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-02745-BNB

WILLIAM L. GLADNEY,

Applicant,

v.

PEOPLE OF COLORADO, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, William L. Gladney, is in the custody of the United States Bureau of

Prisons and is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater,

California. Mr. Gladney initiated this action by filing a “Memorandum of Points and

Authorities in Support to Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 

In an order entered on October 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

directed Mr. Gladney to cure certain deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims. 

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland ordered Mr. Gladney to submit an Application for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Gladney was also directed

to submit a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and

a current, certified copy of his prisoner’s trust fund statement. Mr. Gladney was warned

that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the

deficiencies within thirty days.

Case 1:11-cv-02745-LTB Document 6 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
On November 21, 2011, Mr. Gladney filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in addition to a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for

Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The § 1915 Motion and Affidavit form,

however, is deficient because the account statement Mr. Gladney attached is not

certified by either the warden or an appropriate officer at the facility where he is

incarcerated. Mr. Gladney did not submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund

account statement in support of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion, as he is required to do

pursuant to § 1915(a)(2), and as is specified on Page Two of the § 1915 Motion and

Affidavit form. Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

cure all noted deficiencies. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Applicant, William L. Gladney,

to comply with the order to cure dated October 28, 2011. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because

Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th day of December , 2011.

 BY THE COURT: 

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Senior Judge, United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02745-LTB Document 6 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. (the Company") for theyear ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey D. Agee, ChiefExecutive 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 complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

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

/s/Jeffrey D. Agee               Jeffrey D. AgeeChief Executive Officer Date:  March 15, 2011

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61129-61130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24346]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E8-23644) published on pages 
58592 and 58593 of the issue for Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the entry for Bank of

[[Page 61130]]

America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, is revised to read as 
follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Bank of America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Merrill Lynch Bank & Trust 
Co., FSB, New York, New York, and Merrill Lynch Bank USA, Salt Lake 
City, Utah, and thereby engage in operating a savings association and 
an industrial bank, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4) of Regulation Y.
    In connection with the above application, Bank of America 
Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, has also applied to acquire up 
to 19.9 percent of the voting shares of Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc., 
New York, New York, and thereby engage in operating a savings 
association and an industrial bank, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4) of 
Regulation Y.
    Comments on this application must be received by October 31, 2008.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 8, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-24346 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02721–MSK–KMT

BRUCE W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARK KELLAR, individually and in his official capacity as the health service Administrator at

FCI-Florence,

LISA MCDERMOTT, individually and in her official Capacity as Assistant Health Services

Administrator at FCI-Florence,

PETER BLUDWORTH, individually and in his official capacity as associate warden at FCIFlorence,

MIKE GOODIN, individually and in his official capacity as chief pharmacist at FCI-Florence,

DR. DAVID ALFRED, individually and in his official capacity as clinical director of FCIFlorence,

DR. GEORGE SANTINI, individually and in his official capacity as staff Physician at FCIFlorenece,

CARI RITTER, individually and in her official capacity as mid-level Provider, at FCI-Florence,

MRS. A. VINYARD, individually and in her official capacity as Physician assistant at FCIFlorence,

GILBERTA TRUJILLO, individually and in her official capacity as secretary of medical at FCI

Florence,

BARBRA BATULIS, individually and in her official capacity as Pueblo Alpha unit Counsel at

FCI Florence,

MR. GRIFFIN, individually and in his official capacity as Correctional Officer at FCI-Florence,

JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Health Programs at North Central

Region, Leavenworth, Kansas, and

DR. JAMES PELTON, individually and in his official capacity as Region Medical Director at

North Central Region, Leavenworth, Kansas,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 112 Filed 11/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Defendants’ “Motion for Leave to File Corrected Response to Motion for Injunction” (Doc. No.

108, filed November 1, 2012) and “Motion for Leave to File Corrected Response to Motion to

Amend” (Doc. No. 109, filed November 1, 2012) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is

directed to file Defendants’ “Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction” (Doc. No.

108-2) and the accompanying attachments (Doc. Nos. 108-3, 108-4), as well as Defendants’

“Amended Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend” (Doc. No. 109-2) and the accompanying

attachment (Doc. No. 109-3).

Dated: November 2, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02721-MSK-KMT Document 112 Filed 11/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02302–WYD–KMT

MICHAEL JANIA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

KEVIN OST, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Defendant’s “Unopposed Motion to Vacate and Reset Scheduling Conference and Reset

Deadlines” (Doc. No. 8, filed Oct. 18, 2011) is GRANTED. The Scheduling Conference set for

December 1, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. is VACATED. The Scheduling Conference will be reset by

separate order.

