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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2454-AP

IN RE:

CRAIG ALLEN DEWARS,

Debtor.

CRAIG ALLEN DEWARS,

Appellant,

v.

SIMON RODRIGUEZ,

Appellee.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

KANE, J. ORDERS

On January 4, 2012, this court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The deadline to respond to that order has

passed, and to date, no such response has been filed. It is therefore

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 24th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/John L. Kane 

JOHN L. KANE, SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:11-cv-02454-JLK Document 7 Filed 01/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB

THE WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998;

JULIE WELLINGER, trustee, and

JULIE WELLINGER, individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance

company,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc. # 41,

filed 11/30/2012] (the “Motion for Extension”), which is DENIED.

This case was commenced on September 30, 2011. A scheduling conference was held on

December 5, 2011. The discovery cut-off was May 31, 2012, and the dispositive motion

deadline was June 29, 2012. Three extensions have been granted, resulting in a discovery cut-off

of November 30, 2012, and a dispositive motion deadline of December 31, 2012. On the

existing discovery cut-off, the parties filed their request for a fourth extension of an additional

four months. If granted, the discovery cut-off would be March 29, 2013, and the dispositive

motion deadline would be April 30, 2013. In support of the request, the parties present a general

description of “some unfortunate roadblocks” which have made discovery difficult. I note,

however, that the parties already have had more than eleven months within which to conduct

their discovery. 

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 43 Filed 12/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

A scheduling order may be amended only on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4). Good cause in this context is defined in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 16:

[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause

if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension. Since the scheduling order is entered early

in the litigation, this standard seems more appropriate than a

“manifest injustice” or “substantial hardship” test.

Advis. Comm. Notes for 1983 Amend. 

I am not persuaded that the parties could not complete the necessary discovery within the

more than eleven months already allowed. Consequently, I do not find that good cause exists for

the additional four month extension requested.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion for Extension [Doc. # 41] is DENIED.

(2) The case schedule is modified to the following extent:

Discovery Cut-Off: January 25, 2013.

(All discovery must be completed by the discovery cut-off. All

written discovery must be served so that responses are due on or

before the discovery cut-off.)

Dispositive Motions Deadline: February 14, 2013.

 

(3) No further extensions will be granted.

Dated December 6, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 43 Filed 12/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1536 

For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 

and Adilene Martinez. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela 

Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Alberto Mar7 tinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Mar8 tinez shall each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 

9 to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligi10 ble for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1536 IS

1 admitted for permanent residence under section 245 of the 

2 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon 

3 filing an application for such adjustment of status. 

4 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub5 section (a) shall apply only if the application for adjust6 ment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 

7 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

9 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to Jose 

10 Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and 

11 Adilene Martinez, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 

12 proper officer to reduce by 3, during the current or subse13 quent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that 

14 are made available to natives of the country of the birth 

15 of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Mar16 tinez, and Adilene Martinez under section 202(e) or 

17 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

18 1152(e), 1153(a)), as applicable. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Registrant



|                                                           |  |                                        
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|1.      KT Services, Inc.                                  |  | 2.      Key Tronic Europe, LTD         
|100% owned subsidiary                                      |  | 100% owned subsidiary                  
|Incorporated in the State of Washington                    |  | Incorporated in the Cayman Islands     
|                                                           | 
|3.      Key Tronic Juarez, SA de CV                        |  | 4.      Key Tronic China LTD           
|100% owned subsidiary                                      |  | 100% owned subsidiary                  
|Incorporated in Mexico                                     |  | Incorporated in the State of Washington
|                                                           | 
|5.      Key Tronic Computer Peripherals (Shanghai) Co. LTD |  | 6.      Key Tronic Reynosa, S.A. de CV 
|100% owned subsidiary                                      |  | 100% owned subsidiary                  
|Incorporated in Republic of China                          |  | Incorporated in Mexico
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40161 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO CARRERA-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Carlos Mendoza-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas UDC No. L-96-CR-203-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Antonio Carrera-Hernandez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction to illegally entering the United States after previously being deported. He contends that the district court erred by enhancing his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice. Carrera-Hernandez’s appeal is not based in fact. A review of the record reveals that the district court did not enhance his offense level for obstruction of justice.No. 97-40161 -2- Rather, the district court reduced Carrera-Hernandez’s offense level by two levels after discussing the appropriateness of an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. This appeal is frivolous and is thus DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Counsel are warned that this court has little tolerance for the raising and arguing of frivolous issues that are belied by the record.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 23.1









Independent Auditors' Consent





The Board of Directors

Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-47877 and 333-12245) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 33-62952 and 333-26975) on Form S-8 of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation of our report dated April 5, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows, for the year ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation.





Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman, P.C.

Denver , Colorado
April 13, 2004
Exhibit 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated May 13, 1999, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of Arctic Cat Inc. and subsidiaries included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arctic Cat Inc. for the year ended March 31,
1999.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statements of Arctic Cat Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No.
33-37065, effective October 1, 1990, File No. 33-69916, effective October 4,
1993, and File No. 33-97244, effective September 22, 1995).



/s/Grant Thornton LLP
______________________
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 25, 1999
817 A.2d 317

#### IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP L. KANTOR, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 18, 2003.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Court pursuant to *Rule*l:20-3(g)(4) and *Rule*1:20-11, seeking the immediate temporary suspension of PHILIP L. KANTOR, formerly of WILLIAMSTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PHILIP L. KANTOR is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by PHILIP L. KANTOR pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

*556ORDERED that PHILIP L. KANTOR be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that PHILIP L. KANTOR comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00363-WYD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

1. AXIS LABS, LLC., 

Defendant. 

MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL 

In light of the fact that defense counsel has purchased airline tickets for the hearing 

that was to take place next week, the Sentencing hearing set for Wednesday, January 18, 

2012, at 11:00 a.m. that was vacated by previous Minute Order (ECF No. 18) is 

REINSTATED and shall take place as scheduled on the 18th. 

Dated: January 11, 2012
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.3

                                [ATG Letterhead]


                                                                 May 8, 2000

Donald Wright
Pacific Trade and Development Corp., Inc.

RE: STOCK OPTIONS

Dear Mr. Wright:

         We have been discussing certain amendments to your Stock Option
Agreement dated March 5, 1999 covering 180,000 shares at an exercise price of
$1.50 per share.

     ATG agrees to reduce the exercise price under the Agreement to the high
closing bid price on the trading day prior to exercise. Further, the Agreement
terminates twenty (20) business days after the effective date of a Registration
Statement on Form S-8 covering the 180,000 shares of common stock underlying the
option to be filed by ATG as soon as practicable.

     A form of notice of exercise of stock option is attached for your
convenience.

     The foregoing is subject to the approval of ATG Board of Directors
which must be obtained prior to the filing of the registration statement.

     If you agree to the foregoing amendments, please sign below and return
a copy to me.


                           Very truly yours,
                           /s/ Lawrence J. Brady
                           ---------------------
                           Lawrence J. Brady
                           Chief Executive Officer


I agree to the foregoing amendments.

Pacific Trade and Development Corp., Inc.


By: /s/ Donald Wright
   ----------------------
  Donald Wright, Chairman


<PAGE>


             NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF OPTION




TO:   American Technologies Group, Inc.
      1017 South Mountain Avenue
      Monrovia, California 91016


      The undersigned hereby exercises, according to the terms and conditions
thereof, the right to purchase 180,000 Shares of Common Stock, evidenced by the
Stock Option Agreement dated March 5, 1999, as amended, and herewith makes
payment of the purchase price in full.

