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-02459-BNB

GREGG PHILIP McMURTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANDA NICHOLE BEATTY,

MARK YURKY,

CELESTE M. QUINONES,

MICKEY HECKENBACH,

MICHAEL E. ANDERSON,

JOHN M. O’DELL,

DEBORAH C. ALLEN,

BECKY R. LUCERO, and

REBECCA L. OAKES, 

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At the time Plaintiff, Gregg Philip McMurtry, initiated the instant action, he was

incarcerated at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff

submitted a Notice of Change of Address to the Court indicating he no longer is

incarcerated and now is residing in Denver, Colorado.

In an order entered on November 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

instructed Plaintiff that because he no longer is incarcerated he is obligated to pay the

filing fee like any nonprisoner, solely on the basis of whether he qualifies for in forma

pauperis status. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1171 n.1 (10th Cir.

1997); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612-13 (6th Cir. 1997); In re

Case 1:11-cv-02459-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1997); McGann v.

Commissioner, Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 28, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1996). Magistrate Judge

Boland ordered Plaintiff either to submit an Amended Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, or in the alternative to pay the $350.00 filing fee

in full if he desired to pursue his claims in this action. Plaintiff was warned that the

action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to comply with the

November 2 Order within the time allowed. 

Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the Court and has failed to comply with

Magistrate Judge Boland’s November 2 Order within the time allowed. The action,

therefore, will be dismissed.

Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

from this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status will be

denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438

(1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing

fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b) because Plaintiff failed to comply with the order entered on November 2, 2011,

within the time allowed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without

prejudice. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02459-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

denied. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge 

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02459-LTB Document 9 Filed 12/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# Federal Register Citation Of Previous Announcement:

[73 FR 55571, September 25, 2008].

      ( print page 58277)    

# Status:

Closed Meeting.

# Place:

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

# Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting:

Monday, September 29, 2008 at 2 p.m.

# Change in the meeting:

Cancellation of Meeting.

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, September 29, 2008 was cancelled.

For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 1, 2008,

Florence E. Harmon,

Acting Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-23579 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1378 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the 

distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2007 

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

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dextromethorphan 

5 Distribution Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF BULK 

7 DEXTROMETHORPHAN. 

8 The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

9 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) is amended— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1378 IS

1 (1) in section 501, by inserting at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(j) If it is unfinished dextromethorphan and is pos4 sessed, received, or distributed in violation of section 

5 506D.’’; and 

6 (2) by inserting after section 506C the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 506D. RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF BULK 

9 DEXTROMETHORPHAN. 

10 ‘‘(a) RESTRICTIONS.—No person shall— 

11 ‘‘(1) possess or receive unfinished 

12 dextromethorphan, unless the person is registered 

13 under section 510 or otherwise registered, licensed, 

14 or approved pursuant to Federal or State law to en15 gage in the practice of pharmacy, pharmaceutical 

16 production, or manufacture or distribution of phar17 maceutical ingredients; or 

18 ‘‘(2) distribute unfinished dextromethorphan to 

19 any person other than a person registered under sec20 tion 510 or otherwise registered, licensed, or ap21 proved pursuant to Federal or State law to engage 

22 in the practice of pharmacy, pharmaceutical produc23 tion, or manufacture or distribution of pharma24 ceutical ingredients. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 1378 IS

1 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION FOR COMMON CARRIERS.—This 

2 section does not apply to a common carrier that possesses, 

3 receives, or distributes unfinished dextromethorphan for 

4 purposes of distributing such unfinished dextrometh5 orphan between persons authorized by subsection (a) to 

6 distribute or receive unfinished dextromethorphan. 

7 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 ‘‘(1) The term ‘common carrier’ means any per9 son that holds itself out to the general public as a 

10 provider for hire of the transportation by water, 

11 land, or air of merchandise, whether or not the per12 son actually operates the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft 

13 by which the transportation is provided, between a 

14 port or place and a port or place in the United 

15 States. 

16 ‘‘(2) The term ‘unfinished dextromethorphan’ 

17 means dextromethorphan that is not contained in a 

18 drug that is in finished dosage form.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                             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 North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H. R.
Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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




Date: August 13, 2002                /s/ H. R. Brown
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                     H. R. Brown
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

WENDY CABRERA,

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 3, 2013.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court will hold a Status Conference in

this case on January 7, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom A-501, on the fifth floor of the Alfred

A. Arraj United States Courthouse located at 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel for the

parties shall appear in person and shall be prepared to discuss outstanding discovery issues in this

case.

Please remember that anyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States

Courthouse will be required to show a valid photo identification. See D.C. Colo. LCivR 83.2B.

