alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
Golden Cycle Gold Corporation
and Subsidiary
Consolidated Financial Statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                    152,581
<SECURITIES>                            1,164,805
<RECEIVABLES>                              38,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,355,875
<PP&E>                                    746,362
<DEPRECIATION>                            403,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,698,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      14,078
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                1,684,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,698,879
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          330,447
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             700,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (370,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (370,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (370,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.20)


</TABLE>
815 A.2d 960

#### ISA DUPREE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF CLIFTON, DEFENDANT, AND THE NETHERLANDS REFORMED CHURCH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued January 21, 2003

Decided February 24, 2003.

*Mitchell J. Makowicz, Jr.,*argued the cause for appellant *(Blume, Goldfaden, Berkowitz, Donnelly, Fried & Forte,*attorneys).

*Barry A Knopf,*argued the cause for respondent *(Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf,*attorneys; *Mr. Knopf*and *Albert L. Cohn,*of counsel; *Audra DePaolo,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Newman’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 351 *N.J.Super.*237, 798 A.2d 105 (2002).

*For affirming*— Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN — 7.

*Opposed*— None.
#### George A. WEHBY, Appellant, v. HIALEAH-MIAMI SPRINGS BANK, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 16, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129562 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129562 COA: 254820 Calhoun CC: 2003-000406-FC DAVID LEE WALTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02521-MSK-MJW

DEBRA MINOR,

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 6th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02521-MSK-MJW Document 4 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
of The Learning Company, Inc. (formerly known as SoftKey International, Inc.) 
on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-73422, 33-63073, 333-00145, 333-02385, 333-03271, 
333-10009, 333-40543, 333-40549, 333-48009, 333-50915, 333-56641, 333-57397, 
333-62171) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-75134, 33-92920, 33-92922, 33-61931, 
333-00107, 333-02337, 333-04619, 333-40539, 333-42449, 333-43653, 333-45113, 
333-45115, 333-57335, 333-59123, 333-67045, 333-67047, 333-70705), in the 
Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A of The Learning Company, Inc. 
filed on March 26, 1999, and in the Prospectus constituting part of the 
Registration Statement of Mattel, Inc. on Form S-4 (File No. 333-71587) of our 
report dated March 26, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated balance sheets 
and financial statement schedule of valuation and qualifying accounts of The 
Learning Company, Inc. as of January 2, 1999 and January 3, 1998 and the 
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash 
flows for each of the three years in the period ended January 2, 1999, which 
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP              
                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 20, 1999
1

“[#14]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02581-REB-MEH

MARK MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLERA NATIONAL BANK,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice

[#4]1

 filed December 9, 2011. After reviewing the motion and the file, I conclude that the

motion should be granted and that this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice [#4] filed December 9,

2011, is GRANTED; and

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay

their own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated December 12, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02581-REB-MEH Document 5 Filed 12/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
No. 40, Orig.

#### Pennsylvania *v.*New York et al.

It is hereby ordered that John F. Davis, the Special Master appointed in this cause, having completed his duties, is hereby discharged.

It is further ordered that his expenditures in preparing the supplemental report in amount of One Hundred Four Dollars ($104) are approved.

It is further ordered that the compensation for services of the Special Master in the supplementary proceedings be fixed at One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) and that that amount plus the approved expenditures shall be paid to him by Western Union out of the funds in its possession *903which are the subject of this suit and that Western Union be given credit for that amount divided pro rata among the parties who would otherwise be entitled to the money under the opinion and decree of this Court. [For earlier orders herein, see, *e. g.,*410 U. S. 977.]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6417

WAYNE ANTHONY BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-3074-PJM) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Anthony Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Brooks’ notice of appeal is timely only as to the February 3 and March 4 orders. 2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Anthony Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brooks v. Corcoran, No. CA-98-3074-PJM (D. Md. Feb . 3 & Mar. 4, 1999). * 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
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
E. Takiff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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




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.





/s/ Peter E. Takiff
---------------------------
Peter E. Takiff
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Incentra Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007, 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. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 8, 2007 |  | By: | /s/ Thomas P. Sweeney III
|----- | ----------- |  | --- | -------------------------
|      |             |  |     | Thomas P. Sweeney III    
|      |             |  |     | Chief Executive Officer  





______________________________________________________________________

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 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 §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.

---
Exhibit 10.1

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
               NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC. STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

                  The Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. Stock Ownership Plan is
hereby amended as follows, effective as of  July 1, 1997


         Section 8(c) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

                  (c) Restricted Stock. The Committee may award Restricted Stock
         to any Participant. Awards of Restricted Stock shall be subject to such
         conditions and restrictions as are established by the Committee and set
         forth in the Award Agreement, which may include, but are not limited
         to, continued service with the Company, achievement of specific
         business objectives, and other measurements of individual or business
         unit or Company performance. Restricted Stock Awards shall have a
         minimum vesting period of three years unless there is a specific
         performance benchmark established, in which case the vesting period may
         be a minimum of one year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment is hereby executed this 20th day of October,
1997.

                                            NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC.