      Please register my certificate for 180,000 shares of ATG common stock
      as follows:

      _________________________________

The certificate should be sent to:


      ____________________________
      ____________________________
      ____________________________


Date:_____________________________

Name:_____________________________

Signature:________________________
----

|   | RAVE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |                        |   |
|   | By:                         |   |
|   |                        |   |
|   | PARTICIPANT:                |
|   |                        |   |
|   |                        |   |

----

| 1. | Grant of Restricted Stock Units. |
|----|----------------------------------|

| 2. | Vesting. |
|----|----------|

| 3. | Performance Criteria. |
|----|-----------------------|

| 4. | Delivery of Shares. |
|----|---------------------|

----

| 5. | Forfeiture of Units. |
|----|----------------------|

| 6. | Change in Control. |
|----|--------------------|

| 7. | Delay for Specified Employees. |
|----|--------------------------------|

| 8. | Nontransferability of Units. |
|----|------------------------------|

| 9. | Compliance with Securities and Other Laws. |
|----|--------------------------------------------|

----

| 10. | No Rights of a Stockholder or of Continued Employment. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------|

| 11. | Interpretation of this Agreement. |
|-----|-----------------------------------|

| 12. | Units Subject to 2015 LTIP. |
|-----|-----------------------------|

| 13. | Code Section 409A. |
|-----|--------------------|

----

|  | 1. | The Units granted pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the Performance Criteria provided below: |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02499-BNB

JASON FRANCISCO AGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORONADO CROSSING APARTMENTS, and

(ETL) EVERYONE INVOLVED,

Defendants.

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCIES

On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff, Jason Francisco Aguon, filed a Letter verifying

that he is no longer incarcerated. Previously, Plaintiff had submitted a Motion and

Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a Complaint and a Motion

to File Without Payment and Supporting Financial Affidavit. As part of the court’s review

pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1, the court has determined that the submitted

documents are deficient as described in this order. Plaintiff will be directed to cure the

following if he wishes to pursue his claims. Any papers that the Plaintiff files in

response to this order must include the civil action number on this order. 

Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915:

(1) is not submitted

(2) is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form) 

(3) xx is missing original signature by Plaintiff

(4) is missing affidavit

(5) affidavit is incomplete

(6) xx affidavit is not notarized or is not properly notarized

(7) names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or

Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 7 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

application

(8) xx other: Motion is necessary only if $350.00 filing fee is not paid in advance.

Complaint or Petition:

(9) is not submitted

(10) is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form) 

(11) is missing an original signature by the Plaintiff

(12) is incomplete

(13) uses et al. instead of listing all parties in caption

(14) names in caption do not match names in text

(15) __ addresses must be provided for all defendants/respondents in “Section A.

Parties” of complaint, petition or habeas application

(16) other 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Plaintiff cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty

(30) days from the date of this order. Any papers which the Plaintiff files in response

to this order must include the civil action number on this order. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall obtain the court-approved Motion

and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 form, along with the

applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, if the Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies

within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the complaint and the action will

be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without prejudice.

DATED November 8, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02499-LTB Document 7 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.



Exhibit 32.1



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

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



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



(i) the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                         |  |                                          
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: December 30, 2005 |  | /s/ JEFFREY W. TAYLOR                    
|                         |  | Jeffrey W. Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|                         | 
|Dated: December 30, 2005 |  | /s/ DANIEL C. STEVENS                    
|                         |  | Daniel C. Stevens Chief Financial
Officer



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
Case 1:11-cv-02540-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02540-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02540-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02540-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/05/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50062

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LARRY CALLOWAY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-222-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Calloway appeals the 36-month sentence imposed following

revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his sentence, which was

above the recommended range, is plainly unreasonable because it is greater than

necessary to accomplish the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We review sentences imposed on revocation of supervised release under

the plainly unreasonable standard. United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843

(5th Cir. 2011). Calloway did not object in the district court. Therefore, we

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-50062 Document: 00511610108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2011
No. 11-50062

review his appeal for plain error only. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d

256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423,

1429 (2009).

Because the 36-month sentence Calloway received on revocation was not

greater than the term authorized by statute, it is “clearly legal.” United States

v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, this court has routinely

upheld sentences on revocation greater than the advisory policy range but within

the statutory maximum. See United States v. Milligan, 353 F. App’x 954 (5th

Cir. 2009)(unpublished); United States v. Jones, 182 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir.

2006) (unpublished). Thus, there is no plain error with regard to Calloway’s 36- 1

month sentence. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429. Accordingly, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

Although these unpublished decisions are not precedent, we cite them as exemplars

1

of sentences upheld by our court in the past.

2

Case: 11-50062 Document: 00511610108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2011