alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2003629760_1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROCK USA LLC, and the CITY OF COQUITLAM,

Defendants.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BOTH A RESPONSE

TO DEFENDANT BROCK USA, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THAT EXCEED THE PAGE LIMITATIONS

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to 

File Both a Response to Defendant Brock USA, LLC's Motion for Summary and Cross Motion 

For Summary Judgment that Exceeds the Page Limitation, and having been so advised in the 

premises,

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS said Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Colorado 

Casualty Insurance Company is granted its Motion for Leave to File both a Response to 

Defendant Brock USA, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary 

Judgment that Exceeds the Page Limitation, not to exceed 27 pages.

DONE THIS 16th DAY OF APRIL, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

DAVID M. EBEL

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 65 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, August 2-6, 200Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 853,742 16,318 108,576 304,132 178,624 28,421 20,61Number of loans 16,825 385 2,540 8,408 3,400 870 42Weighted average maturity (months)1 16.53 11.57 35.96 22.42 12.85 6.88 27.5

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 6.25 8.13 30.25 5.52 .52 .28 3.3

Weighted average risk rating3 3.15 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate 4 5.12 5.23 5.50 4.97 4.84 5.94 4.7 Standard error5 .10 .71 .27 .24 .16 .54 .4

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.64 6.61 6.35 6.08 5.39 7.47 5.6 25th percentile 4.33 3.56 4.34 4.05 4.30 4.33 3.8 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.07 6.28 4.99 5.17 4.07 8.14 5.1 Other livestock 4.81 3.56 5.28 4.81 3.91 4.87 6.5 Other current operating expenses7 5.29 5.49 5.49 5.13 5.17 6.41 4.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.07 n.a. 6.02 5.11 4.43 4.75 6.1 Farm real estate 5.42 7.50 6.24 5.00 4.96 5.71 6.9 Other8 5.06 4.00 6.04 4.50 4.74 4.30 4.4

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 85.64 45.82 38.59 88.01 97.35 93.44 95.7 Under commitment 81.77 68.05 47.84 76.54 89.14 94.20 95.4 Callable 19.83 43.34 65.12 23.70 7.88 5.04 6.4 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.56 31.66 6.78 4.63 6.06 3.98 .9 Other livestock 10.97 36.46 39.48 7.75 9.63 9.05 5.8 Other current operating expenses7 32.56 17.22 34.41 38.85 51.81 66.34 26.4

 Farm machinery and equipment 9.23 n.a. 2.20 21.56 4.55 7.61 .4 Farm real estate 4.70 11.71 8.71 7.32 3.42 .15 .4 Other8 38.00 2.96 8.42 19.89 24.53 12.86 65.8

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 10.20 13.31 16.85 14.11 10.27 1.04 19.6 Other 84.46 85.62 73.48 79.73 86.70 98.96 64.1 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Order filed June 16, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00838

- CR

____________ GEORGIA LOVETT , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 5

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008856



### ORDER
Appellant is not represented by counsel. The trial court has previously determined that appellant is not indigent for purposes of appointment of counsel on appeal. Appellant expressed the desire to continue here appeal and represent herself. No brief has been filed. Rule 38.8 provides that we will not dismiss or consider the appeal without briefs unless it is shown the appellant no longer desires to prosecute
her app eal or that s he is not indigent and has failed to make necessary arrangements for filing a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8. The rule further provides that underappropriate circumstances, “the appellate court may consider the appeal without

briefs, as justice may require.” T ex. R. App. P. 38.8 (b)(4).
A hearing has already been held as required under Rule 38.8. Because the trial court has already held one hearing to make the findings required under Rule 38.8, and we can find nothing in the rules or case law whi ch requires this court to once again send this matter back to the trial court, we decline to do so.
Therefore, we ORDER appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before July 13, 2016 . If appellant fails to file her brief as ordered, we will decide t his appeal upon the record before the c ourt. See Lott v. State , 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record alone where appellant failed to file a pro se brief after being properly admonished); Coleman v. State , 774 S.W.2d 73 6, 738

– 39 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (holding that former rule 74( l )(2) (now Rule 38.8(b)) permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs “as justice may require” when a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of appellate procedure).

