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-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER

RYAN O’NEILL;

JOQUIN MARTINEZ;

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON; and

WILLIAM LEGER, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER VACATING ORDERS 

_____________________________________________________________________

This civil action has now been reassigned to permit coordination of these

proceedings with the other civil actions pending before this Court on the same subject

matter. The complaint in this case alleges a class action and the last order entered by

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shafer reflects that some discovery responses have been

ordered in that case, apparently relating to the question of whether the requirements of

F.R.C.P. 23 can be met. In anticipation of a coordinated conference being held in all of

these civil actions to develop a coordinated case management order, it is now

ORDERED that the order of reference to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer is

vacated and the orders previously entered by Magistrate Judge Shaffer are vacated.

Dated: April 23rd, 2012.

 BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 32 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through September 12, 2010.

For information, contact Debra Younginer, Executive Secretary, Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K57, Chamblee, Georgia 30341, telephone (770) 488-1074; fax (770) 488-3230.

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: October 1, 2008.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E8-23815 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Whitley, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, *783Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered on September 15, 1983, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years’ to life and 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment, is, upon reargument, unanimously affirmed.

On defendant’s initial appeal, counsel challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion for a severance and for a mistrial. This court unanimously affirmed without opinion (128 AD2d 449). Upon reargument, defendant submits a *pro se*supplemental brief reiterating the point concerning denial of his severance motion, and raising five additional points. None of these points merits departure from our original determination.

Defendant’s failure to move for dismissal of the indictment for denial of his statutory right to testify before the Grand Jury constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the indictment on that ground *(People v Reddy,*108 AD2d 945, 946). The circumstances surrounding defendant’s warrantless arrest were no bar to his subsequent prosecution *(see, United States v Crews,*445 US 463).

Failure to call a witness to "explain” defendant’s own medical records revealing that he had suffered a beating at the hands of the murder victim the day before, and failure to request a visit to the crime scene notwithstanding the submission of the crime scene photos in evidence, did not constitute ineffectiveness of assistance of trial counsel. The charge of "unethical behavior” leveled against the prosecutor has not been preserved for appeal, defendant having failed to object to the manner of the trial court’s prompt, curative instructions *(People v Tarabania,*72 NY2d 852). There was no *Rosario*violation with regard to the police report of an interview of an eyewitness, inasmuch as neither the interviewer nor the interviewee was called as a witness. Furthermore, the report did not constitute a *Brady*violation inasmuch as defendant had in his possession a redacted version of the report prior to trial, and then failed to avail himself of the opportunity to call the police author of the report as a witness with regard to this supposedly exculpatory material *(see, People v Cortijo,*70 NY2d 868). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Production Lift Companies, Inc

. * From the County Court at

and Wireline Services, Inc., Law No. 2 of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CC19833

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 331

- CV * May 31, 2019

Rafael Valdez and Kenny Ortiz, * M emorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against

Production Lif

t Companies, Inc. and Wireline Services, Inc.
#### J. A. DEAN v. STATE.

8 Div. 193.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23957]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m. Thursday, October 9, 2008.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: DCIO Rule Enforcement Review Meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Staff Assistant.
 [FR Doc. E8-23957 Filed 10-6-08; 11:30 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Exhibit 10.31


                     SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROMISSORY NOTE
                            OF LEVEL 8 SYSTEMS, INC.
                         IN FAVOR OF LIRAZ SYSTEMS LTD.



     This  document  when  executed  by Level 8 Systems, Inc. and Liraz Systems,
Ltd.  shall amend that certain Promissory Note of Level 8 Systems, Inc. in favor
of  Liraz  Systems  Ltd  dated  December  31,  1999.


     1.     The  maturity  date  of the note is hereby changed from December 15,
            2000  to  December  15,  2001.


All  other  terms  of  the  Promissory  Note  shall  remain  unchanged and fully
enforceable.

This  Agreement  shall  have  effect  from  the  31st  day  of  December,  1999.



LEVEL  8  SYSTEMS,  INC.                         LIRAZ  SYSTEMS  LTD.

