alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,256
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,361
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,074
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,074)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0065)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0065)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,966
<INVENTORY>                                    208,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               425,022
<PP&E>                                         196,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 777,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          278,720
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           969
<OTHER-SE>                                    (177,898)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   777,701
<SALES>                                        157,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,049
<CGS>                                          113,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (26,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (9,102)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,544)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-02460-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02460-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02460-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02460-LTB Document 4 Filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2017


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: August 17, 2017
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02496-PAB-KMT

DARRYL J. JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, and

CHARLENE FIELDS, individually and in her official capacity as former Director of

NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Denver Campus,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a letter dated January 26, 2012 filed by

plaintiff in this action [Docket No. 6]. In his letter, plaintiff requests that the Court “sever

the above the case and dismiss the summons against defendant Charlene Fields,

without prejudice, as the defendant could not be located.” Docket No. 6 at 1. Although

plaintiff references a severance of this case, the Court interprets plaintiff’s letter as a

notice filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) voluntarily dismissing this action in its

entirety without prejudice as to Charlene Fields. 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

Case 1:11-cv-02496-PAB-KMT Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

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 letter [Docket No. 6], this action was dismissed

without prejudice as to defendant Charlene Fields. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff intended his letter dated January 26, 2012

[Docket No. 6] to be a motion requesting the issuance of a court order, it is deemed

moot. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s future filings must comply with the Local Rules, see,

e.g., D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1E (“Spacing”), 10.1J (“Caption”), 10.1K (“Signature Block”).

DATED January 31, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02496-PAB-KMT Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
J. 

the judgment of conviction or his sentence and he has not demonstrated 

any error, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02549-RPM

CLARK WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO SPRINGS PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA, 

 

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 31, 2012, at 11:00 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 1/08). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on January 26, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: December 27th, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02549-RPM Document 13 Filed 12/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1243 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1243

To amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of 
military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 years of age to 55 
                             years of age.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2007

 Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of 
military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 years of age to 55 
                             years of age.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN AGE FOR RECEIPT OF MILITARY RETIRED PAY FOR 
              NONREGULAR SERVICE.

