alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02546-WYD-BNB

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Dismiss Subject to Terms

of Settlement Agreement, filed June 11, 2012 [ECF No. 17]. Upon review of the motion

and the file in this matter, I find that the motion should be GRANTED. Therefore, this

case shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to pay its own costs and

attorneys fees. 

 Dated: June 12, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL,

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02546-WYD-BNB Document 18 Filed 06/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 11

NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share

(Amounts in Thousands  Except Per Share Data)



|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------- | ------ | ---- | - | ------
|                                           |  | For the Three MonthsEnded March 31
|                                           |  | 2007                               |        | 2006
|Net income                                 |  | $                                  | 850    |      | $ | 5,586 
|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |       
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  | $                                  | 15,005 |      |   | 15,005
|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |       
|Basic and diluted earnings per share       |  | $                                  | .06    |      | $ | .37   
|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02492-MSK-CBS

MARIA A. ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION,

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 17th day of November, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02492-MSK-CBS Document 12 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.9.1.2

                                     ANNEX A

                                Graham B. Perkins

                                Employment Terms

1.   1,300,000 shares of Common Stock.

2.   0 shares of Preferred Stock

3.   a check.

4.   $130,000.

5.   Commonwealth of Virginia

6.   650,000 shares of Common Stock.

7.   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

8.   Chief Executive Officer

9.   None

10.  $170,000

11.  120%

12.  Performance Cause is applicable to the Executive. "Performance Cause" shall
mean failure to achieve a minimum acceptable financial performance for the
Company as determined by the Board for any period of 12 consecutive months for
which financial statements are available; provided, however, that the Board
shall determine in good faith if any adjustments thereto are necessary or
appropriate to account for extraordinary or nonrecurring events (including but
not limited to Acts of God, substantive information technology consulting
industry events (e.g., materially adverse tax or regulatory changes), strikes,
wars, terrorism, economic downturns) or other circumstances that should be
included or disregarded in order to fairly determine whether the Company has
failed to achieve such financial performance.

                                      -1-
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**


**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 Annual Report of ZAP (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter  ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Steven M. Schneider, as Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to
      the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.





/s/
                William Hartman
              William
                HartmanTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
                Officer)Date:
                August 10, 2007








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.
EXHIBIT 32




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Obie Media Corporation (the Company )
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Gary F.
Livesay, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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.


By: /s/ GARY F. LIVESAY
        Vice President
        Chief Financial Officer
































                                       19
<PAGE>




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Obie Media Corporation (the Company )
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Brian B.
Obie, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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.


By: /s/ BRIAN B. OBIE
        President
        Chief Executive Officer

































                                       20
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, H. R. Brown, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially 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 recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design 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 management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                       OF
                                 TBC CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      State of Incorporation/
            Name of Subsidiary                              Organization
            ------------------                              ------------
<S>                                                   <C>
            TBC Private Brands, Inc                            Delaware

            Big O Tires, Inc.                                  Nevada

            Big O Tire of Idaho, Inc.                          Idaho

            Carroll's, Inc.                                    Georgia

            Merchant's, Incorporated                           Delaware

            NTW Incorporated                                   Delaware

            TBC Brands, LLC                                    Delaware

            TBC Capital, LLC                                   Delaware

            TBC International Inc.                             Delaware

            TBC Retail Enterprises, Inc.                       Delaware

            Tire Kingdom, Inc.                                 Florida

            TBC Private Brands of Texas, LLC                   Delaware
</TABLE>



Certain other subsidiaries have not been listed because they would not, if
considered in the aggregate as one subsidiary, constitute a "significant
subsidiary," as defined in Rule 1.02(w) of Regulation S-X.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Shuffle Master, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald W. Koslow, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, certify, pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to the best of my knowledge:



|Date: January 29, 2004                                                                            |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ GERALD W. KOSLOWGerald W. Koslow Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |  | 

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#220) on February 19, 2013, by Defendant Waunita Weingart. The Court construes this Notice

as a motion to change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’ plea

agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for March 13, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for June 17, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Case 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 222 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The final trial preparation conference set for March 13, 2013, and the March 18,

2013, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 222 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Kornegay, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered December 17, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On March 17, 1986, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the defendant shot and killed Brent Dodson, the manager of a grocery store on Sutphin Boulevard in Jamaica, Queens. Two eyewitnesses saw the defendant from outside the store fire several shots at the victim.

