alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 9, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.119.b Private Pension Funds Defined Benefit Plans** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Stephen K. Onody, state and certify that, based on my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 for the year ended June 30,
2002 of Colorado MEDtech, Inc. (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Colorado
MEDtech, Inc.



Date: June 10, 2003



/s/ Stephen K. Onody
----------------------------------
Name:  Stephen K. Onody
Title: Chief Executive Officer and
       President
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate and real
estate joint ventures.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance
sheet is unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying
unaudited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEPT-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,065,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,255,272<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (257,840)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,255,272<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,683<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               138,778<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (84,095)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (84,095)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (84,095)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.03)<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash, total assets include net deferred expenses of 
$176,905, and other assets of $12,661.
<F2>Represents partners' capital deficiency.
<F3>Liabilities include investments in unconsolidated partnerships of
$1,186,283 and accounts payable and other liabilities of $326,829.
<F4>Represents interest and other revenue.
<F5>Total expense includes amortization of $27,927 and
general and administrative of $110,851.
<F6>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### HEARD v. MELTON.

No. 3287.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1950.

W. F. Kline, Clinton, for appellant.

DeBlieux & Hinton, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

ELLIS, Judge.

Plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant in the Parish of East Feliciana in the sum of $127.73 which he alleged was due for merchandise purchased by defendant between January 14, 1949 and March 10, 1949 and which was delivered to the Jackson Cafe which was allegedly being operated by the defendant.

To the petition there was filed a plea to the jurisdiction rationae personae which was sustained by the District Court and from which the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff contends that under the Louisiana Revised Statutes, Vol. 2, Title 13:3471, Par. (11), p. 209, which deals with service of process on a person or partnership engaged in commercial business, that the plea should have been overruled. He cites the case of Puchen v. W. D. Haas & Co., 158 La. 616, 104 So. 388, and also E. R. Buster v. Langhof, 13 La.App. 7, 126 So. 738.

Plaintiff’s contention is not sound as the facts reveal that on the date upon which the debt was contracted, and alleged payments made on - account, the defendant was only the lessor of one Herrington who at that time was operating the Jackson Cafe and who actually bought the merchandise and later made payments on same. Also, on the date of purchase of the merchandise by Herrington and at the time of trial, defendant was a resident of East Baton Rouge Parish. The defendant subsequently purchased the business .and was operating it on the date suit was filed. The law and *726cases cited by plaintiff are not applicable in view of the facts.

In argument, counsel for plaintiff mentioned a violation of the Bulk Sales Law, Act No. 270 of 1926, as a basis for defendant’s liability, however, even if such law was applicable, there is no basis for such an argument raised by the pleadings.

Jurisdiction in this case is governed by Code of Practice, Article 162.

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed.
#### MacMILLAN OIL CO. v. GAY.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02526-RBJ-MEH

GEORGE ROUSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NCC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02526-RBJ-MEH Document 3 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Date: February 20, 2013 

Courtroom Deputy: Julie Dynes FTR: BNB COURTROOM A-401 

 Parties Attorney(s) 

WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998 

JULIE WELLINGER 

Dennis P. Walker 

Thomas A. Swett 

 Plaintiff(s) 

v. 

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

Cristin J. Mack 

Kevin E. O’Brien 

 Defendant(s) 

COURTROOM MINUTES 

MOTIONS HEARING

Court in Session: 2:00 p.m. 

Appearance of counsel. 

Argument presented on [52] Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Written Discovery. 

For reasons stated on the record, it is 

ORDERED: [52] Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Written Discovery is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Granted as to interrogatories 

4, 5, 6, 13, 16, 19 and production request number 19. 

ORDERED: [48] Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for In Camera Review of Disputed 

 Items From Defendant’s Privilege Log is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Court in Recess: 3:39 p.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 02:39 

Case 1:11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB Document 63 Filed 02/20/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Case 1:11-cv-02530-RM-KLM Document 5 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02530-RM-KLM Document 5 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JIMMI TYLER REBISH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3085

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-1221-13-0494-W-1.

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

JIMMI TYLER REBISH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3087

______________________ 

Case: 14-3085 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 10/03/2014
2 REBISH v. MSPB

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-13-0362-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

 Jimmi Tyler Rebish moves to reconsider his “prior 

motions” in the above-captioned petitions for review. In 

particular, Rebish asks the court to reconsider its July 18, 

2014 order denying his request to transfer to the Federal 

Mediation and Conciliation Service or the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Collaborative Action and 

Dispute Resolution. Rebish also requests a 90-day stay of 

proceedings so he can obtain legal counsel.