    (a) Reduction in Age.--Section 12731(a)(1) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``at least 60 years of age'' and 
inserting ``at least 55 years of age''.
    (b) Application to Existing Provisions of Law or Policy.--With 
respect to any provision of law, or of any policy, regulation, or 
directive of the executive branch that refers to a member or former 
member of the uniformed services as being eligible for, or entitled to, 
retired pay under chapter 1223 of title 10, United States Code, but for 
the fact that the member or former member is under 60 years of age, 
such provision shall be carried out with respect to that member or 
former member by substituting for the reference to being 60 years of 
age, a reference to the age in effect for qualification for such 
retired pay under section 12731(a) of title 10, United States Code, as 
amended by subsection (a).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the first day of the first month beginning on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to retired pay 
payable for that month and subsequent months.
                                 <all>
```
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 and

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

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal With

Prejudice [Docket No. 157] filed by the remaining parties in this matter, plaintiff Elaine

Calderon and defendants Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence and Anne

Tapp. The stipulation was not signed by “by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); see Anderson-Tully Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., 347 F. App’x 171,

176 (6th Cir. 2009) (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “all parties who have

appeared” includes both current and former parties). As a result, the Stipulation for

Dismissal for Dismissal With Prejudice, by itself, does not serve to dismiss this action. 

The Court, however, having reviewed the stipulation, finds that dismissal is appropriate. 

Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), it is

ORDERED that all claims by and between plaintiff and defendants are dismissed

with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. It is further

ORDERED that this case shall be closed in its entirety.

Case 1:11-cv-02536-PAB-MEH Document 158 Filed 07/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

DATED July 15, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02536-PAB-MEH Document 158 Filed 07/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 2.3

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-
70917 on Form 5-8 of our report dated August 27, 1999, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of Key Tronic Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company)
for the year ended July 3, 1999.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of July
3, 1999, and June 27, 1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended
July 3, 1999, and have issued our report thereon dated August 27, 1999; such
report is included elsewhere in this Form I 0-K/A. Our audits also included the
consolidated financial statement schedule of the Company, listed in Item 14(A).
This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/S/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Seattle, Washington
October 1, 1999
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No: 11-cv-02436-RM-KMT Date: May 6, 2013

Courtroom Deputy: Sabrina Grimm FTR: Courtroom C-201

BROADSHEET LLC, an Isle of Man entity,

Plaintiff,

Richard Michael Simmons

v.

TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR THE

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

Lance Goff

COURTROOM MINUTES

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL

1:30 p.m. Court in session.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Also present, interested party, Susan James.

Discussion regarding voluntary compliance with subpoenas, retrieving electronic information

from company laptop computer and servers, payment/compensation, and certification of

compliance by Defendant.

ORDERED: Petitioner Broadsheet LLC’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas

and in the Alternative to Amend the Section 1782 Subpoena [15] is

GRANTED IN PART as follows: 

1) Susan James will produce the responsive information that is on subject laptop

within seven (7) days from today. Plaintiff Broadsheet will pay Christopher

James for up to one (1) hour of his time, at no more than $80.00 per hour, to

retrieve the information found on subject laptop and for the cost of the media

required to hold the electronic information to be produced to Petitioner.

 2) Susan James will provide information regarding the costs and methods for

copying information from the server to Petitioner within seven (7) days from

today, as stated on record.

Case 1:11-cv-02436-RM-KMT Document 42 Filed 05/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3) Within seven (7) days of receiving the proposals for retrieving the information

from the server and the cost estimates, Broadsheet will elect which method of

production they prefer and will be then bound to pay the associated costs. Susan

James will have thirty (30) days to produce the information retrieved from the

server to Broadsheet.

Oral certification with respect to documents made by Ms. James, as stated on record.

2:13 p.m. Court in recess. 

Hearing concluded.

Total in-court time 00:43

*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.

Case 1:11-cv-02436-RM-KMT Document 42 Filed 05/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
177 La. 997

#### In re MEAUX BROS. Opposition of SIMON RICE MILL.

No. 32274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 7, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1933.

Chappuis & Chappuis, of Crowley, for appellants.

Gremillion & Smith, of Crowley, for ap-pellees.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Meaux Bros, were a commercial partnership. The individual members of the firm owned, in common or severally, certain rice lands. The partnership operated these lands on the tenant-farmer plan; and we know of no reason in law why a partnership (the partners all consenting) may not engage in any legitimate business.

The terms of the contracts with the cultivators of the land were that the partnership should furnish the said rice and receive one-fourth of the crops, the other three-fourths to belong to the cultivators.

Under such contracts the shares of the landowner and of the cultivator belong absolutely and at all times to. them respectively in the proportions fixed by the contract. Act No. 100 of 1906; Act No. 211 of 1908; Louisiana Farm Bureau Cotton Growers’ Co-op. Ass’n v. Clark, 160 La. 294, 107 So. 115. And accordingly the proportionate share of the crops for the current year belonging) to Meaux Bros, was burdened with a privilege in favor of the fur-nishers of necessary supplies to the farm or plantation on which said crops were grown. R. C. C. article 3217, subd. 1.

In this case the opponent, Simon Rice Mill, furnished Meaux Bros, large quantities of seed rice which, to the extent of $2,-i634.49, were used for the planting of the crop of the current year, the proceeds of which (i. e., of the fourth part of the crop, which came to Meaux Bros.) is now in the hands of the receivers for distribution.

Simon Rice Mill now claims a privilege and preference over ordinary creditors on said proceeds to the extent hereinabove mentioned under R.- C. C. article 3217, aforesaid.

The trial judge thought their claim was well founded, and so do we. His judgment allowing it was correct, and the appeal of the receivers is therefore without merit.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
_____________

No. 96-2542WM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Cedric L. Roulette, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: December 31, 1996

 Filed: January 8, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Cedric L. Roulette appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court. Having reviewed the record, we reject Roulette's contention that

the district court improperly enhanced Roulette's sentence for possession

of a firearm. We also reject Roulette's argument that the sentence imposed

was vindictive. The district court's sentence was correct and further

discussion is not warranted. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

In re: )

)

MERCURY COMPANIES, INC. ) Case No. 08-23125

) Chapter 11

Debtor. )

)

MERCURY COMPANIES, INC. )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Adv. Proc. No. 10-01133 MER

)

FNF SECURITY ACQUISITION, INC. )

Defendant. )

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

DISPOSITION OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE

THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Defendants Motion to Stay Proceedings 

Pending Disposition of Motion to Withdraw the Reference (“Motion”) and the Court being 

advised in the premises; 

ORDERS the proceedings are stayed in this Adversary Proceeding pending the District 

Court’s determination of the Motion to Withdraw the Reference. All deadlines will be reset if necessary.

 The hearing on September 12, 2011, is vacated.

Dated August 29, 2011 

 

 

Michael E. Romero 

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 

BY THE COURT:
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10.13c

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as of the 29th day of February
2000 between Juno Online Services, Inc. (the "Company") and Robert H. Cherins
(the "Employee").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement
dated as of April 26, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement") pursuant to which the
Employee is employed by the Company;

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained
herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.   AMENDMENT TO COMPENSATION PROVISIONS. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement
     is amended as follows:

     a.   In Section 2(a), the Compensation Period shall begin on January 1,
          2000 and shall end on December 31, 2000.

     b.   In Section 2(a), the figure set forth as the Employee's base salary
          shall be replaced with $185,000. This new figure shall remain subject
          to all of the provisions of Section 2(a).

     c.   In Section 2(d), the figure set forth as the Employee's non-refundable
          advance against bonus shall be replaced with $143,500. This new figure
          shall remain subject to all of the provisions of Section 2(d).

2.   NO OTHER AMENDMENTS. Except as expressly amended as provided herein, the
     Employment Agreement shall continue to be, and shall remain, in full force
     and effect in accordance with its terms.

3.   SEVERABILITY. The holding of any provision of this amendment to be illegal,
     invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction shall not
     affect any other provision of this amendment, which shall remain in full
     force and effect.


<PAGE>


4.   GOVERNING LAW. This amendment shall be governed by, and construed and
     interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York (without
     regard to conflicts-of-laws-principles.)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the
date first written above.

JUNO ONLINE SERVICES, INC.

By: /s/ Charles Ardai
   -------------------------------
        Charles Ardai
        President and Chief Executive Officer

EMPLOYEE:

    /s/ Robert H. Cherins
   -------------------------------
        Robert H. Cherins