alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT, CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO

P. O. Box 367

Georgetown, CO 80444

303-679-4220

Alvin Mosch, Patricia C. Mosch, and David K. Mosch,

each individually and dba Mosch Mining Company,

 Petitioners

vs.

John Henry, aka John T. Henry, aka John L. Henry

United States Real Estate Corporation, and any one

claiming by or through any of the named persons,

 Respondents

Attorney for Petitioners:

Richard L. Garnett, P.C.

By Richard L. Garnett, ARN 8289

P.O. Box 656

Idaho Springs, CO 80452

Phone: (303) 567-2456 

Fax: (303) 567-2450 e-mail: Rick@Garnettlaw.net

> Court Use Only >

Case Number: 2011CV93

Div. G 

ORDER AUTHORIZING TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE BY PATRICIA MOSCH

.

This Matter having come before the Court upon the Petitioners’ Motion to allow Petitioner

Patricia Mosch to Appear by Telephone;

The Court being fully advised in the premises;

Hereby GRANTS the Petitioners’ Motion and authorizes Patricia Mosch to appear for all

hearings by telephone.

Signed in chambers on the date stated above.

/s/ Russell H. Granger 

District Court Judge

GRANTED The moving party is hereby ORDERED 

to provide a copy of this Order to any pro 

se parties who have entered an 

appearance in this action within 10 days 

from the date of this order.

 District Court Judge 

EFILED Document 

CO Clear Creek County District Court 5th JD 

Filing Date: Aug 30 2011 1:28PM MDT 

Filing ID: 39564286 

Review Clerk: Jennifer A Gabriel
Subject to objection within five days. 

Court Authorizer 

Comments:
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 32.2
------------



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Ustaszewski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as enacted 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.




/s/ John A. Ustaszewski


John A. Ustaszewski
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
August 4, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             25.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7329
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EVANS LEE GORDON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Ric hard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-75) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Evans Lee Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gordon , No. CR-89-75 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23714]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 22, 2008, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
applications received. Permits were issued on September 26, 2008 to:
    Lisa K. Blatt, Permit No. 2009-010.
    Hubertus Staudigel, Permit No. 2009-016.
    Cheryl E. Leonard, Permit No. 2009-017.
    Mahlon C. Kennicutt, II, Permit No. 2009-018.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-23714 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### LANDY v. LANDY (2 cases).

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofCiprico Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,James W. Hansen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: December 20, 2004 | /s/ James W. Hansen     |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                     | James W. Hansen         |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Gregory A. Gould, state and certify that, based on my knowledge:


1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002 of Colorado
MEDtech, Inc. (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Colorado
MEDtech, Inc.


Date: September 30, 2002


/s/ Gregory A. Gould
------------------------------
Name: Gregory A. Gould
Title: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: August 9, 2012

Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom

Interpreter: Susanna Cahill

Marcella Salazar

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel Appearing:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HILARIO QUINTERO-RODRIGUEZ,

ABEL SANCHEZ-LEON;

GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO; and

JULIO MARES-RUIZ,

Defendants.

James Boma

Boston Stanton

David Owen

Richard Stuckey

Mark Johnson

COURTROOM MINUTES

HEARING: Motions

10:36 a.m. Court in session.

Defendants present in custody.

Interpreters sworn.

The Court addresses the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #349).

ORDER: Government’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #349) is DENIED.

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 351 Filed 08/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Courtroom Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

The Court addresses defendant Ruiz-Guardado’s Motion to Sever (Doc. #109)

ORDER: Defendant Ruiz-Guardado’s Motion to Sever (Doc. #109) is DENIED.

The following motions were previously addressed at the May 14, 2012 motions hearing (Doc.

#289). The docket will be corrected to reflect the rulings.

The Government’s Motion to Produce Palm Print Records (Doc. #233) - GRANTED.

Defendant Mares-Ruiz’s Ex Parte Motions (Doc. #232; #266);

Additionally, Defendant Gallegos has filed a Notice of Disposition. The docket will reflect that

his Motion to Sever (Doc. #114) is terminated.

The Court addresses defendant’s Motion to Continue (Doc. #346)

Statements from counsel. No objection from any counsel.

The Court made specific oral findings justifying a continuance of the trial, which findings are

incorporated herein.

ORDER: The ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Motion to Continue

(Doc. #346) is GRANTED. Jury Trial is set for two weeks commencing on

December 10, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. Final pretrial conference is set on November

30, 2012 at 4:00 p.m., all in Courtroom A901, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO. All

subsequent days of trial will begin at 8:30 a.m., unless counsel are advised

otherwise.

ORDER: Defendants are remanded to the care and custody of the United States Marshal

Service.

11:20 a.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 44 minutes.

Hearing concluded.

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 351 Filed 08/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02579-WYD-BNB

HARRY G. MARXMILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Order [docket no. 12, filed April 24,

2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The matter is before me and a decision

will be forthcoming. No discovery will be allowed until after a Scheduling Conference, which

may be scheduled at a later date once an a order has been entered on the Motion to Dismiss. 

DATED: April 26, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02579-WYD-BNB Document 14 Filed 04/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH

DELORES MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUSTIN KRAAL,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 9, 2012.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [filed April 4, 2012; docket #11] is denied as moot.

