alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. R. SUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROTHERHOOD RAILWAY CARMEN OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, a Labor Organization, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 76-2285

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1977.

David T. Lopez, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Wm. J. Hickey, Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Washington, D. C., Craig Lewis, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

We review the district court’s dissolution on defendants’ motion of this agreed preliminary injunction on an abuse of discretion standard. *Blackshear Residents Organization v. Romney,*472 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1973); *Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University,*306 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1962). The argument that the district court was irrevocably bound by prior determinations loses its force in face of the district court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances warranting dissolution of the injunction. This determination does not appear to be clearly erroneous. Further, it does not appear that the court was in error in determining that no irreparable harm was demonstrated. *Cf. Morgan v. Fletcher,*518 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1975). We determine only that the court did not err in refusing to continue the preliminary injunction, and express no view as to the ultimate outcome of the case, or on the issues argued to us which do not relate solely to the propriety of the district court’s dissolution of the preliminary injunction. *See DiGiorgio v. Causey,*488 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1973).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                         706,190
<SECURITIES>                                   262,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,461
<INVENTORY>                                    293,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,355,699
<PP&E>                                         265,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,469,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          279,319
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    457,791
<COMMON>                                     8,366,514
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,270)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,469,581
<SALES>                                        146,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,655
<CGS>                                          240,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,371,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,509,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,510,667)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-2542-RBJ-KMT

BEVERLY J. PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTURYTEL OF COLORADO, INC., d/b/a Century Link, f/k/a QWEST 

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the February 14, 2013 Recommendation of Magistrate 

Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya [docket #27]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses 

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) [#13]. The 

Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b). 

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this 

advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s Recommendation was filed by either 

party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report 

under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 

1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress 

intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de 

Case 1:11-cv-02542-RBJ-KMT Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”)). 

The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based 

on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations 

are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 

advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings 

and conclusions of this Court. 

Order

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#27] is ADOPTED. 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) [#13] is 

GRANTED. The first and second claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim on 

which relief could be granted. They are barred by the statute of limitations. The third 

and fourth claims asserted in the complaint were withdrawn by the plaintiff. See 

Response [#17] at ¶¶22-23. Therefore, this civil action is dismissed with prejudice.

3. As the prevailing party, defendant is awarded its reasonable costs pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. 

DATED this 11th day of March, 2013.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02542-RBJ-KMT Document 28 Filed 03/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21

              SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY (AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2000)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 PERCENTAGE OF
                                                              JURISDICTION OF   SECURITIES OWNED
NAME                                                           INCORPORATION     BY THE COMPANY
----                                                          ---------------   ----------------
<S>                                                           <C>               <C>
STI Canadian Holdings Ltd...................................  Canada-Federal          100%
Figgie Communications Inc...................................  Ohio                    100%
Figgie do Brasil Industria e Commercio Ltda. (IN LIQ.)......  Brazil                  100%
STI Foreign Sales Corporation...............................  Virgin Islands          100%
Figgie (G.B.) Limited.......................................  United Kingdom          100%
Figgie (U.K.) Limited.......................................  United Kingdom          100%
Figgie Sportswear (U.K.) Limited............................  United Kingdom          100%
Figgie International (H.K.) Ltd.............................  Hong Kong               100%
Figgie Investment Trustee Limited...........................  United Kingdom          100%
Figgie Leasing Corporation..................................  Delaware                100%
STI Licensing Corporation...................................  Delaware                100%
Figgie Packaging Systems Pty. Ltd...........................  Australia               100%
Figgie Pension Trustee Limited..............................  United Kingdom          100%
STI Properties, Inc.........................................  Delaware                100%
Chagrin Highlands, Ltd. LLC.................................  United States            50%
Chagrin Highlands Inc.......................................  Ohio                    100%
STI Properties, Ltd.........................................  Ohio                    100%
Figgie Risk Management Company..............................  Florida                  85%
Figgie Sportswear Limited...................................  United Kingdom          100%
Mojonnier de Mexico S de RL de CV (IN LIQ)..................  Mexico                   49%
Mojonnier do Brasil Industria e Commercio de Equipamentos
  Ltda. (IN LIQ)............................................  Brazil                  100%
Shanghai Eagle Safety Equipment Ltd.........................  China                    51%
Willoughby Holdings Inc.....................................  Delaware                100%
Willoughby Assurance Ltd....................................  Bermuda                 100%
Scott/Bacharach Instruments, LLC............................  Delaware                 51%
AV-OX, Inc..................................................  California              100%
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

927 COLE STREET, GOLDEN, COLORADO, et. al.

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAW FIRM AFFILIATION AND CONTACT

INFORMATION

______________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that law firm affiliation and contact information for Murray

Ogborn and Nicole M. Quintana, counsel of record for Claimant George Magnani, will change

on November 1, 2012, to the following:

OGBORN MIHM LLP

1700 Broadway, Suite 1900

Denver, Colorado 80290

Telephone: (303) 592-5900

Facsimile: (303) 831-0551

Email: murray.ogborn@ogbornmihm.com; nicole.quintana@ogbornmihm.com

Accordingly, OGBORN, SUMMERLIN & OGBORN, LLC hereby withdraws as counsel for

Claimant George Magnani and the law firm of OGBORN MIHM LLP will be representing

Claimant George Magnani. Please address all future pleadings, papers, email and

correspondence as indicated above.

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 58 filed 11/01/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
DATED this 1st day of November, 2012.

OGBORN MIHM LLP

Original signature on file

/s/ Nicole M. Quintana

______________________________________

Murray Ogborn, Atty. Reg. No. 14508

Nicole M. Quintana, Atty. Reg. No. 42675

1700 Broadway, Suite 1900

Denver, Colorado 80290

Phone: (303) 592-5900

Facsimile: (303) 831-0551

Attorneys for Claimant George Magnani

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a correct copy of the foregoing was served on the

following via CM/ECF and/or regular, U.S. mail, postage prepaid on this 1st day of November,

2012.