We find, contrary to defendant’s contentions, that he was not deprived of a fair trial. The defendant’s claims that prosecutorial errors require reversal are without merit. The defense counsel’s questioning of a 13-year-old witness on direct examination opened the door to questioning by the prosecutor upon the issue of why the witness did not testify for the People after speaking to the police *(see, People v Chaitin,*61 NY2d 683). Furthermore, the People were entitled to elicit testimony from their witnesses that close friends of the defendant had intimidated them. The actions of the defendant’s friends was circumstantially tied to the defendant *(see, People v Plummer,*36 NY2d 161; *People v Whaley,*144 AD2d 510; *People v Griffin,*126 AD2d 743, 744), and tended to prove defendant’s consciousness of guilt *(see, People v Griffin, supra).*

The defendant was not prejudiced by the introduction of hearsay testimony since the court promptly cured the error by striking that testimony from the record and admonishing the jury to disregard it *(see, People v Morello,*61 NY2d 708; *People v Cody,*137 AD2d 610, 611; *People v Sims,*135 AD2d 591, 592). Although the erroneous admission of evidence concerning a *869statement the victim made over the telephone was not cured, we find it harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241; *see also, People v Morello, supra).*

With respect to the propriety of certain remarks by the prosecutor on summation, the defendant failed to object to those remarks at trial, and thus has not preserved the issue for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951; *People v Coker,*135 AD2d 723; *see also, People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912; *People v Crawford,*159 AD2d 583; *People v Rawlings,*144 AD2d 500). In any event, these remarks were a fair response to the defense counsel’s attack on the People’s witnesses in his summation.

The court properly denied the defendant’s posttrial motion to set aside the verdict based upon an affidavit from an eyewitness known to the defendant and the police before trial *(see, People v Thompson,*148 AD2d 763, 764; *People v Zambrana,*142 AD2d 744; *People v Rivera,*118 AD2d 877, 878).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Case No. 1:11-cv-02414-PAB-MJW Document 30 filed 02/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Case No. 1:11-cv-02414-PAB-MJW Document 30 filed 02/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
814 A.2d 1042

#### PATRICIA MCQUEEN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES BROWN AND STEVEN COOK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued September 10, 2002

Decided October 10, 2002.

*Kenneth M. Goldman*argued the cause for appellants *(Douglas E. Gershuny,*Executive Director, *Cape Atlantic Legal Services, Inc.,*attorney).

*William A. Thompson, III,*argued the cause for respondent *0Callaghan Thompson & Thompson,*attorneys).

*Melville D. Miller, Jr.,*President, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae, *Legal Services of New Jersey (Mr. Miller,*attorney; *Mr. Miller and Joseph Harris Davis,*on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Eichen’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 342 *N.J.Super.*120, 775 A.2d 748 (2001).

*201
      *For affirmance*— Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and Judge PRESSLER (temporarily assigned) — 7.

*Opposed*— None.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal No. 11-PO-00149-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK L. HALPER,

Defendant.

 

MINUTE ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

At the request of the supervising Probation Officer,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for a Compliance Review Hearing before

the Magistrate Judge in Durango, Colorado on March 11, 2013 at 3:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Defendant fails to appear on that date and time a

warrant will be issued for his arrest.

DATED: March 4, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-po-00149-DW Document 84 Filed 03/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB

THE WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998;

JULIE WELLINGER, trustee, and

JULIE WELLINGER, individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance

company,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Corrected Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Written

Discovery [Doc. # 52, filed 1/28/2013] (the “Motion to Compel”); and

(2) Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for In Camera Review of Disputed Items From

Defendant’s Privilege Log [Doc. # 48, filed 1/25/2013] (the “Motion for In Camera Review”).

I held a hearing on the motions yesterday and made rulings on the record, which are

incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 52] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART as follows:

•GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, and 13 to require the defendant to

provide a full and complete answer to the following: What the defendant determined regarding

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 64 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

Jeffrey Wellinger’s ability to maintain life insurance post-employment at the same level as

maintained during his employment including: (I) the identity of the person who made the

determination; (ii) the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment;

(iii) the basis for the determination of the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger

post-employment; and (iv) the documents supporting the defendant’s determination of the life

insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment;

•GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 11, 13, and 19;

•GRANTED with respect to Production Request 3 to require the defendant to produce

documents referred to or relied on in answering Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 19; and

•DENIED in all other respects.

(2) The Motion for In Camera Review [Doc. # 48] is DENIED without prejudice

pending the defendant’s supplemental response to Interrogatory 16 and the preparation of a

revised privilege log identifying the date the documents were created or annotations to the

documents were made; the author and all recipients of the documents claimed to be privileged;

and specification with particularity of the privilege or immunity claimed as to each document.

(3) The defendant shall provide supplemental discovery responses consistent with

this Order and in full compliance with the formalities of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on

or before March 1, 2013.

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 64 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

Dated February 21, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 64 Filed 02/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER ERIC ANDREWS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1289

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 13, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 609 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1992); Eutsey v. 

State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980).

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.