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

______________________________________________________________________________

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and

against the defendant in the amount of $4,480,948.60. Although I announced that I would direct

the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment based on the verdict, I am informed that there may be

certain sums to be offset against the verdict. See Pretrial Order [Doc. # 73] at Part 9.

IT IS ORDERED that on or before May 24, 2013, the parties shall file a status report

addressing the issue of any offsets and the amount of the judgment which should be entered.

Dated May 16, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 97 Filed 05/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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 following:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Testimony of Her Step-Children

[Doc. # 77, filed 4/3/2013] (the “First Motion in Limine”);

(2) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion In Limine Regarding Her Present Financial

Condition [Doc. # 78, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Second Motion In Limine”);

(3) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion In Limine Regarding Other Sums Received By

Plaintiff [Doc. # 79, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Third Motion In Limine”);

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Her Subsequent Relationship With

Michael McCasky [Doc. # 80, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Fourth Motion In Limine”); and

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Quicksilver Evidence [Doc. # 82,

filed 4/18/2013] (the “Fifth Motion In Limine”).

I held a hearing on the motions in limine this morning and made rulings on the record,

which are incorporated here. 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 91 Filed 05/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The First Motion In Limine [Doc. # 77] is GRANTED to preclude examination

concerning disputes the step-children “claim to have had with Plaintiff since their father’s death,

including disputes regarding life-insurance proceeds and access to personal property kept at the

marital home,” and DENIED in all other respects. In particular, the step-children may testify

concerning the plaintiff’s claim to physical and emotional injuries;

(2) The Second Motion In Limine [Doc. # 78] is DENIED without prejudice. The

defendant may inquire about the plaintiff’s financial condition in the event she opens the door to

such inquiry. Otherwise, the objection may be interposed at trial, if appropriate and necessary;

(3) The Third Motion In Limine [Doc. # 79] is DENIED without prejudice. The

defendant may inquire about other sums received by the plaintiff and her financial condition in

the event she opens the door to such inquiry. Otherwise, the objection may be interposed at trial,

if appropriate and necessary;

(4) The Fourth Motion In Limine [Doc. # 80] is DENIED; and

(5) The Fifth Motion In Limine [Doc. # 82] is GRANTED.

Dated May 2, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 91 Filed 05/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Charles Dennis SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45745.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1972.

*785Harvey Hartman, Houston (on appeal), for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and William O. Olsen, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from an order revoking probation.

On November 30, 1970, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: marihuana. The trial court found him guilty of such offense and assessed his punishment at five years, probated. One of the terms and conditions of probation was that he “commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or the United States.”

On September 27, 1971, motion to revoke appellant’s probation was filed alleging that he did, on or about the 4th day of May, 1971, commit the offense of felony theft.

On December 6, 1971, a hearing was held on the motion and appellant contends that the evidence adduced at such hearing was insufficient to support the motion to revoke his probation, hence an abuse of discretion by the trial judge was exercised in relying upon such evidence.

The evidence shows that an automobile was stolen from a parking lot in Houston on May 4, 1971. On May 5, 1971, appellant was seen by Witness Meineke driving that automobile in Highlands, Texas. Later that same date (May 5, 1971) Witness Meineke saw him removing the front wheels from the car. He told the witness that the car belonged to him. Upon inquiry as to why he was removing the front wheels, appellant replied that he was “hocking” them to get a buddy out of jail.

Appellant’s unexplained possession1 of recently stolen property is sufficient to support the revocation. No abuse of discretion has been shown.2

The order revoking probation is affirmed.

1

. We do not consider the statement to the witness a sufficient explanation.

2

. The record reflects that a motion for bond reduction was filed in the trial court during the pendency of this appeal. The trial court denied the motion and no error is shown by such ruling. In any event, the matter is now moot in light of our disposition of the case.
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 September 30, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SPALDING HOLDINGS CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE IS RESTATED TO REFLECT THE
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE COMPANY'S CHANGE IN METHOD OF VALUING U.S.
INVENTORIES FROM LIFO TO FIFO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (10,539)
<INVENTORY>                                    113,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               277,458
<PP&E>                                         104,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (52,785)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 532,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,520
<BONDS>                                        503,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<COMMON>                                           969
<OTHER-SE>                                    (241,447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   532,635
<SALES>                                        665,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               665,493
<CGS>                                          443,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  236,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,799
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (86,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10,774)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (61,938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (5,909)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (67,847)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
1Nothing in this order is intended to determine the

viability of the claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Carano

v. Civil No. 07-cv-124-PB

NH Governor and

NH Attorney General

O R D E R

 Plaintiff has invoked the subject matter jurisdiction in his

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 27, 2007

cc: Jeffrey Carano, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00124-PB Document 3 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Application of Harry Bausher, Petitioner. Woodlawn Cemetery, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

February 8, 1957.

*45*Kommel & Rogers*for petitioner.

*Bainton, Devlin, Douglas & Voorhees*for respondent.

John L. Flynn, J.

This is an application for an order permitting the removal of the remains of the petitioner’s father and sister-in-law and the ashes of his mother from a mausoleum in Woodlawn Cemetery to the petitioner’s plot in Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery in Glendale, California. The father purchased the plot in 1908 and thereafter erected thereon a commodious mausoleum in which he was interred on his death in 1924. He undoubtedly intended this to be his family burial ground although he left no bequest for its support.