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) “a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course...within

21 days after serving it[.]” In this case, Plaintiff has not yet effected service on Defendant. Thus,

Plaintiff may file an amended pleading once without the Court’s permission. Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint [docket #10] is accepted as filed. 

In addition, the Court will hold a Status Conference in this case on April 12, 2012, at 9:45

a.m. in Courtroom A501 on the fifth floor of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties shall come prepared to discuss, among other issues, the

Court’s March 28, 2012 Order to Show Cause and Fed. R. Civ. P. 25.

 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH Document 14 Filed 04/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Betty R. Kuhns et al., Appellants, v Millard Fillmore Hospitals, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[744 NYS2d 787]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Michalek, J.), entered June 21, 2001, which dismissed the complaint against defendant Millard Fillmore Hospitals upon a jury verdict of no cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the complaint against defendant Millard Fillmore Hospitals is reinstated, the order entered April 18, 2001 is vacated, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion to set aside the jury verdict of no cause of action in this medical malpractice action. In the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as one taken from the subsequent judgment *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]; *Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988, 988). Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Betty R. Kuhns (plaintiff) while she was a patient on the cardiac care unit at defendant hospital. They presented proof at trial that plaintiffs feet were burned as a result of defendant hospital’s attempt to warm plaintiffs feet with warm boots, while defendants presented proof that plaintiffs feet were injured as a result of contact dermatitis or diabetic ulcers. The sole contention of plaintiffs on appeal is that Supreme Court erred in denying their request to charge the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and therefore erred in denying their motion to set aside the verdict. We agree. Where, as here, “the actual or specific cause of [plaintiffs injuries] is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant [s’] *840relation to it” *(Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489, 494). Upon the retrial, the court should charge the jury that, if it finds that plaintiffs injuries resulted from external burns as alleged by plaintiffs, the jury may infer, pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, that defendant hospital was negligent. Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
#### ROUSSEL v. WILSON et al. *

No. 16159.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 10, 1935.

R. F. Becker, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellants. . .

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellee mover.

*

 Rehearing denied June *2Á,*1935.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is now before us on motion to dismiss the appeal, the ground for dismissal being that the transcript was lodged too láte.

Though in the order granting the appeal, May 17, 1935, was fixed as the return day, the transcript was not filed until May 21, 1935.

By the provisions of article 883 of the Code of Practice and the interpretation which has *908been placed thereon by the Supreme Court, there is granted to an appellant, after the return day, three days within which the transcript may be filed in the appellate court. Where the transcript is not filed before midnight of the third day after the return day, the appeal must be dismissed unless the last day is a legal holiday, in which case the appeal may be perfected on the next judicial day. See Hotard v. Consolidated Companies, Inc., 14 La. App. 670, 130 So. 662; Keplinger et al. v. Barrow, 132 La. 244, 61 So. 217; State ex rel. Bourg v. Marrero, 132 La. 109, 61 So. 136, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 783; New Iberia Nat. Bank v. Lyons et al., 164 La. 1017, 1018, 115 So. 130; Roussel v. Guiterrez, 12 La. App. 700, 127 So. 1.

Since the delay in the Hotard Case was exactly the same as that which we find here, that case is full authority for the dismissal of this appeal.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be, and it is, dismissed, at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ward, Appellant, *v.*Bucyrus-Erie Company.

*19Argued April 11, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

*20April 25, 1938:

*Edward E. Petrillo,*for appellant.

*A. Grant Walker*with him *Gunnison, Fish, Gifford & Chapin,*for appellee.

Pee Curiam,

The judgment appealed from in this case was entered before the passage of the Act of June 4, 1937, P. L. 1552, amending the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Act of 1937 is not involved.

Nothing can profitably be added to the clear and concise opinion of President Judge Hiet, which appears in the Reporter’s statement.

Judgment affirmed.
815 A.2d 952

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOHN GERO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 7, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*l:20-15(k) a recommendation that JOHN GERO of KEARNY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, be suspended from the practice of law and compelled to pay a monetary sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for failure to comply with the determination of the District VI Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. VI-00-032F, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN GERO be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective February 4, 2003, and until respondent satisfies the award of the District VI Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. VI 00-032F and pays a sanction of $500.00 to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee; provided, however, this Order shall be vacated automatically if prior to the effective date of the suspension, the Disciplinary Review Board reports to the Court that respondent has satisfied all financial obligations under this Order or has submitted and is current under an installment payment plan approved by the Board; and it is further

ORDERED that if respondent seeks to be heard on this matter, he shall file with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the file date of this Order a written request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra Solutions
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Thomas P.
Sweeney III, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

Date:    May 16, 2005                 By: /s/ Thomas P. Sweeney III
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Thomas P. Sweeney III
                                         Chief Executive Officer




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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-84-PB

Rutilio Chavez Deleon

aka Roberto Guerrero Salazar

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the 

trial scheduled for February 3, 2009, citing the need for

additional time to negotiate a plea agreement. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 3, 2009 to March 3, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00084-SM Document 16 Filed 02/02/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 2, 2009

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00084-SM Document 16 Filed 02/02/09 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                                          
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ JEFFREY W. TAYLOR                    
|                         |  | Jeffrey W. Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|                         | 
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ DANIEL C. STEVENS                    
|                         |  | Daniel C. Stevens Chief Financial
Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and will
be retained by Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.