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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02457–PAB–KMT

ASHANTI BLACK,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DR. JAMES THALKEN, DDS #15173,

SHARON PHILLIP, Nurse Practioner, and

DR. WORMER, Physician, 

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint (Doc. Nos.

51 and 52, filed September 24, 2012). 

It appears Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add a new defendant, Tom

Clements, who Plaintiff states was mistakenly left out of his original complaint, and also to add

facts regarding the alleged continued failure of the defendants to provide dental care. The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend a pleading by leave of court,

and that leave shall be given freely when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Although the

federal rules permit and require liberal construction and amendment of pleadings, the rules do

not grant the parties unlimited rights of amendment. A motion to amend may be denied on the

grounds of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure

to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party

Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 54 Filed 09/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

178, 182 (1962).

Obviously, the court must be able to review a proposed amendment to a complaint in

order to determine its viability under the applicable law. Plaintiff has failed to submit a copy of

his proposed amended complaint with his motions to amend. The court may deny a motion to

amend a complaint for failure to submit the proposed amendment. See Lambertson v. Utah

Dep’t of Corrs., 79 F.3d 1024, 1029 (10th Cir. 1996) (district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying plaintiff’s motion to amend for failure to provide adequate explanation for delay in

seeking amendment and for failure to provide a copy of the proposed amended pleading). See

also Fleming v. Molloy, Case No. 07-cv-00118-MSK-CBS, 2007 WL 3254389, at *1 (D. Colo.

Oct. 31, 2007)(motion to amend complaint denied for failure to attach proposed amended

complaint.); Bownes v. City of Gary, Indiana, 112 F.R.D. 424, 425 (N. D. Ind.1986) (“common

sense” dictates that a party seeking leave to amend should accompany his motion with a copy of

the proposed amended complaint); Williams v. Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 170 (E.D. Va. 1981)

(where plaintiff sought leave to amend, a copy of the proposed amended pleading must be

attached to the motion). Here, because Plaintiff has not attached a copy of his proposed

amended complaint, it is impossible to determine if the proposed amendments are permissible. 

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. No. 51 and 52) are DENIED

without prejudice. 

Dated this 25th day of September, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 54 Filed 09/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.9.1.3

                                     ANNEX A

                                 Thomas B. Modly

                                Employment Terms

1.   1,250,000 shares of Common Stock.

2.   0 shares of Preferred Stock

3.   a check in the amount of $25,000 and a promissory note in the amount of
     $100,000, representing a total investment

4.   $125,000.

5.   State of Maryland

6.   625,000 shares of Common Stock.

7.   Vice President - Corporate Development

8.   Chief Executive Officer

9.   None

10.  $140,000

11.  120 %

12.  Performance Cause is inapplicable to the Executive.

                                      -1-
Exhibit 32

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      905 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly
Report  on  Form  10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies
with  the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934,  as  amended,  and  the  information  contained  in such report fairly
presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of
operations  of  the  Company.

This 10th day of November, 2004.


/S/ JUDY B. TURNER
-------------------------
Judy B. Turner
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer


<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM

DAMON FOREMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WESTERN FREIGHTWAYS, LLC, and

NEW CENTURY TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to

Conduct Two Additional Depositions [Docket No. 45; Filed November 12, 2012] (the

“Motion”). 

In a prior Minute Order [#37], the Court extended the discovery deadline for the

limited purpose of allowing Defendants to gather additional records and complete Plaintiff’s

deposition. The parties were not permitted to use the extended discovery period to conduct

depositions. See [#37]. 

Plaintiff now seeks leave to conduct two depositions that Plaintiff initially believed

would be unnecessary. Plaintiff explains, however, that in light of testimony provided in two

other depositions, the additional depositions have become necessary. Plaintiff asserts that

Defendants do not oppose this request.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#45] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted

leave to conduct the two depositions prior to the discovery cutoff on November 26, 2012.