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2
------------


                            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 September 30, 2002, including Amendment No. 1
on Form 10-Q/A, 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. Section 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
November 15, 2002



                                                                              9.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Key Tronic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I,
Ronald F. Klawitter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: September 19, 2005



/s/ Ronald F. KlawitterRonald F. KlawitterExecutive Vice President of Administration,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58700-58701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23695]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 11456 and <greek-i> 11457]


New Mexico Disaster <greek-i> NM-00007

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of New Mexico dated 09/30/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 07/26/2008 through 08/20/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/30/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/01/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/30/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Lincoln.
Contiguous Counties:
    New Mexico: Chaves, De Baca, Guadalupe, Otero, Sierra, Socorro, 
Torrance.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.687
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      8.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11456 B 
and for economic injury is 11457 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are New 
Mexico.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)


[[Page 58701]]


    Dated: September 30, 2008.
Sandy K. Baruah,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-23695 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02437-RPM

ANDREA L. CHISHOLM, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH WAYNE MCKEEL, an Individual, and

BRIAN VANDERMARK, an Individual,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANTS JOSEPH WAYNE MCKEEL AND

BRIAN VANDERMARK

_____________________________________________________________________

Upon review of the Clerk’s record and it appearing that at the scheduling

conference on December 15, 2011, before Magistrate Judge Kathleen Tafoya, counsel

informed that defendant Joseph Wayne McKeel was deceased and it also appearing

that there has been no return of service on the defendant Brian Vandermark, it is

ORDERED that this civil action is dismissed as to defendants Joseph Wayne

McKeel and Brian Vandermark.

DATED: September 20th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02437-RPM Document 51 Filed 09/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-31224

Summary Calendar

RICHARD MUZZI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CIMARRON; DYNMCDERMOTT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(99-CV-2795-D)

March 13, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Muzzi, acting pro se, filed suit against his former

employer, Cimarron Software Services, Inc., and against

DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company for whom Cimarron was

acting as a subcontractor. Muzzi alleged that he was moved from a

salaried position to an hourly-rate employee because he suffered
2

from autism, in violation of Americans With Disabilities Act.

However, Muzzi never advised his supervisor at Cimarron nor any

other employees that he was suffering from autism or any other

disability. Rather, since Muzzi was arriving late and departing

early regularly and was taking extra-long lunch hours on a frequent

basis, Cimarron decided to move him to an hourly employee and

retain his services. Shortly thereafter, Muzzi wrote a rambling,

somewhat incoherent and threatening letter to his supervisor and he

was discharged. 

Cimarron and DynMcDermott moved for summary judgment which the

district court (Judge A. J. McNamara, presiding) granted. Muzzi

appealed. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district judge in his Order filed under

date of September 25, 2000, we affirm the grant of summary judgment

in favor of defendants.

AFFIRMED.
#### COLEMAN v. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS. *

No. 4667.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1934.

P. B. Smith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

. Isaac Wahlder, of Alexandria, for appeU )ee, ”• •

*

Rehearing denied February 5, 1934.

DREW, Judge.

:>Plaintiff' filed suit on - March' 10, 1933, against defendant, for the sum' of $570, with .6 per cent, per annum interest from Oetor ber.10, 1932; as the-designated beneficiary of ■her husband, who died on August 10, 1932, in a .policy .or'certificate .of insurance issued by the defendant corporation. ,- .;

; The.'answer and the agreed statement' of facts : admit-that plaintiff’s husband, • the tar Sured, had;been a'member of-the defendant Corporation /for over 30- years; that he was in good financial standing in- the local-and the .Grand ■ Lodge at the.'time..of his death..; that plaintiff was the beneficiary in the ppliey, and., that the. proof of death and claim for payment were ‘ filed' timely after the death; j'n'fáct, everything is admitted b/ defendant, except that payment is due at. this time, which 1⁄8.inore than six months after the death of 3⁄83⁄83⁄4 insured.

• The only defense raised by defendant is the ;special defense that payments are to be jmade 90 days or more after the. filing of the .claim-, or at such time as there may be sufficient funds- in the endowment department to pay the claims in the order, in which they are filed in the office of the grand chancellor.

, The case was tried .on a statement of facts, and in said statement of facts there is no ad¡mission. or- proof to sustain the special defense. It was incumbent upon, defendant to prove, under its. special defense, which .is Ibased upon-a-resolution of the defendant corporation adopted April, 1931, that there was not sufficient funds-in the endowment department to pay the claim of plaintiff. This being the only defense and defendant having failed to offer any proof to sustain it, it necessarily follows that the special defense fails.

It therefore follows that the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with all costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2378-REB-MJW

ERMIN KRESO, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC SHINSEKI, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS, AND 

THE UNITED STATES VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order Affirming Decision of Judge Robert E. Blackburn entered

on 9/2/2014 it is ORDERED that the action is dismissed and Defendant ERIC

SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and THE UNITED

STATES VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION is AWARDED his/her/its costs, to be taxed

by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR

54.1.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 3rd day of September, 2014.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/ T.Lee

T.Lee

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 39 Filed 09/03/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02378-REB Document 39 Filed 09/03/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES
                                OF
                          TBC CORPORATION


      As of December 31, 1998, TBC Corporation had four subsidiaries, each of
which was wholly-owned by TBC Corporation.  The subsidiaries and their states
of incorporation were as follows:


            Name of Subsidiary               State of Incorporation

            Big O Tires, Inc.                     Nevada

            Carroll's, Inc.                       Georgia

            Northern States Tire, Inc.            Delaware

            TBC International, Inc.               Delaware



      In addition, TBC Corporation has other subsidiaries which it owns
indirectly through the above-named subsidiaries. Such indirectly-owned
subsidiaries are not named because they would not, if considered in the
aggregate as one subsidiary, constitute a "significant subsidiary," as
defined in Rule 1.02(w) of Regulation S-X.





