By:  /s/     Renee  D.  Fulk               By:  /s/     Yossi  Shemesh
        -----------------------                -----------------------
             Renee  D.  Fulk                            Yossi  Shemesh
Title:     Chief Financial Officer         Title:     Chief Financial Officer
1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

2 “[#30]” 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-02603-REB-KMT

DAVID C. ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

The matter comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion To File Reply Brief

in Excess of Court’s Page Limitation [#30]2 filed August 9, 2012. The motion is

GRANTED, and defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of Combined Motion To Dismiss

and Motion for Summary Judgment [#31] is accepted for filing.

Dated: August 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02603-REB-KMT Document 33 Filed 08/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02372-MSK-KLM

K-BEECH, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

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 23rd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 21.  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND PARTNERSHIPS OF THE REGISTRANT.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     SUBSIDIARY                         STATE OR COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION ORGANIZATION
     ----------                         ----------------------------------------------

   <S>                                  <C>
                                                               100% OWNED ENTITIES
   CLAYTON HOMES, INC.                                         DELAWARE
   CMH MANUFACTURING, INC. (2)                                 TENNESSEE
   CMH HOMES, INC. (2)                                         TENNESSEE
   VANDERBILT MORTGAGE & FINANCE, INC. (3)                     TENNESSEE
   CLAYTON-VANDERBILT, INC. (2)                                ARIZONA
   VANDERBILT PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., LTD (2)     BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS
   CMH INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. (2)                              TENNESSEE
   CABS, INC. (4)                                              TENNESSEE
   CMH PARKS, INC. (2)                                         TENNESSEE
   CMH CAPITAL, INC. (1)                                       DELAWARE
   VANDERBILT SPC, INC. (4)                                    DELAWARE
   CMH SERVICES, INC. (1)                                      TENNESSEE
   CMH OF KY, INC. (5)                                         KENTUCKY

                                                               50% TO 99% OWNED ENTITIES

   CLAYTON'S - TULLAHOMA, INC. (2)                             TENNESSEE
   VANDERBILT LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., LTD  (2)        BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS
   EASTERN STATES LIFE INSURANCE CO., INC. (2)                 TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS
   MIDLAND STATES LIFE CO., INC. (2)                           TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS

   (1) OWNED BY CLAYTON HOMES, INC.
   (2) OWNED BY CMH CAPITAL, INC.
   (3) OWNED BY CMH SERVICES, INC.
   (4) OWNED BY VANDERBILT MORTGAGE & FINANCE, INC.
   (5) OWNED BY CMH HOMES, INC. AND BY CMH INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.


     PARTNERSHIP
     -----------
                                                               50% TO 99% OWNED ENTITIES

   BLEVINS PARTNERSHIP                                         TENNESSEE
   CLAYTON-CAMBRIDGE, J/V                                      TENNESSEE
   REDWOOD PARTNERS LIMITED                                    COLORADO
   PINE LAKE WEST ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP               GEORGIA
   SOUTHGATE MOBILE HOME PARK                                  TENNESSEE
   CMH MANAGEMENT, LP                                          TENNESSEE
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANCES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert J. Keogh, state and attest that:

1.   I am the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Bankshares, Inc.(the
     "Registrant").

2.   I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
     to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. that

     o    the Annual Report of Form 10-KSB of the Registrant for the year ended
          December 31, 2002, (the "periodic report") containing financial
          statements 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

     o    the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Registrant for the periods presented.



Date:  March 26, 2003                            /s/ Robert J. Keogh
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 Robert J. Keogh
                                                 President and Chief Executive
                                                 Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Chief Financial Officer Certification**

 

I, Wendy A. Nieto certify that:

 

(1)  I have reviewedthis quarterly 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’s other certifying officer 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:

 

(a)  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;

 

(b)  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

 

(c)  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’s other certifying officer 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):

 

(a)  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

 

(b)  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 11, 2008

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

 

----
* 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. 07-60533

Summary Calendar

LEANGSE HOEUNG; TIP VANNY EM

Petitioners

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 261 171

BIA No. A95 261 172 

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leangse Hoeung, and his wife, Tip Vanny Em, citizens and natives of

Cambodia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s)

dismissal of their appeal of the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). Where, as here, the BIA has adopted the analysis and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60533

2

conclusions of the IJ, we review the IJ’s findings. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d

899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).