Dated: October 20, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02302-WYD-KMT Document 10 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,450,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,319,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               685,758
<PP&E>                                       2,543,804
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,038,253)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,961,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,994,379
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,455
<COMMON>                                       366,395
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,255,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,961,697
<SALES>                                      2,861,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,861,121
<CGS>                                        1,390,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,390,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,995,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (532,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (532,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (532,804)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, 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 fo r 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 establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### WEISS v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ABDUL BOYD,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF 

PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 90 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02641-RPM

HILLCREST BANK, N.A.

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,

a Nebraska corporation, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 

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

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on January 10, 2012, at 2:30 p.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 5, 2012.

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

parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: November 9th , 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02641-RPM Document 7 Filed 11/09/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3099

_____________________________

OSYMA DEL VALLE,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 

APPEALS COMMISSION and 

MORNING STAR CENTERS, INC.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission.

Charles T. Faircloth, Chairman.

May 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a)

ROBERTS, RAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Osyma Del Valle, pro se, Appellant.

Amanda L. Neff, Deputy General Counsel, Reemployment 

Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee 

Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.
#### Walter WILLIAMS v. STATE.

6 Div. 722.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 7, 1935.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMEORD, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The record in this case has been carefully read and considered. The defendant has had a fair trial; we find no error of a prejudicial nature; and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
178 La. 84

#### LOUISIANA WESTERN LUMBER CO., Inc., v. STANFORD et al. (HART, Intervener).

No. 32579.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 30, 1933.

Robert R. Stone, of Lake Charles, for in-tervener Aurelia S. Hart.

J. Sheldon Toomer, of Lake Charles, for ap-pellee.

ODOM, Justice.

Plaintiff, appellee, filed a motion in this court to remand the case to the district court in order that the transcript may be completed. It is alleged and not denied that' during the progress of the trial in the lower court plaintiff offered in evidence certain documents in support of its plea of estoppel, which documents were excluded on the objection of irrelevancy urged by counsel for intervener. The stenographic report of the evidence offered on the trial of the intervention fails to show that these documents were offered or that objection was made to their introduction, or that they were ruled out.

The transcript is therefore incomplete. In-tervener’s suit was tried on its merits, and the trial court rejected her demands and dismissed her suit. The court, apparently, did not pass upon the plea of estoppel filed by plaintiff, but decided the case on its merits in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s reasons for asking that the case be remanded in order that the transcript may be completed so as to show that these documents in support of its plea of estoppel were filed, is that in ease this court should fail to concur in the ruling of the trial judge on the merits, and should reverse his judgment in that respect, this court could not pass upon the plea of estoppel for the reason that the transcript makes no mention of any evidence offered in support of it.

In answer to plaintiff’s motion to remand, counsel for appellant says that the plea of estoppel filed by plaintiff has no merit and-that the documents offered and excluded, if brought up, would be of no assistance to the court in determining the real issues involved.

Whether this contention be correct or not will have to be determined when the case is finally submitted. We have before us now only the motion to remand. Transcripts filed in appellate courts should reveal all the pro*840ceedings had in the trial court, and where a transcript is admittedly incomplete, the case should be remanded for its completion. On appeal, litigants are entitled to a consideration of all relevant testimony offered by them in the trial courts in support of their contentions.

It is therefore ordered that this case be remanded to the district court for the completion of the transcript, and that when completed it be returned to this court according to law.

Costs of this application to remand are to be paid by appellant.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (08-076)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Renewal of the Charter for the NASA Advisory Council.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has determined that a renewal of the Charter for the Agency-established NASA Advisory Council is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon NASA by law. The purpose of the NASA Advisory Council is to provide advice and make recommendations to the NASA Administrator on Agency programs, policies, plans, financial controls and other matters pertinent to the Agency's responsibilities. The structure and duties of this Council is unchanged.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, Office of External Relations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202-358-4510.

Dated: October 2, 2008.

P. Diane Rausch,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. E8-24036 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
811 A.2d 910

#### IN THE MATTER OF BEN W. PAYTON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

December 26, 2002.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that BEN W. PAYTON of COLONIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1992, and who was suspended from the practice of law for two concurrent three-month periods effective July 16, 2001, by Orders of this Court filed June 22, 2001, and April 30, 2002, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of *67Attorney Ethics for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10801 Summary Calendar

__________________ GREGORY MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus OFFICE C/O PEARCE; OFFICER C/O 3 FOREE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-24-C

- - - - - - - - - - February 7, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gregory Montgomery filed this appeal from the district court's denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion; nevertheless, Montgomery has not briefed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.No. 95-10801 -2- 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. Id. at 224-25. As Montgomery has abandoned the only appellate issue this court has jurisdiction to address, the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . Rule 42.2. Montgomery is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Montgomery is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Case 1:11-cv-02339-LTB Document 6 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02339-LTB Document 6 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02339-LTB Document 6 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02339-LTB Document 6 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 24
- 40039 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Roy Allen John, Jr.,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22
- CR
- 35 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Roy Allen John, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). John has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-40039 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024No. 24
- 40039

2 counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 24-40039 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2024