                               -209-
Filed 12/20/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 211

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Allan Pailing, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20050073 & 20050120

Allan Pailing, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Nos. 20050306 - 20050309

Appeals from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Cynthia M. Feland, Assistant State’s Attorney, Courthouse, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4413, for appellee; submitted on brief.

Todd A. Schwarz, Parkade Building, 2nd Floor, 5151⁄2 East Broadway, Suite 103, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Pailing

Nos. 20050073, 20050120, and 20050306 - 20050309

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Allan Pailing appeals the district court’s amended judgment, order denying his motion to amend his criminal judgment, and order denying his petition for post-conviction relief.  Pailing pled guilty to several drug and traffic offenses.  He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for each of the felony drug charges and one year or less for the traffic offenses.  The district court ordered that all the sentences run concurrently and that he be given credit for time served in pretrial incarceration.  Pailing argues the court erred in calculating the number of days of credit to which he was entitled for time served.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting Pailing’s sentence and did not clearly err in denying his petition for post-conviction relief.  We summarily affirm the amended judgment, order denying Pailing’s motion to amend his criminal judgment, and order denying Pailing’s petition for post-conviction relief as provided in N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

JERROLD BARON
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 12

- 3780

[ November 19, 2014 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 562006CF000418A

.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel and Louis G. Carres, Special Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the trial court’s thorough order denying appellant’s motion for postconvict ion relief from his convictions for vehicular manslaughter and DUI manslaughter. After a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that none of the appellant’s contentions constituted ineffective

assistance of counsel. Most claims were either u nproven or were shown to be reasonable trial strategy decisions by counsel and agreed to by the appellant. Moreover, competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that, even if all of appellant’s claims of ineffective

assistance and failure to present evidence had been cured at trial, there was no reasonable probability that the results at trial would have been different, given the testimony and other evidence presented by the state. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1 984). This included eyewitness testimony of appellant’s swerving and weaving prior to striking the pedestrian victims, as well as his fleeing the scene, and his admissions, in recorded telephone calls at the jail, to drinking and driving.2

D AMOORGIAN

, C.J.

, W ARNER and T AYLOR

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Wiley T. GREEN and Dora Ruth Green, Appellants, v. Jeannette GREEN et al., Appellees.

No. 4568.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Oct. 11, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1972.

Rutledge & Parker, Earl Rutledge, Fort Worth, John D. Moore, Mineral Wells, for appellants.

Duncan Gault, Mineral Wells, W. J. Oxford, Stephenville, for appellees.

WALTER, Justice.

Wiley Eldon Green was the only child of the plaintiffs, Wiley T. Green and Dora Ruth Green. Jeannette Nance married Wiley Eldon Green and to such union was born one child, Melissa Ann Green. The plaintiffs pleaded that Jeannette killed their son, Wiley Eldon Green, by shooting him with a gun. In their suit against Jeannette, the plaintiffs sought custody and the right of visitation with Melissa Ann. Since the death of her father the child has been in the custody of her mother.

The jury answered that it would not be to the best interest and welfare of Melissa Ann for her custody to be removed from her mother. To issue number four they answered that it would be to the best interest and welfare of the child for Mr. & Mrs. Green to have reasonable visitation privileges with Melissa Ann. Disregarding the jury’s answer to issue number four, the court rendered judgment that the Greens take nothing.

The Greens have appealed and contend in their points that the court erred in not rendering a judgment on the verdict giving them the right to have reasonable visitation privileges with the child.

The judgment recites:

“Special Issue No. 4 and the answer thereto are hereby disregarded by the Court, upon motion of the Defendant, Jeannette Green, for the reason that there is no law to support the same. Smith v. Painter, [Tex.] 412 S.W.2d 28; [Tex.Civ.App.], 408 S.W.2d 785.”

The appellants have failed to cite any authority in support of their contentions. We consider Smith v. Painter, Tex.Civ.App., 408 S.W.2d 785 — writ refused no reversible error — Per Curiam opinion by Supreme Court, 412 S.W.2d 28, directly in *942point and are of the opinion that the judgment is correct.

We have considered all of appellants’ points and find no merit in them. They are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.