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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-RM-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 17, 2014.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second renewed Motion to Compel [filed January 16, 2014;

docket #142]. The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s original motion to compel for

Plaintiff’s failure to attach a copy of the opponent’s written response to the discovery request, which

informs the Court of the request, response and any objections made. With the first renewed motion,

the Plaintiff complied by filing a copy of the Defendants’ response to the discovery request, which

objects to producing x-ray films directly to the incarcerated Plaintiff pursuant to a prison regulation;

however, Defendants inform the Plaintiff that should he “wish to have the X-rays [ ] sent to someone

outside the facility, he should make that request stating the approximate dates on which the X-rays

were taken.” See Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents,

docket #138-1 at 2. In the order denying the first renewed motion, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s

original motion to compel requested an order for the Defendants “to mail the x-ray film to the

following address, Ronald Streeter, Re/To: Mr. Cox, 732 Troy Ct, Aurora, Colo, 80012.” Motion

to Compel Discovery, docket #135 at 2. Accordingly, it appeared that Plaintiff desires to comply

with the administrative regulation cited in Defendants’ discovery response. However, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he ever made such request to the

Defendants or conferred, or attempted to confer, with Defendants in an effort to obtain the x-rays

by request for mailing to Mr. Streeter without court action. 

In this second renewed motion, the Plaintiff merely attaches a “mail log” demonstrating that

his original request for production of documents was mailed on May 20, 2013. However, the Court

does not question that Plaintiff served his original discovery requests upon the Defendants in May

2013. Rather, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated he requested from the

Defendants through discovery that the x-rays be sent to someone other than himself – here,

presumably, Mr. Streeter. Until the Plaintiff can demonstrate the Defendants have denied Plaintiff’s

discovery request for x-rays requested in compliance with the prison regulation (i.e., producing

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 144 Filed 01/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

copies of the x-rays to someone other than the Plaintiff), the Court has no basis upon which to

compel any action. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 144 Filed 01/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EX-10.28





 Exhibit 10.28 

THE SYMBOL “[***]” DENOTES PLACES WHERE CERTAIN IDENTIFIED 

INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (i) 

NOT MATERIAL, AND (ii) WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE 

COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED 
 This
document is an English translation of a document prepared in German. In preparing this document, an attempt has been made to translate as literally as possible without jeopardizing the overall continuity of the text. Inevitably, however, differences
may occur in translation and if they do, the German text will govern by law. 
 In this translation, German legal concepts are expressed in English
terms and not in their original German terms. The concepts concerned may not be identical to concepts described by the English terms as such terms may be understood under the laws of other jurisdictions. 

Amendment 4 BionTech – Agreement regarding an extension to the lease agreement 

to the lease agreement of 17.08.2011 for commercial premises and the Amendment of 17.02.2012, as well as Amendment no. 2 of 01.02.2013 and Amendment no. 3
of 06.03.2013 
 Agreement no.: ____________________________ of: 19.11.2013 

The lease is entered into by and between the following contractual parties: 

As the Lessor: 
 Wolfram Richter 

Kupferbergterrasse 15, 17-19 

55116 Mainz 
 Tel.: [***]; Fax: [***] 

Lessor tax registration number: [***] 
 If the Lessor exercises
the value added tax option, the Lessor’s tax registration number is: [***] 
 As the Lessee: 

BioNTech AG 
 Represented by the Chair of the Board of Directors
[***] (with German business degree) 
 Hölderlinstraße 8 

D-55131 Mainz 
 registered
in the Commercial Register held at Mainz District Court, registration number: HRB 41865 
 for the office space on the property Kupferbergterrasse 15, 17-19; 55116 Mainz, on the second floor of the front building, the third floor of the front building (loft), the second floor of the original building and the ancillary areas. 

The Parties agree to extend the contractual term by a further two years until 31.03.2016, after expiry of the leasehold as agreed in Amendment no. 3 of
06.03.2013. 
 All other provisions laid down in the lease of 17.08.2011 and Amendments nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall remain in place and continue to apply without
changes. 
  

			
	Mainz, on 10.12.2013	  	
	Signature and stamp of the Lessor:	  	 [Stamp: WOLFRAM RICHTER
 PROPERTY MANAGER

KUPFERBERGTERRASSE 15-19 – 55116 MAINZ

E-MAIL: [***]

	Mainz, on 03.12.13	  	[signature]
		
	Signature and stamp of the Lessee:	  	[signature]


  
 Page 1 of 1
**UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 40-F**

|   |   | **REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | **OR **
X 
**ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(A) OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 
For the fiscal year ended: **  December 31, 2010**
Commission File Number: **  1-8481**  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2591-AP

MAGDELINE D. BERUMEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

Kane, J.

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand for Further Administrative Proceedings

(doc. #15), filed April 16, 2012, is GRANTED. 

This civil action is remanded to Defendant for additional administrative proceedings

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment in

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302 (1993).

Dated: April 16, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/John L. Kane

JOHN L. KANE, SENIOR JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:11-cv-02591-JLK Document 16 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
817 A.2d 962

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. GILLESPIE, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 028901982).

