExecutive Vice President of Administration,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02503-BNB

JAMES DENMAN,

Applicant,

v.

THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

Respondents.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #18), filed

on December 5, 2011, is denied.

 

Dated: December 6, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02503-LTB Document 20 Filed 12/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 8, 2008, National 
Center for Natural Products Research--NIDA MProject, University of 
Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Complex, University, Mississippi 38677, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedule I:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana (7360)...........................  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute 
on Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 
CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail 
should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register 
Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 
22152; and must be filed no later than December 8, 2008.

    Dated: October 2, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-23816 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-
70917 and 333-61202 on Form S-8 of our report dated August 3, 2001 (August 24,
2001 as to Note 5) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Key Tronic
Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) for the year ended June 30, 2001.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of June
30, 2001 and July 1, 2000 and July 3, 1999, and for each of the three years in
the period ended June 30, 2001 and have issued our report thereon dated August
3, 2001 (August 24, 2001 as to Note 5) such report is included elsewhere in this
Form 10-K. Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement
schedule of the Company, listed in Item 14(A). This financial statement schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management.

Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,
such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly,
in all material respects the information set forth therein.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Seattle, Washington
September 5, 2001
| Name of Subsidiary                                                               |         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                                                                  |         |
| Shuffle Master International, Inc.                                                    | Nevada       |
| Shuffle Master Australia Pty Ltd.                                                | Australia    |
| Gaming Products Pty., Ltd.                                                            | Australia    |
| VIP Gaming Solutions Pty Limited                                                 | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd                                      | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Australasia Group Pty Ltd*                                             | Australia    |
| Shuffle Master Holding GmbH                                                           | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master Management-Service GmbH                                                | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master GmbH                                                                   | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master Holding GmbH & Co Finanzierungsberatungs-KEG             | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master GmbH & Co KG (dba Shuffle Master Europe) (aka CARD) | Austria      |
| Shuffle Master Asia Limited                                                           | Macau        |
| Stargames Pty Ltd (subsidiaries listed below)                                         | Australia    |
| CARD Shuffle Master Investments (Proprietary) Limited                                 | South Africa |
| Shuffle Master Mexico                                                                 | Mexico       |
| Shuffle Master Servicios                                                              | Mexico       |
|                                                                                  |         |

| Name of Subsidiary                           |        | Jurisdiction of Incorporation  |
|---------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------|
| Stargames Group Management Pty Limited**          | Australia   |
| Stargames Holdings Pty Limited                    | Australia   |
| Stargames Australia Pty Limited**                 | Australia   |
| Stargames Investments Pty Limited**               | Australia   |
| Shuffle Master Australasia Pty Limited*           | Australia   |
| Precise Craft Pty Limited**                       | Australia   |
| Stargames Property Pty Limited                    | Australia   |
| Australasia Gaming Industries Pty Limited**       | Australia   |
| Stargames Assets Pty Limited                      | Australia   |
| Shuffle Master Australasia (NZ) Pty Limited* | New Zealand |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128092-93 & (111)(116) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128092-93 

 COA: 248247, 253337 

Washtenaw CC: 01-002001-FC 

MICHAEL DARNELL HARRIS, a/k/a 01-002003-FC 

MALCOLM HAKEEM ABDUL ALI, a/k/a

MICHAEL STIGGLES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Defendant’s 

motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for remand for an 

evidentiary hearing is also DENIED. 

t1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
Exhibit
      32.1











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 Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Mitchell Gross, 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:





(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.






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











/s/
      Mitchell
      Gross


Mitchell
      Gross


Chief
      Executive Officer


February
      8, 2007
Exhibit 31.2
I, Garry Kline, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Radyne ComStream Inc;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisannual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisannual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: March 16, 2004
/s/ Garry KlineGarry Kline, Interim Chief Financial Officer