alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cv-02518-BNB Document 8 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02518-BNB Document 8 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02518-BNB Document 8 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02518-BNB Document 8 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-02518-BNB Document 8 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10616

Summary Calendar

 

PETE VARDAS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; DALLAS POLICE

PROPERTY ROOM; BRUCE ANTON, Attorney at Law,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-504

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

November 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pete Vardas, Jr., Texas prisoner # 486618, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Vardas is serving a fifteen-year

sentence imposed in 1988 after pleading guilty to robbery. He

alleged in his complaint that in 2001 he moved pursuant to the

newly-enacted TEX. CODE CRIM. P. art. 64.01 for DNA testing but

learned that the evidence he sought to have tested (a knife) had
No. 02-10616

-2-

been destroyed one year earlier. Vardas alleged, and he argues

on appeal, that the destruction of evidence pursuant to a city

ordinance denied him his right to prove his innocence and

invalidated his sentence. He also argues that his guilty plea

was involuntary, that he was not informed of his right to appeal

the denial of DNA testing, and that the district attorney failed

to comply with discovery. 

Most of Vardas's claims implicate the validity of his

conviction and are not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

To the extent that Vardas has stated a cognizable claim, he has

not shown that his due process rights were violated by the

destruction of evidence twelve years after his conviction and one

year before the state statute permitting DNA testing was enacted. 

See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 56 (1988). Moreover,

neither the Dallas Police Department Property Room nor courtappointed attorney Anton are capable of being sued in a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311,

313 (5th Cir. 1991); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25

(1981); see also Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d

677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988).

Vardas argues that the district court erred by dismissing

his complaint without conducting a hearing or permitting him an

opportunity to amend. Vardas has not shown that the district

court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint. See
No. 02-10616

-3-

Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994); Wilson v.

Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991).

Vardas has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

("IFP") on appeal. Because the district court has permitted

Vardas to proceed on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2),

the motion is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. All other outstanding

motions are also DENIED.

AFFIRMED. MOTION for IFP DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. ALL OTHER

MOTIONS DENIED.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Intraware, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I Peter H. Jackson, Chief Executive 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-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: January 14, 2003                                                                                                    |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/PETER H. JACKSONPeter H. Jackson President and Chief Executive Officer of Intraware, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer) |  |  | 

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 Intraware, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I Wendy A. Nieto, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance 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-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: January 14, 2003                                                                                                                     |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/WENDY A. NIETOWendy A. Nieto Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance of
Intraware, Inc.
(Principal Finance Officer) |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer Certification**

 

I, Wendy A. Nieto, ChiefFinancial Officer and Executive Vice President of Intraware, Inc. certifythat:

 

(1)  I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of Intraware, Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

(2)  Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

(3)  Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

(4)  The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

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

 

(ii)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(iii)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

(5)  The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(i)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(ii)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Dated:                January 6, 2006

 
| /s/   WENDY A. NIETO           |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Wendy A. Nieto                      |
| *Chief Financial Officer and Executive*  |
| *Vice President of Intraware, Inc.* |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)*          |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02536-PAB-MEH

ELAINE CALDERON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEHOUSE PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR NONVIOLENCE,

ANNE TAPP, Executive Director, Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, and

MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL,

Defendants.

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Dismissal of Defendant Mountain

States Employers Council, Inc. With Prejudice filed by plaintiff [Docket No. 84]. Despite

Rule 41(a)(1)’s reference to the dismissal of an “action,” the weight of authority permits

a dismissal of all claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) against fewer than all defendants.

See Montoya v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir.

2010); Blaize-Sampeur v. McDowell, 2007 WL 1958909, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2007)

(noting that, although the Second Circuit had previously stated otherwise, it had “since

adopted the approach of the majority of courts in other circuits – that is, that Rule 41(a)

does not require dismissal of the action in its entirety” and permits dismissal of all

claims as to a single defendant). Upon the filing of plaintiff’s Notice [Docket No. 84],

this action was dismissed with prejudice as to defendant Mountain States Employers

Council.