Hoeung challenges the IJ's denial of relief based on the IJ's finding that

Hoeung's testimony was not credible. He contends that his testimony did not

contradict his written asylum application and materials; he asserts that his

testimony simply clarified and elaborated on certain details. He asserts that the

IJ misread and misinterpreted the facts, statements, and testimony and thatthe

inconsistencies identified by the IJ are trivial, innocent oversights that do not

go to the heart of his case.

A review of the record establishes that the IJ’s finding that Hoeung’s

testimony is not credible is substantially supported by the record. Hoeung’s

arguments do not compel this court to substitute its judgment for that of the IJ.

See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (“We cannot substitute our

judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with respect to the credibility of the witnesses

or ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations.”); see also Efe,

293 F.3d at 905 (“The panel cannot replace the Board or IJ’s determinations

concerning witness credibility or ultimate factual findings based on credibility

determinations with its own determinations.”). Further, Hoeung has not

challenged the alternative conclusions that he failed to provide sufficient

evidence to support his claims for asylum, for withholding of removal, and for

relief under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, he has abandoned

any challenge to these conclusions. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833

(5th Cir. 2003) (issues not raised in alien’s brief in support of his petition for

review of decision of BIA are deemed abandoned).

The petition is DENIED.
#### EDWARD F. MOELLER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WESTON TRUCKING AND FORWARDING CO., INC., AND FRANK J. HAYES, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided March 1, 1948.

Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Wachenefeld.

For the appellants, *James A. McTague.*

For the respondent, *Sanderson & Engel (Frederick W. Engel,*of counsel).

*644The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

A jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for damages to his automobile resulting from a collision with defendant’s truck; and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff adduced evidence, without objection, from an automobile mechanic that the reasonable cost of repairing the damage done was $184.25, the'amount awarded by the jury; and the sole ground of appeal argued is that there was error in the denial of defendants’ motion for a nonsuit for want of “proper proof of the damages” alleged. It is said that the measure of damages is the difference in the value of the car immediately before and after the injury, and therefore the evidence was “clearly insufficient to establish the amount of the damage.” .

But even though there was no proof of actual damage, plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages, and the motion to nonsuit was therefore properly denied. Negligence is ordinarily not actionable unless injury results to another. Injury is of the essence of the right of action — -the gravamen of the cause of action. *Ochs*v. *Public Service Railway Co.,*81 *N. J. L.*661. The fundamental legal concept of a tort is a wrong with resulting damage, but the damage requisite to render the injury actionable is frequently implied or presumed. The law ordinarily infers damage from the invasion of a legal right; and, if there be no showing of actual loss, the law vindicates the right by awarding nominal damages. The injury imports damage. *Klein*v. *Shryer, 106 Id. 432; Spiegel*v. *Evergreen Cemetery Co.,*117 *Id.*90. And compare *VanSchoick*v. *VanSchoick,*76 *Id.*242. Here, injury in fact was established; and, in the absence of evidence providing a basis for the admeasurement of the actual damage, plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages.

Moreover, while the difference in the market value of the vehicle immediately before and immediately after the injury ordinarily constitutes the measure of damage in such circumstances, the reasonable value of the repairs necessary to restore the vehicle to its former condition is evidential on this inquiry, and may be sufficient in itself to establish the damages if less than the diminution in market value due to the *645injury and not in excess of the value of the vehicle itself as it was before the injury. *Parisi*v. *Friedman,*134 *N. J. L.*273; *Hintz*v. *Roberts,*98 *Id.*768; *Gass*v. *Agate Ice Cream, Inc.,*264 *N. Y.*141; 190 *N. E. Rep.*323. There is no suggestion here of a violation of this limitation.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.