The relief is sought by his eldest son, now 68 years of age. It is expressly consented to by the two other surviving children who are 67 and 65 years of age, respectively and are living in retirement. All reside far from New York, are in reduced circumstances and have their own burial plots. They have no intention of using Woodlawn Cemetery. They have paid the maintenance charges of about $500 annually for almost 30 years and will continue to do this while they are alive and financially able. In at best a few short years they will all be gone. Then there will be no funds for custodial care and according to Woodlawn no further attention can be given the mausoleum. In the foreseeable future it will at best become an eyesore.

The sole objectant is Woodlawn Cemetery. It feels it must do so although the plot owner left no such specific instructions. No religious beliefs held by him are urged against the removal.

It is clear that the father wished to be interred with his family. The only way this can be accomplished — and this only in part — is by the relief sought. Then the father and mother will rest with their first-born. A denial will leave the parents alone in an aging, uncared-for sepulchre. The motion is granted. In the order to be entered hereon proper provision must be made for the reverent disinterment of the bodies and remains now in Woodlawn and their carriage to and reinterment in Forest Lawn Cemetery and for all expenses in connection therewith.

Settle order on notice.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                9
<MULTIPLIER>             1000
       
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUNE-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                 401
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 4893
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            18604
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 215
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   215
<LOANS>                                28978
<ALLOWANCE>                            288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         54346
<DEPOSITS>                             34422
<SHORT-TERM>                           8766
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    327
<LONG-TERM>                            2431
<COMMON>                               59
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             8341
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         54346
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        1181
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      701
<INTEREST-OTHER>                       31
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       1913
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     824
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1222
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  691
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     9
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        72
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             72
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           43
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         .0757
<LOANS-NON>                            13
<LOANS-PAST>                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       283
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          0
<RECOVERIES>                           5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      288
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   288
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          84,764
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,241,649
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            204,363
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          786,119
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            403,653
<PP&E>                                         230,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,193,328
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                   1,678,963
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            820,918
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              19,141
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,463
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,366,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,193,328
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              207,952
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           180,870
<COMMISSIONS>                                1,108,529
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  190,918
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  255,736
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,436
<COMPENSATION>                               1,276,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                437,797
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     437,797
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   269,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.75
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02107-PAB-KLM

JANE DOE #1, 

JANE DOE #2, and 

JANE DOE #3,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. RE-2, 

TRAVIS JON MASSE, 

CHRIS KING, Superintendent,

GINGER RAMSEY, Principal,

MIKE LOWE, Assistant Principal and Athletic Director,

MARK SCHMIDT, 

MATT SCHMIDT, 

JASON WANEKA, and

JASMINE MASSE,

Defendants.

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(B)

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

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order (Doc #76) of Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered on

November 16, 2012, granting in part the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment

Under Fed. R. Civ.P. 54(b), it is

ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants Boulder Valley

School District No. Re-2, Superintendent Chris King, Principal Ginger Ramsey,

Assistant Principal and Athletic Director Mike Lowe, Mark Schmidt, Jason Waneka, and

Case 1:11-cv-02107-PAB-KLM Document 78 Filed 11/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Jasmine Masse, and against plaintiffs. It is

FURTHER ORDERED this case shall be administratively closed, subject to

reopening for good cause, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 20th day of November, 2012.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward P. Butler

Edward P. Butler

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02107-PAB-KLM Document 78 Filed 11/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 quarter ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Sunil Wadhwani, Chief Executive 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, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2006                    
|                                      
|/s/    SUNIL WADHWANI                 
|Sunil Wadhwani                        
|Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors,
|Chief Executive Officer, and Director
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 Annual Report of Community Bancorp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

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





/s/ Richard C. White

Richard C. White, Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2005
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 Community Bancorp. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.





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








/s/ Louise M.
Bonvechio


Louise M.
Bonvechio, Vice President & CFO





March 27,
2009
#### Haya Gabbay, Respondent, v Abraham Gabbay, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 437]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered December 30, 1998, as amended, inter alia, by judgments dated January 21, 1999, and February 16, 2000, respectively, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated August 7, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate or modify the second amended judgment of divorce dated February 16, 2000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant appealed from the original judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 30, 1998, which, inter alia, determined maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution. That appeal was dismissed by decision *378and order of this Court dated October 28, 1999, for lack of prosecution. As a general rule, we do not consider any issue raised on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although we have inherent jurisdiction to do so *(see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750; *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350). We decline to exercise that discretion here.

The defendant notes that the plaintiffs former attorney was convicted of a felony on July 13, 1999, and disbarred pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) *(see Matter of Kurtz,*263 AD2d 55). However, that disbarment occurred subsequent to the trial of the matrimonial action and the issuance of the first amended judgment of divorce dated January 21, 1999, which awarded counsel fees to the plaintiffs former attorney and arrears of maintenance and child support to the plaintiff. The disbarment of the plaintiffs former attorney had no effect on the issues before us.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see Hazen v Bottiglieri,*286 AD2d 708). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.