Case 1:11-cv-02536-PAB-MEH Document 85 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

DATED May 14, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02536-PAB-MEH Document 85 Filed 05/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57346-57347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 4306-017--Minnesota]


City of Hastings; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

September 26, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations (18 CFR Part 380), the Office of Energy Projects has 
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) regarding the City of 
Hastings' (City's) request to install two hydrokinetic turbines at the 
Mississippi Lock and Dam No. 2 Hydroelectric Project. The project is 
located on the Mississippi River in Dakota County, Minnesota. This EA 
concludes that the Proposed Action, with staff's recommended mitigation 
measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Room of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC. The EA also may be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site 
(www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number 
``P-4306''

[[Page 57347]]

in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance with 
eLibrary, contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#276162756468494b4e494274525757485553674142554409404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll-free at (866) 
208-3372, or for TTY contact (202) 502-8659.
    For further information regarding this notice, please contact 
Andrea Claros at (202) 502-8171 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caaba4aeb8afabe4a9a6abb8a5b98aacafb8a9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8eefe0eafcebefa0ede2effce1fdcee8ebfceda0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23215 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SPALDING HOLDINGS CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL NINE MONTHS
ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           5,641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,333)
<INVENTORY>                                     54,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,679
<PP&E>                                         109,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                (50,659)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 448,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,396
<BONDS>                                        537,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<COMMON>                                           975
<OTHER-SE>                                   (333,734)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   448,829
<SALES>                                        333,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               333,840
<CGS>                                          196,893
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,806)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,774)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,051)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,051)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GREGORY LOFTIS and 

AMY JACOBY,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendant, Amy Jacoby’s unopposed Motion 

to Continue Trial [80]. Counsel needs additional time to consult with the defendant and 

prepare for trial. The government has no objection. Counsel for co-defendant, Gregory 

Loftis has been contacted and has objection to the continuance. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [80] is granted, as follows:

1. The jury trial, for both defendants, now set for February 5, 2024, is continued 

to April 22, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date 

and April 22, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of 

time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: January 22, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 81 Filed: 01/22/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 133
818 A.2d 330

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES A. MCCUE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 26, 2003.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court on the petition of JAMES A. McCUE of SHREWSBURY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, and who thereafter was *587transferred to disability inactive status by Order of this Court filed on September 19, 2002, to be restored to active status, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JAMES A. McCUE is hereby restored to active status, effective immediately, and it is further

ORDERED that JAMES A. McCUE shall provide the Office of Attorney Ethics with reports by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, attesting to his mental fitness to practice law, on a semiannual basis and until further Order of the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
TransFinancial Holdings, Inc. consolidated statement of income for the year
ended December 31, 1999 and consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000719271
<NAME> TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    30751
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1073
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 34333
<PP&E>                                           57442
<DEPRECIATION>                                   25400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   76893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            36497
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                       40320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     76893
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                157567
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   164094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8084)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8084)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.37)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Tamara Hoffschildt

Date: February 17, 2012

Interpreter: Ruth Warner

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00386-RBJ-1 

Parties:

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ-FLORES, 

Defendant.

Counsel:

Lillian Alves

Edward Pluss

SENTENCING MINUTES

10:01 a.m. Court in session.

Appearances of counsel. Probation Officer Sue Heckman present.

Defendant is present in custody.

Defendant pled GUILTY to Count One of the Indictment on November 18, 2011.

Statement by the Government as to Request for Variance in Guideline Sentence Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Statements by Mr. Pluss, defendant and the government as to sentencing.

ORDERED: United States’ Motion for 1-Level Variance in Defendant’s Offense Level for

Acceptance of Appellate Waiver Doc.# [18] is GRANTED.

ORDERED: Motion for Leave to Late File Motion for Downward Variance Doc.# [22] is

GRANTED.
2

ORDERED: Request for Variance in Guideline Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is

DENIED.

Statement by the Court regarding defendant's offense level, criminal history level and sentencing

guidelines range.

Court states its findings and conclusions.

ORDERED: Defendant shall be imprisoned for a term of EIGHT (8) months.

Court RECOMMENDS that defendant receive credit for 154 days spent in custody.

ORDERED: No term of supervised release is imposed.

ORDERED: Defendant shall pay $100 to Crime Victim Fund (Special Assessment), to be

paid immediately.

ORDERED: No fine is imposed because defendant has no ability to pay a fine.

ORDERED: Defendant is REMANDED to the custody of the U.S. Marshal.

10:22 a.m. Court in Recess. 

Hearing concluded.

Total Time: 00:21
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

CRISTOBAL AMANCIO MORALES,

a.k.a. Amancio Cristobal Morales-Beltran, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50221

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00964-DMG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Cristobal Amancio Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

FILED

OCT 04 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B),

and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morales contends that the district court erred in denying his request for

safety-valve relief. We review for clear error, see United States v. Mejia-Pimental,

477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007), and find none. The record supports the

district court’s finding that Morales did not truthfully provide the government with

all of the information he had concerning the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5);

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). Moreover, contrary to Morales’s contention, his proffer

sessions did not constitute a “good faith” effort to cooperate with the government. 

See Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d at 1106 (a defendant who provides evasive answers

and whose conduct was more extensive than his proffer suggests has not met the

good faith standard). 

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50221