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 279 Filed 01/03/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending May 31, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION                                                                                             InvestmentBank of America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, to increase its investment in China Construction Bank Corporation, Beijing, China.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableBlue Ridge Bank Holdings, Inc.                                                                                          * 3A1Blue Ridge Bank Holdings, Inc., Asheville, North Carolina, to become a bank holding company through the retention of 100% of the voting securities of Blue Ridge Savings Bank, Incorporated, Asheville, North Carolina.Newspaper: 05/17/2008Federal Register: 06/20/2008EAGLE BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                     * 3A5
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.6



Report of Independent Accountants


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (the "Bank"),
Administrator of the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-2



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control over the Administration of the Chase Credit Card
Owner Trust Series 2002-2 (the "Owner Trust"), that Chase Manhattan Bank USA NA
(the "Bank") maintained effective internal control over its administration of
the Certificates held by the Owner Trust and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust
(the "Administration" of the Owner Trust) as of December 31, 2003, based upon
the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission. The Bank's management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of internal control over the
Administration of the Owner Trust, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust to
future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank maintained effective
internal control over Administration of the Certificates held by the Owner Trust
and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust as of December 31, 2003, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal
control established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 29, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23848]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,999]


Rahmann Belting and Industrial Rubber, Gastonia, NC; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on September 8, 2008, in response to a 
worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Rahmann Belting and 
Industrial Rubber, Gastonia, North Carolina
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of October 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-23848 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH PATRICK ROMAN SIMON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JAMES E. HENNING, Facility Chaplain, individual and official capacity ; H. GOMEZ, Facility Commander, individual and official capacity,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 56789

D.C. No. 5:13

- cv

- 02281

- RGK

- E

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California pretrial detainee Joseph Patrick Roman Simon appeals pro se

from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust adm inistrative

* 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). 

# FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56789

remedies in his § 1983 action relating to his alleged denial of kosher meals and

Passover observance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo

. Williams v. Paramo , 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) . We vacate and

rem and.

The district court dismissed Simon’s action for failure to exhaust

, finding

that Simon failed to provide evidence that he was unaware of West Valley

Detention Center’s grievance procedures in 2012 and 2013 . However, Simon

provided evidence that the r esources available to him during this period failed to

explain that he was required to file a second appeal with the facility manager, and

that Simon was not otherwise made a ware of a second level of appeal . This

evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to Simon. See Ross v. Blake

,

136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016 ) (“[W]hen a remedy is

. . . essentially ‘unknowable’

–

so that no ordinary prisoner can make sense of what it demands

– then it is also

unavailable.”) . Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Simon’s motion informing the court of retaliatory conduct of jail officials

,

filed on February 19, 2016, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

            ERRORS AND OMISSIONS DISCLOSURE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
            -------------------------------------------------------
                            ("INDEMNITY AGREEMENT")
                            -----------------------

     a.   OCEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (hereinafter
          "COMPANY") HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT CHRIS AU (hereinafter "EMPLOYEE")
          DOES NOT CARRY, NOR IS PROTECTED BY PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,
          MALPRACTICE, OR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE, NOR HAS EMPLOYED FILED
          WITH THE STATE BAR AN EXECUTED COPY OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT
          GUARANTEEING PAYMENT OF ALL CLAIMS ESTABLISHED AGAINST EMPLOYEE FOR
          ERRORS OR OMISSIONS OF EMPLOYEE, IF ANY. IF THE COMPANY DESIRES
          EMPLOYEE TO HAVE SUCH INSURANCE, COMPANY UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT
          IT MUST PAY FOR SUCH INSURANCE.

     b.   The Company has independently deemed that professional liability,
          malpractice, and/or errors and omissions insurance for Employee is not
          required. COMPANY HEREBY RELEASES, INDEMNIFIES, DEFENDS AND HOLDS
          HARMLESS EMPLOYEE FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, COSTS, EXPENSES,
          LAWSUITS OR JUDGMENTS, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES AND COURT COSTS,
          RESULTING FROM ANY AND ALL EMPLOYEE'S ACTS, OMISSIONS OR ERRORS,
          EXCEPT GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT (NOT DIRECTED BY THE
          COMPANY), THAT OCCUR DURING EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY,
          AND/OR RELATE TO OR ARISE OUT OF THE SERVICES EMPLOYEE PERFORMS AT THE
          REQUEST OF, ON BEHALF OF, AND/OR FOR THE COMPANY.

     c.   This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by a written
          instrument executed or on behalf of each of the parties to this
          Agreement.

     d.   The obligations of the Company set forth in paragraphs "a" and "b"
          above survive the term or termination of Employee's employment with
          the company.

     e.   This Agreement will be construed in accordance with, and the rights of
          the parties will be governed by, the substantive laws of the State of
          California.

     f.   This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
          will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will
          constitute one instrument.
<PAGE>

     g.   This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
          with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and
          contemporaneous agreements and understandings, whether written or
          oral, between parties with respect to the subject matter of this
          Agreement, and there are no representations, understandings or
          agreements relating to this Agreement that are not fully expressed
          herein.

Agreed to on behalf of the Company on this date, 1/11/00.
                                                 -------

By:___________________________________
   Steven Eng
   CEO

                                       2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140557 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140557 

 COA: 292995 

Wayne CC: 06-011806 FC 

DARNELL L. SAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,539,205
<SECURITIES>                                32,366,083
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,507,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                   545,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,603,040
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,076,875
<PP&E>                                      11,748,315
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,005,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,237,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,947,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    35,978,579
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,311,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,237,997
<SALES>                                     34,058,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,058,987
<CGS>                                       16,687,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,747,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               333,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,114,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,059,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,055,804
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,055,804
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>