March 20, 2003.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that JAMES J. GILLESPIE, JR., of AMBLER, PENNSYLVANIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years effective April 10, 2000, by Order of this Court filed January 10, 2002, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE  YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         668,321
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         10,480,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,275,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,665,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        7,861,645
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,461,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,665,677
<SALES>                                        3,261,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,317,719
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,664,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             656,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,691)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET,THEREFORE THE VALUE IS $0.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02596-MSK-KLM

PRIDE SERVICES, INC., a Colorado Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation,

CALVIN BLACK, in his official capacity,

CALVIN (I) BLACK, in his individual capacity, and

ONE OR MORE JOHN DOES,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

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

Appear by Telephone During Scheduling Conference and Certification of Compliance

with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1(A) [Docket No. 19; Filed January 18, 2012] (the “Initial Motion”)

and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear by Telephone During

Scheduling Conference and Certification of Compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1(A)

[Docket No. 20; Filed January 18, 2012] (the “Amended Motion”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Initial Motion [#19] is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Motion [#20] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

counsel may appear by telephone at the Scheduling Conference on January 26, 2012 at

9:30 a.m. by dialing the Court at 303-335-2770. If any other parties are granted leave to

appear telephonically, these parties must initiate a conference call between themselves and

Plaintiff’s counsel before dialing the Court.

Dated: January 19, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02596-MSK-KLM Document 23 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Richard E. McDonald, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of World Health Alternatives, Inc. (the Issuer);



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Issuers fourth
fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2004 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Issuers auditors and the audit committee of the Issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Issuers internal control over
financial reporting.



|    |  |                                                                               
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/ RICHARD E. MCDONALD                                                       
|    |  | Richard E. McDonald Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,



Dated: April 15, 2005
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



         We have issued our report dated October 31, 1997, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Ciprico Inc.
and subsidiaries on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1997.  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statement of Ciprico Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No.
2-89276, File No. 2-96358, File No. 33-5746, File No. 33-14466, File No.
33-47840, File No. 33-78116, File No. 33-64999, File No. 33-65001, File No.
333-02931 and File No. 333-02933).




/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 15, 1997
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GERALD A. KELLOGG,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NIKE, INC. and NIKE USA, INC., 

Defendants-Cross Appellants. 

____________________ 

2010-1173, -1174, -1195, -1196 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Nebraska in No. 07-CV-0070, Chief Judge 

Joseph F. Bataillon. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

MARK J. PETERSON, Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP, of 

Omaha, Nebraska, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With 

him on the brief was NORA M. KANE. Of counsel on the 

brief were G. THOMAS WILLIAMS and MARY C. BONNEMA, 

McGarry Bair PC, of Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

B. TRENT WEBB, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P, of 

Kansas City, Missouri, argued for defendants-cross 

appellants. With him on the brief were BART A. STARR, 

JONATHAN N. ZERGER and ANGEL D. MITCHELL. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and 

REYNA, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 July 11, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
[743 NYS2d 342]

#### In the Matter of Michael B. Rudin, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

June 14, 2002

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Daniel*A. *Drake, Principal Counsel Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Rochester, for petitioner.

*Michael B. Rudin,*Mendon, respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 13, 1970. By order entered February 7, 2001, he was suspended for a period of three years and until further or*119der of the Court for acts of professional misconduct, including using his attorney trust account to pay law office expenses, issuing trust account checks payable to cash and converting client funds by allowing the balance in the trust account to fall below zero.

Respondent was personally served on February 9, 2001, with a certified copy of the suspension order and a copy of this Court’s rule governing the conduct of suspended attorneys.

By notice of motion returnable April 16, 2002, petitioner moved for an order punishing respondent for contempt of court on the grounds that respondent violated the suspension order of this Court by engaging in the practice of law, collecting legal fees and holding himself out as an attorney.

Respondent filed no papers in opposition to the motion. He appeared before this Court and stated that he would not contest the allegations.

Respondent admits that, after his suspension, he failed to close his attorney trust account. He was retained by the widow of a former client and accepted from her the sum of $53,200, which he deposited into his attorney trust account, purportedly to satisfy the outstanding indebtedness of the former client’s company. Respondent disbursed the sum of $10,137.30 for matters on behalf of the client and converted the balance of the funds.

Additionally, respondent continued to represent two other clients; he retained lobby signs and office signs identifying himself as an attorney; and he used letterhead and billing statements identifying himself as an attorney and responded to correspondence addressed to him as an attorney.

Respondent’s flagrant disregard of this Court’s order constitutes criminal contempt of court. Accordingly, we impose a fine in the amount of $1,000 and a sentence of imprisonment of 30 days *(see*Judiciary Law § 90 [2] [b]; § 750 [A] [3]).

Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ., concur.

Order of contempt entered.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02598-BNB

JULIO ONTIVEROS-PEREZ

Applicant,

v.

ANGELA MEDINA, Warden, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

Respondents.

ORDER

Before the Court is Respondents’ Pre-Answer Response (Doc. No. 8) to Mr.

Ontiveros-Perez’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. No. 1). Upon review of the Response, the Court finds that Respondent has

identified the state criminal case at issue in this action as Case No. 06CR2138. In the

Application, Mr. Ontiveros-Perez identified Case No. 06CR2720 as the criminal case at

issue. Respondents and Applicant are directed to clarify the criminal case that is at

issue in this action. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this Order both

Respondents and Applicant shall submit further briefing as set forth above.

Dated: January 19, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02598-BNB Document 10 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 9, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.128 Finance Companies1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3910

___________

National Labor Relations Board, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Enforcement of

* Order of the National Labor

Budrovich Contracting Company; * Relations Board.

and Budrovich Excavating Company, *

a Single Employer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondents. *

___________

Submitted: September 10, 2001

Filed: October 15, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and KYLE,1

District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board petitions to enforce its order finding that

Budrovich Contracting Company and Budrovich Excavating Company violated

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and § 158(a)(3) in a number of ways, most notably by laying
-2-

off and discharging two union employees for demanding rights secured to them by

a collective bargaining agreement, and by coercively interrogating another union

employee.

We detect no error in the Board's appreciation or application of the law, and its

findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record, that is, " 'such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.' " Carleton College v. NLRB, 230 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000),

quoting Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). We

therefore grant the Board's petition and enforce its order in its entirety.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.