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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-63,837; TA-W-63,837A; TA-W-63,837B]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 8, 2008 in response to petitions filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Dolly, Inc., Tipp City, Ohio (TA-W-63,837); Bentonville, Arkansas (TA-W-63,837A) and New York, New York (TA-W-63,837B). The workers at the subject firm produced juvenile accessories.

The petitioner has requested that the petitions be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of September 2008.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-23853 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-127719; 333-127718; 333-126234; 333-98669, 333-87507, 33-61949, 33-52786, 33-36609, and 33-23837 of A.G. Edwards, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 27, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of A.G. Edwards, Inc. and subsidiaries and management’s report of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which reports on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule each expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption, in fiscal year 2006, of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), “Shared-Based Payment,” and, the change in accounting policy for the recognition of equity awards granted to retirement-eligible employees effective fiscal year 2007, and the retrospective adjustment to the fiscalyear 2006 consolidated financial statements for the change), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of A.G. Edwards, Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2007.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

St. Louis, Missouri
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ALI SHAHROKHI; AND TODD MATTHEW PHILLIPS, Petitioners, vs. AARON D. FORD, NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL; STEVEN SHEVORSKI, NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY; AND SABRENA CLINTON, NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY, Res • ondents. No. 83973


# FILED

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order disqualifying the attorney general from representing a district court judge in federal litigation. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and



### 2 .7 , 

## S.S 

# o 0 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1)47A <

11 0011 114

# .4(14C4-41 , J.



### Stiglich that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

cc: Ali Shahrokhi Todd Matthew Phillips Attorney General/Carson City

1 

### The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  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 Front Porch Digital
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Matthew
Richman, as Chief Financial 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:    August 16, 2004                             By: /s/ Matthew Richman
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Matthew Richman
                                                         Chief Financial 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.
1

 The Court has previously informed Plaintiff that he may only refile his request to file an

amended complaint after the stay in this matter has been lifted. See Minute Order [#16].

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM

KEVIN D. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

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

Amended Complaint Pursuant to Freedom of Information Act [Docket No. 19; Filed

May 31, 2012] (the “Motion”). On November 30, 2011, the District Judge entered an Order

[#12] staying all proceedings in this matter. The stay in this case has not yet been lifted by

the District Judge. Further, it appears that there has been no final judgment in Judicial

Watch v. Dep’t of Defense, Civil Action No. 11-890-(JEB) (D.D.C.), as the case is currently

on appeal. In consideration of the current stay,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#19] is DENIED without prejudice to

refiling after the stay has been lifted.1

Dated: July 11, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM Document 22 Filed 07/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM

REV. BRANDON BAKER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF COLORADO, and

A.G. JOHN SUTHERS, 

Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER OF REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Brimmer, J.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b),

United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix is designated to conduct proceedings in

this civil action as follows:

(X) Convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a

scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2.

(X) Conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for

compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or

modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause.

(X) Convene such settlement conferences and direct related procedures as

may facilitate resolution of this case.

(X) Hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other nondispositive motions.

(X) Conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed

findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions.

(X) Conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order.

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 20 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS ORDERED that this civil action is referred to the named magistrate judge to

proceed according to the designations marked (X) above.

Dated November 8, 2011, at Denver, Colorado

BY THE COURT:

s/ Philip A. Brimmer 

Philip A. Brimmer

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 20 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02628-BNB

WORDEN BOURN,

CHARLES GREENLEE, and

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GEO GROUP INC.,

HUDSON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

WARDEN JOE DRIVER,

ASSOCIATE WARDEN RON MURRAY,

STATE OF ALASKA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SAM EDWARDS, and

Others to be Named,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Request for Compel Payment of

Filing Fee” and “Request for Hoffa Account Statement Be Provided to Court” (Doc. Nos.

18 & 19) filed on November 8, 2011. In Doc. No. 18, Plaintiffs request a court order to

compel the Alaska Department of Corrections to process Plaintiffs’ requests to have the

filing fee sent to the Court. In Doc. No. 19, Plaintiff, Charles Greenlee, requests an

order to compel the Alaska Department of Corrections to provide a certified inmate

account statement. The requests are DENIED.

Plaintiffs are directed to show this Minute Order to the appropriate prison official. 

If their requests for a certified 6-month account statement and/or money order is again

denied, the prison official is directed to provide documentation regarding the reason for

the denial. 

Plaintiffs will be allowed thirty (30) days from the date of this minute order to

comply with the instructions set forth in this minute order. No further extensions of time

will be granted without just cause.