Richard L. Hathaway

Christine E. Kenney

Special Attorneys for the U.S. Attorney’s Office

444 S.E. Quincy, Suite 290

Topeka, Kansas 66683-3592

rich.hathaway@usdoj.gov

christine.kenney@usdoj.gov

Original signature on file

/s/ Audra Albright

________________________________

Audra Albright, Paralegal

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 58 filed 11/01/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
#### Peter JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS, ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee. Edwin RICHAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Sam HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Edwin MESSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Edwin HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Joseph SIMEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Rufus B. MORAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME.

Nos. 13319, 13248, 13245, 11953, 13321, 13226, 13250.

Court of Appeal, of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 27, 1933.

PER CURIAM.

The above-numb,ered and designated cases arise out of the artificial crevasse at Caernar-von in the year 1927. In each of the cases the plaintiff presents a claim for loss of earnings as the result of being thrown out of employment.

In Foret v. Board of Levee Commissioners Orleans Levee District, 169 La. 427, 125 So. 437, the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed a judgment dismissing a suit based on grounds identical with those presented in each of the above cases. See, also, Acosta v. Board of Levee Commissioners, 12 La. App. 488, 126 So. 463; Alfred Oliver & Co. v. Board, 169 La. 438, 125 So. 441; Fabre et al. v. Board, 170 La. 210, 127 So. 603, and Louisiana Southern Railway Company v. Board, 176 La. 687, 146 So. 470.

The judgment appealed from in each of the above cases is affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02545-KLM

SAMMY KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON TRUCKING, INC., and

SARAH GRAHAM,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend

Scheduling Order to Extend Case Deadlines [Docket No. 38; Filed November 30, 2012]

(the “Motion”). Defendants seek an extension of the case deadlines because they have

had difficulty scheduling the depositions of at least six of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s current medical condition will require Defendants to travel to

Louisiana to conduct his deposition. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#38] is GRANTED. The Scheduling

Order entered on July 5, 2012 [#27] and modified on October 22, 2012 [#37], is further

modified to extend the following deadlines:

• Contradicting Expert Designation Deadline March 14, 2013

• Rebuttal Opinions Deadline March 29, 2013

• Discovery Cut-off April 17, 2013

• Dispositive Motion Deadline May 20, 2013

Dated: December 5, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02545-KLM Document 39 Filed 12/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,697
<PP&E>                                          10,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,918
<BONDS>                                          2,558
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,927
<SALES>                                         72,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,008
<CGS>                                           57,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,695
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
#### MAIORANA v. MAIORANA.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Exhibit 31.2

                            ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

      I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates,
DaimlerChrysler Debenture-Backed Series 2002-4 Trust (the "Trust"), certify
that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
            Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
            servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
            respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
            report of the Trust;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
            whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
            in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
            not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
            annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
            provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
            under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion
            in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
            based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
            Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 21, 2007


      /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
--------------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President



                                       8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02595-RPM

CHRISTINE DOCKSEY and

ROSS DOCKSEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAYLOR JANDA, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

 

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice [38], it is

ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay their

own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: March 20th, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02595-RPM Document 39 Filed 03/20/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### RAYMOND STRAUSS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR-APPELLLANT.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the defendant-respondent, *Hein*& *Smilh (Seymour A. Smith).*

For the prosecutor-appellant, *John*W. *Taylor.*

Per Curiam.

This workman’s compensation case is on a claim of five-point hernia *(R. S.*34:15 — 12x). The Bureau, the Bergen County Common Pleas and the Supreme Court have successively found for the claimant.

*484The points here presented by the appellant employer are (1) that .the claimant did not suffer “immediate” descent of the hernia, (2) that he did not suffer such prostration as compelled him to cease work immediately and (3) that he did not suffer severe pain in the hernial region.

These points, on the study of the proofs, appear to be of descending merit in the order named. We have little difficulty in resolving the last two in favor of the claimant. The first point would have prevailing force if the proofs sustained the appellant’s argument that the descent of the hernia did not occur until December 11th, 1944, three weeks after the accident to which it is attributed. The statute requires that the descent shall immediately follow the cause, and we conceive of no exigency of fact or cogency of reasoning which would bring that interval within the limitation of the statute. *Borodaeff*v. *Province Line Dairy, Inc.,*109 *N. J. L.*25; *affirmed,*110 *Id.*20, seems to have been understood in the Common Pleas Court as permitting that generous interval; it is not, in our opinion, susceptible of that interpretation. We are satisfied, however, that the believable proofs, including the medical interpretation of the happenings, sustain the holding that there was a descent within a matter of minutes, not of days orrnven of hours, and that the body of proofs viewed as a whole give to that particular phase of them the impressive evidential weight required by the statute.

The judgment below will be affirmed. ■

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, J-J. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
**Exhibit 23.4**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

TheBoard of Directors

GoldenCycle Gold Corporation:

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.333-26975 and 333-12245) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-117235) on Form S-8of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation of our report dated March 21, 2003, withrespect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity andcomprehensive income (loss), and cash flows of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation andsubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2002, which report appears inthe December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Golden CycleGold Corporation

 

**KPMG LLP**

 

Denver,Colorado

April 27,2005

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MOLECULAR BIOSYSTEMS, INC. DATED
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000719598 
<NAME> MOLECULAR BIOSYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,064
<SECURITIES>                                    20,274
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3
<INVENTORY>                                      1,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,638
<PP&E>                                          19,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,572
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,318
<SALES>                                          1,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,246
<CGS>                                            5,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,260)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)
        

</TABLE>