                                                D. J. Anderson
                                            ------------------------------
                                                Senior Vice President

 ATTEST: Peter A. V. Huegel
         -------------------------
Exhibit
23.2
 
 THIRD
PARTY REVIEWER CONSENT
 
 We
consent to the reference to us in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009, and the Registration Statements on Form S-3ASR (No.
333-145919), Form S-4 (No. 333-130682) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-96995,
33-60095 and 33-60099) of Hecla Mining Company.  In giving this
consent, we do not admit that we are within the category of persons whose
consent is required by Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933 or the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 
 /s/  AMEC
E&C Services, Inc.
 
 January
15, 2010
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30124 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MICHAEL FELTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(CR-92-33-I)

November 16, 1995

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Per curiam: *

A jury convicted Appellant, Michael Felton (Felton) of

conspiracy to possess and pa ss counterfeit notes, possession of

counterfeit notes, and conspiracy to distribu te marijuana. At

sentencing, Felton un successfully objected to increases in hisoffense level for obstruction of justice and the quantity of drugs

involved. This Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal,

but determined that Felton should not have been sentenced as

a career offender. We then vacated Felton's 262-month sentence and

remanded for resentencing. U nited States v. Wallace
, 32 F.3d 921,

931 (5th Cir. 1994). We found it unnecessary to address Felton's

challenges to his offense level, but noted that we would not

reverse the district court's finding absent clear error. I d. at

931 n.13.

Without the career offender enhancement, Felton's guidelines

sentencing range was 77 to 96 months. On resentencing, the

district court again rejected Fe lton's arguments concerning the

quantity of drugs and the obstruction of justice enhancement,

readopted its original factual determinations, and sentenced Felton

to a total term of ninety months. Felton argues both sentencing

issues on appeal.

We have reviewed the record and the trial court's factual

determinations concerning the quantity of drugs and F elton's

obstruction of justice. Because we find that the trial court's

findings on these issues were not clearly erroneous, we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,142,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,430,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 51,092,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,801,000
<PP&E>                                         122,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,587,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,178,000
<BONDS>                                     20,559,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       266,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,584,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                    126,588,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           126,588,000
<CGS>                                      110,419,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              125,347,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,096,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               750,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,264,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                323,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   209,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            114,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,263,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,377,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

Courtroom Deputy: Robert R. Keech

E.C.R./Reporter: Therese Lindblom

Date: January 11, 2012

Civil Action No: 11-cv-02586-WYD-MJW

JAMES S. GRADY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TODD BREMER,

Defendant.

Counsel:

Andrew J. Contiguglia

No Appearance

COURTROOM MINUTES

MOTION HEARING

3:08 p.m. Court in Session

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL.

Court’s opening remarks.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, Damages, Attorney’s Fees and Costs,

and Permanent Injunction (ECF Doc. No. 15), filed November 29, 2011, is raised

for argument.

3:10 p.m. Argument by Plaintiff (Mr. Contiguglia).

3:16 p.m. Statement by Plaintiff (Mr. Grady).

3:22 p.m. Argument by Plaintiff (Mr. Contiguglia).

3:27 p.m. Statement by Plaintiff (Mr. Grady).

Case 1:11-cv-02586-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

3:28 p.m. Argument by Plaintiff (Mr. Contiguglia).

ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, Damages, Attorney’s Fees and Costs,

and Permanent Injunction (ECF Doc. No. 15), filed November 29, 2011, is

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall file any additional briefing not later than Wednesday, January 25,

2012.

ORDERED: Plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of order not later than Wednesday,

January 25, 2012.

3:35 p.m. Court in Recess - HEARING CONCLUDED.

TOTAL TIME: :27

Case 1:11-cv-02586-WYD-MJW Document 17 Filed 01/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

District Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01257-CMA

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00406-CMA-02

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

DANIEL SHAW,

Movant.

 

ORDER

 

After preliminary consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF Nos. 440 and 442, it is now

ORDERED that the United States Attorney on or before July 15, 2015, shall file 

an answer or other pleading directed to the motion pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.

Dated: June 17, 2015

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 444 Filed 06/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02327-WJM-MEH

AVAYA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PACIFIC (USA) CORP., A New York Corporation

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REOPEN CASE, VACATE

PARAGRAPH 23 OF ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 (ECF NO. 16), 

AND RE-CLOSING CASE

_____________________________________________________________________

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

Case, Vacating Paragraph 23 of Order Granting Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for

Seizure of Counterfeit Goods, and Re-Closing Case (ECF No. 50), filed June 6, 2013. 

The Court having reviewed the Motion and the applicable record, and being fully

advised therein, hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion is GRANTED for good cause shown. This

matter is REOPENED for the sole and limited purpose of addressing Paragraph 23 of

this Court’s September 9, 2011 Order (ECF No. 16). Paragraph 23 of said Order is

hereby VACATED.

Plaintiff Avaya, Inc. is hereby relieved of its obligation to maintain the seized

counterfeit Avaya products underlying this case, and, as this matter is now concluded,

Case 1:11-cv-02327-WJM-MEH Document 52 Filed 06/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Avaya may destroy those counterfeit products.

This case shall return to its prior status of being DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated this 11th day of June, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02327-WJM-MEH Document 52 Filed 06/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1









Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Oxford Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the SEC on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Jacinta Sit, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





/s/ Jacinta Sit

Jacinta Sit

President & Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)



Date:  October 16, 2007