Dated: November 13, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02407-MSK-KLM Document 47 Filed 11/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 59613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23946]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy 
Advisory Panel; Correction

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy originally published a document in 
the Federal Register on September 05, 2008, announcing a partially 
closed meeting of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel (SNAP). The 
Department of the Navy published a correction notice in the Federal 
Register on October 1, 2008, announcing a change in the date and 
location of the meeting. The time of the meeting contained in the 
correction notice of October 1, 2008 has now changed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Caroline Simkins-Mullins, 
SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of Program and Process Assessment, 1000 
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, telephone: 703-697-9154.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 01, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-23037, 
make the following changes:
    1. In the first column, on page 57086, correct the DATES caption to 
read as follows:
    ``DATES: The meeting will be held on October 16, 2008 from 9:45 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The morning sessions on Acquisition Structure from 
9:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. will be opened. The afternoon sessions will be 
closed.''
    2. In the first column, on page 57086, correct the ADDRESSES 
caption to read as follows:
    ``ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 1E868, in the 
Pentagon, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350. Public access is 
limited due to the Pentagon Security requirements. Any individual 
wishing to attend the meeting must contact LCDR Cary Knox, USN at 703-
693-0463 or Colonel Simkins-Mullins at 703-697-9154 no later than 
October 9, 2008. Members of the public who do not have Pentagon access 
will be required to provide the following information by October 9, 
2008 in order to obtain a visitor badge: Name, Date of Birth and Social 
Security Number. Public transportation is recommended as public parking 
is not available. Members of the public wishing to attend this meeting 
must enter through the Pentagon Metro Entrance between 9:10 a.m. and 
9:30 a.m. Members of the public will need two forms of identification 
in order to receive a visitors badge and meet their escort. Members of 
the public will be escorted to Room 1E868 to attend the open sessions 
of the Advisory Panel and shall remain with designated escorts at all 
times while on the Pentagon Reservation. Members of the public will be 
escorted back to the Pentagon Metro Entrance at 11:30 a.m.''

    Dated: October 3, 2008.
T. M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal 
Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-23946 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
**Exhibit 99.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the use of our reports dated March 5, 2008 relating to the financial statements of BCE Inc., to the reconciliation of Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP and to BCE Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in theannual report on Form 40-F of BCE Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-12130 on Form F-3 and No. 333-12780, 333-12802 and 333-12804 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 5, 2008 relating to the financial statements of BCE Inc., to thereconciliation of Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP and to BCE Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in the annual report on Form 40-F of BCE Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

| *(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP*                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Deloitte & Touche LLP Independent Registered Chartered Accountants |

* *

 

Montréal, Canada March 5, 2008
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-397V

UNPUBLISHED

GLORIA GUERRERO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 3, 2021

Voluntary dismissal; Order 

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On January 8, 2021, Gloria Guerrero filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2

Petitioner alleged that she suffered a vaccine injury from the influenza vaccination she

received on December 9, 2019. ECF no. 1. On August 30, 2021, Petitioner filed a notice 

of voluntary dismissal.

In light of Petitioner’s “notice of dismissal at any time before service of 

respondent’s report” pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(A), this case is dismissed 

without prejudice. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DALONTE D. FOARD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TODD BAHENSKY, Director; D. WINKLER, 

Correction Officer; HOBBS, Correction 

Officer; and BEAVERNESS, Correction 

Officer;

Defendants.

8:23CV217

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s correspondence dated March 1, 

2024, which the Court liberally construes as a motion to voluntarily dismiss pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Filing No. 21. Rule 41(a) states that a plaintiff may 

dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the 

opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In addition, Rule 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be 

dismissed at the plaintiff’s request “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss this action and Defendants 

have not been served with process. Upon consideration, 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of this action, Filing No. 21, is granted. 

Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. 

2. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum 

and Order.

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 22 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 89
2

Dated this 7th day of August, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00217-JFB-PRSE Doc # 22 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 90
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1429 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the provision of 

technical assistance to small public water systems. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2007 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. 

WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the 

provision of technical assistance to small public water 

systems. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 

4 Section 1442(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 300j–1(e)) is amended in the fifth sentence by 

6 striking ‘‘1997 through 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2008 

7 through 2012’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: June 10, 2004Release dates | 
 Coded tables | 
 Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | 
 PDF (450 KB)
F.227 Investment in Bank Personal Trusts and Estates
   Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates                                                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Description
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2003   Q1
2003   Q2
2003   Q3
2003   Q4
2004   Q1
LineBank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability
	-46.1
	-8.1
	56.6
	-59.9
	-2.4
	-26.3
	-26.6
	-26.4
	-26.4
	-25.5
	29.8
	1Bank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability
	-46.1
	-8.1
	56.6
	-59.9
	-2.4
	-26.3
	-26.6
	-26.4
	-26.4
	-25.5
	29.8
	2
|
|Bank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|Bank personal trusts and estates total financial liabilities liability                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|Release dates | 
Coded tables | 
Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (450 KB)

Statistical releasesHome | Economic research and
dataAccessibility | Contact Us Last update: June 10, 2004
#### Florence J. Starr, Plaintiff, *v.*J. Rankin O’Rourke et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 22, 1957.

*Morris Kessler*for plaintiff.

*Seymour Joseph*for J. Rankin O’Rourke, defendant.

Aron Steuer, J.

Plaintiff sues a stock brokerage firm and one of its employees, the customer’s man who handled her account. The firm has already moved to compel plaintiff to proceed to arbitration in accordance with a written agreement and that motion has been granted. The individual defendant attempted to be included in the adjudication but the Justice hearing the motion determined that the application was not made on his behalf. The application is now so made and in addition the moving party requests that in the event the application is denied the trial of the action as against him be stayed until completion and determination of the arbitration.

The second request, although opposed, is no longer a subject of argument. *(Bartley Bros. Constr. Corp.*v. *National Sur. Corp.,*280 App. Div. 798.) But just what effect the decision of the arbitrators is to have on the suit involving the person not a party to the agreement to arbitrate has been left open, though the plaintiff’s right to continue the action against him has been *647at least questioned. *(Flash*v. *Goldman,*278 App. Div. 829.) Perhaps the answer is to be found in the disposition of the remaining branch of the motion.

The complaint is in the form of three causes of action although in fact there is only one. The burden of it is that plaintiff had an account with defendants, that they assumed responsibility for advising her as to investments and that they negligently or purposely gave her bad advice and further refused to correct the situation on her request. All of the wrongs are alleged to have been committed by the *“*defendants ”. As it affirmatively appears that plaintiff knew she was dealing with the firm as far as her complaint sounds in contract she has no cause of action against the individual defendant who was merely an agent. Insofar as the complaint may sound in tort, if it does, the defendants are joint tort-feasors. Any action in regard to the one inures to the benefit of the other. Hence it has been held that despite jurisdictional technicalities a suit against both should be entertained in the forum to which one has a right to resort. *(Norwalk*v. *Air-Way Elec. Appliance Corp.,*87 F. 2d 317.) Plaintiff has not been able to resist arbitration as the forum in the suit against the firm. Separate forums may result in varying decisions, discreditable to the administration of justice. For these reasons the entire claim should not be severed and the petition allowed.

Motion granted.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

592 

KA 10-02511 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JULIAN JENKINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LINDA GEHRON, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John

J. Brunetti, A.J.), entered August 17, 2010 pursuant to the 2009 Drug

Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be

resentenced upon defendant’s 2005 conviction of criminal possession of

a controlled substance in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme

Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the

following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his

application for resentencing under the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act (CPL

440.46). We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in

determining that he was ineligible for resentencing because he had

previously been released on parole and at the time of his application

was reincarcerated for violating his parole (see People v Paulin, ___

NY3d ___ [June 28, 2011]). Further, because defendant was

incarcerated at the time of his application, the fact that he was

subsequently re-released on parole does not render his application

moot (see People v Santiago, ___ NY3d ___ [June 28, 2011]). We

therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for

further proceedings on defendant’s application for resentencing

pursuant to CPL 440.46. 

Entered: August 19, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

133224-5 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. HELEN CARGAS, Individually and as Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of PERRY Justices CARGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133224-5 COA: 263869; 263870 Oakland CC: 01-007603-AV GLENN BEDNARSH and MICHAEL ESSHAKI, d/b/a MEL’S DINER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1022 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.

October 29, 2007

Clerk