The court notes that the order for which Rebish seeks 

reconsideration was issued on July 18, 2014. Because 

Rebish’s motion for reconsideration is untimely, the court 

will not consider the merits of the motion. See Fed. Cir. 

R. 27(l).

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion for reconsideration is denied.

(2) Rebish’s motion for a stay is granted to the extent 

that he may file his reply briefs within 90 days of the date 

of filing of this order. No further extensions should be 

anticipated.

Case: 14-3085 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 10/03/2014
 REBISH v. MSPB 3

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 14-3085 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 10/03/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         241,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  885,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    185,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,311,000
<PP&E>                                       7,282,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,662,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,948,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,550,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       104,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,877,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,948,000
<SALES>                                      1,425,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,510,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               130,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                173,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            108,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   108,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 2 3, 2020

s0318

Order 

Clerk

March 23, 2020

160109-10 & (51)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 160109-10

COA: 340464, 340465

Wayne CC: 17-003086-FC;

17-003087-FC

PERRY STANLEY,

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 25, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J., would grant leave to appeal as to the prosecutor’s cross-appeal in 

Docket No. 160110 to assess whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain 

defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of ML-CFC Commercial

Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2006-3,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLENWOOD HOSPITALITY, INC.,

NOBLE PROPERTIES OF ARKANSAS, LLC, and

NOBLE PROPERTIES OF COLORADO, LLC,

Defendants, and

HOSPITALITY RECEIVER, LLC,

Receiver.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion of Defendants’ Counsel

Requesting Leave to Appear by Telephone at Scheduling Conference [Docket No. 24;

Filed February 7, 2012] (the “Motion”). Defendants’ counsel requests leave to appear at

the Scheduling Conference in this matter originally set for February 9, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

However, on February 2, 2012, the Court vacated the Scheduling Conference and ordered

Plaintiff to file a Status Report no later than February 13, 2012. See Minute Order [#22].

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#24] is DENIED as moot. 

Dated: February 8, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02386-MSK-KLM Document 26 Filed 02/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00406-CMA

(Related Civil Action No. 15-cv-00505-CMA)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

MANUEL SANTISTEVAN,

Movant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order Denying § 2255 Petition, entered by Judge Christine M.

Arguello on June 24, 2015, 

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Santisteven’s Motion to Vacate his Sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #435) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Santistevan’s related civil case, 15-cv-505,

is DISMISSED in its entirety.

Dated this 24th day of June 2015.

BY THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

 By: s/Deborah Hansen 

 Deborah Hansen, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 447 Filed 06/24/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
Golden Cycle Gold Corporation
and Subsidiary
Consolidated Financial Statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     11,095
<SECURITIES>                            1,937,736
<RECEIVABLES>                              20,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,969,517
<PP&E>                                    622,553
<DEPRECIATION>                            403,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          2,427,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      27,352
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                2,399,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            2,427,116
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          374,234
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             667,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (293,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (293,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (293,322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.16)


</TABLE>
815 A.2d 475

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL KOUNELIS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

January 23, 2003.

Petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in the light of *State v. Rue,*175 *N.J. 1,*811 A.2d 425 (2002).
#### Larry TWINE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44595.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1972.

*775G. Stanley Rentz, Waco (Court Appointed), for appellant.

Martin D. Eichelberger, Dist. Atty., Frank M. Fitzpatrick, Kenneth H. Crow and Dick Kettler, Asst. Dist. Attys., Waco, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery by firearms, where appellant entered a plea of guilty and punishment was assessed by a jury at fifty years.

Appellant’s sole contention is that the Court erred in allowing a witness to testify as to appellant’s reputation, when the witness had not heard appellant’s reputation discussed prior to the commission of the offense.

Witness Sutton testified that he had heard appellant’s reputation discussed as being a peaceful and law abiding citizen and that appellant’s reputation was bad. Sutton testified, on voir dire examination, that he never heard appellant’s reputation discussed prior to the date of the alleged offense.

If the testimony complained of was based solely upon the offense charged herein, it would be inadmissible. We have carefully examined the testimony of the Witness Sutton and find nothing to show that his testimony was based solely on the robbery by firearms charge in the instant case. Absent such a showing, the testimony is admissible. See Pogue v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 492 (1971); Frison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 473 S.W.2d 479.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

MORRISON, J., not participating.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Exchange Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Victor J. Proffitt, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, 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.



/s/  Victor J. Proffitt



Victor J. Proffitt

Chief Executive Officer / President

March 25, 2005
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Reportor “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2006 |                                          |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|               | /s/ Dennis R. Jolicoeur                       |   |
|               | Dennis R. Jolicoeur                           |
|               | Chief Financial Officer and Executive         |
|               | Vice President (Principal Financial  Officer) |

 

1

----