Dated: November 14, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02628-BNB Document 20 Filed 11/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02628-BNB Document 20 Filed 11/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02553-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02553-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02553-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02553-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
NO. SCWC-27580

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

LILY E. HAMILTON on behalf of AMBER J. LETHEM, a minor,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.

CHRISTY L. LETHEM, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 27580; CIV. NO. 05-1-1977)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, 

and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Crandall, 

in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on

October 14, 2011 by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Christy L.

Lethem, is accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-27580

23-NOV-2011

02:06 PM
parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding

scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 23, 2011.

Robert H. Thomas and /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Rebecca A. Copeland 

(Damon Key Leong /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

Kupchak Hastert)

for petitioner/ /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

defendant-appellant,

on the application. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

 /s/ Virginia L. Crandall
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6185
THOMAS FRANCIS NYLAND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-194-3-23) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Francis Nyland, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing one of two petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Nyland v. Moore , No. CA-97-194-3-23 (D.S.C. Jan. 21, 1998).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.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02625-MSK-KLM

CAROL POLLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02625-MSK-KLM Document 4 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Green Tree Financial Corporation
Saint Paul, Minnesota:


     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Green Tree
Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of operation, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1997. These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express and opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audits.

     We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

     In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Green Tree
Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the results
of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended December 31, 1997 in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company 
adopted the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement 
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 125, "Accounting for Transfers and 
Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities," in 1997.


                                               KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 27, 1998
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10816

Conference Calendar

 

RICHARD RIVERA, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GURNEY UNIT MEDICAL FACILITY; UNIVERSITY 

OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-1364-G

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Rivera, Sr., Texas prisoner # 654514, appeals the

district court’s denial as frivolous of his civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1988, seeking

injunctive and declaratory against the Gurney Medical Unit and

the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospital.
No. 96-10816

- 2 -

Rivera has identified no error in the dismissal of his civil

rights complaint. Because Rivera has failed to raise an issue of

arguable merit, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We

caution Rivera that future frivolous civil suits and appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. Rivera is cautioned further to review any pending

suits and appeals to ensure that they raise issues of arguable

merit and do not raise arguments that are frivolous.

Because Rivera’s case does not present "exceptional

circumstances" warranting it, his motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex., 929

F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 50841 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Pablo Carrasco -**  **Cortez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:22 - CR - 59 - 1

**_________________ _____________**  Before **Wiener, Elrod,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges . **Per Curiam :**  ***** Pablo Carrasco - Cortez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation. He was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 30 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Carrasco - Cortez argues that the district court procedu rally erred by failing to explain its reasons for imposing supervised

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50841 Document: 00516734246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023No. 22 - 50841

2 release in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), which provides that supervised release should “ordinarily” not be imposed where, as here, it is not required by statute and the defendant is a de portable alien who is likely to be deported. Our review is for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez - Alvarado , 695 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Mondragon – Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009) ) . Carrasco - Cortez ’s criminal history, which includes several convictions for illegal reentry, supports the imposition of supervised release . See United States v. Cancino - Trinidad , 710 F.3d 601, 60 6 - 0 7 (5th Cir. 2013) . 1 Additionally, because Carrasco - Corte z has failed to show “a reasonable probability that, but for the district court ’ s misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have received a lesser sentence,” any error did not affect his substantial rights. Id . at 606 (internal quotation marks and citati on omitted) . Accordingly, he has not shown plain error, and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** .

**_____________________** 1 We have affirmed supervised release terms for defendants with comparable criminal histories. See , e.g ., United States v. Castro - Delgado , No. 21 - 50789, 2022 WL 3229981, * 1 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished) (noting that the defendant had two felo ny convictions for the transportation of illegal aliens and had previously been deported twice); United States v. Rodriguez - Banda , No. 21 - 50343, 2022 WL 2752178, * 1 (5th Cir. July 13, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished) (noting that the defendant’s criminal h istory, “particularly his repeated illegal reentry offenses” supported a term of supervised release) . Case: 22-50841 Document: 00516734246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

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.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Amend []Doc. no. 15]

Scheduling Order [docket no. 25, filed April 16, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the parties shall designate all

experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)

on or before April 20, 2012, and the parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide

opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before May 21,

2012.

DATED: April 17, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 27 Filed 04/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal No. 11-MJ-00140-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. SHANE FRENCH,

Defendant.

 

MINUTE ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Sentencing scheduled in this matter for October 4,

2011 at 5:00 p.m. is RESCHEDULED to October 4, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.

DATED: September 12, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 15 Filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1