alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00416-RBJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

MALCOLM REID MCDONALD,

Defendant.

ORDER SETTING TRIAL, DATES AND DEADLINES

This matter has been scheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson in the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A702, 7th Floor, 

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence December 19, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. It is 

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by November 16, 2011 and responses 

to these motions shall be filed by November 30, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall be made 

no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such 

experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made one week 

after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such experts shall be made no 

later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is further 

Case 1:11-cr-00416-RBJ Document 6 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that counsel shall jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-

4694 or by email at Jackson_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov within five days after filing of pretrial motions to set the case for Motions Hearing. It is further

ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is scheduled for December 9, 2011 at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A702. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in person. 

During the Trial Preparation Conference the parties should be prepared to address: jury 

instructions, jury selection, witnesses and evidence, anticipated evidentiary issues, stipulations as 

to fact, and any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

For additional information, please review my practice standards located at 

www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx.

If the parties reach a disposition, the Trial Preparation Conference will be converted to a 

Change of Plea Hearing. The deadline for submitting the plea agreement and statement of facts 

relevant to sentencing and the statement by defendant in advance of plea of guilty will be 48 

hours prior to the Change of Plea Hearing.

DATED this 1st day November , 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00416-RBJ Document 6 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: August 13, 2012

Court Reporter: Tamara Hoffschildt

Probation Officer: Erika Hitta (by video)

Veronica Ramirez

Criminal Action No. 11cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, James Boma

Plaintiff,

v.

FLODINA BELETSO GALLEGOS, Michael Goldman

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

11:05 a.m. Court in session.

Defendant present in custody.

Change of Plea Hearing on May 17, 2012. Defendant pled guilty to Count 1 of the

Superseding Indictment.

The Government orally moves to dismiss Count 1 of the original Indictment against this

defendant. Defendant has no objection.

ORDER: The Government’s oral motion to dismiss Count 1 of the original indictment

against this defendant is GRANTED.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.

The Government does request departure (Doc. #332). Argument.

The parties do not contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a).
Sentencing Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

Allocution. - Statements made by: The defendant, defense counsel.

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. No further argument.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion for Decrease for Acceptance of Responsibility (Doc.

#333) is GRANTED.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #332) is GRANTED.

THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

The defendant is advised of her right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for the

District of Colorado.

11:26 a.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 21 minutes.

Hearing concluded.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02498-BNB

DANIEL L. HOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

WARDEN TRAVIS TRANI, Arrowhead Cor. Fac.,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TOM CLEMENTS, Colorado Department of Corrections,

Defendants.

 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT NEW MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Plaintiff, Daniel L. Hoff, initiated this action while he was a prisoner in the custody

of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). On October 27, 2011, the court

entered an order granting Mr. Hoff’s motion seeking leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because he was a prisoner, Mr. Hoff was

ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee within thirty days and to make monthly filing fee

payments until the filing fee was paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). Mr. Hoff

has not paid the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed. However, on October 17,

2011, Mr. Hoff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he soon would be

released from prison and, based on a search using the inmate locator feature on the

DOC’s website, it appears that Mr. Hoff has been released from custody and no longer

is a prisoner.

Mr. Hoff’s continuing obligation to pay the filing fee is to be determined, like any

Case 1:11-cv-02498-BNB Document 11 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
nonprisoner, solely on the basis of whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 

See DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396, 399 (4th Cir. 2003) (“A released prisoner

should not have to shoulder a more difficult burden than the average indigent plaintiff in

order to continue his lawsuit.”). In order to make this determination, the court will

require Mr. Hoff to submit a new motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the court’s nonprisoner in forma pauperis motion

form. Alternatively, Mr. Hoff may elect to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Mr. Hoff

either pay the entire $350.00 filing fee or submit a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hoff shall obtain the court-approved Motion and

Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, along with the applicable

instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Hoff fails to comply with this order within the

time allowed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.

DATED December 8, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02498-BNB Document 11 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### BLACKBURN v. ALLISON.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
Case 1:11-cv-02679-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02679-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02679-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02679-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
**EXHIBIT 99.1**



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant") that the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of
operations of the Registrant for such period.

|Date: | March 19, 2003 |  | By: | /s/ **John R. Schroll**
John R. Schroll, President and Chief Executive
   Officer (*Principal Executive Officer)*                  
|----- | -------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |                |  |     |                                                                                                                                    
|      |                |  |     |                                                                                                                                    
|Date: | March 19, 2003 |  | By: | /s/ **William C. Kurtz**
William C. Kurtz, Senior Vice President and
   Chief Financial Officer
   (*Principal Accounting Officer)*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF JAMES G. KLINGENSMITH, DECEASED

PETITION OF: JOSEPH G.

KLINGENSMITH AND JOHN A.

KLINGENSMITH :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 195 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Order entered June 3 , 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00700

- CV

IN RE KYLE J. BROWN, SR., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 10

- 075 65



### O RDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
Exhibit 23.3

NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Gastar Exploration Ltd.

1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1080

Houston, Texas 77010

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

Gentlemen:

As independent
oil and gas consultants, Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-130867) of Gastar Exploration Ltd. of information from our
reserve report dated March 10, 2006 entitled Estimate of Reserves and Future net Revenues to Gastar Exploration Ltd. Interest in Certain Oil and Gas Properties located in the United States as of December 31, 2005, Based on Constant
Prices and Costs in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Guidelines and all references to our firm included in or made a part of the Gastar Exploration Ltd. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.



Yours very truly,NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC./s/ FREDERIC D. SEWELLFrederic D. SewellChairman and Chief Executive Officer


March 28, 2006

Dallas, Texas
Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------






                                       13
<PAGE>



COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWABS, INC.
                    ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-1


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (a
"Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

     (i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
     calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
     Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

     (ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
     Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout
     such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                          Dated: March 27, 2003

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT AND
COMPLIANCE OFFICER



/s/ Mark Wong                                     Dated: March 27, 2003

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT


                                       14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02636-WJM

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

JAY H. WILLIAMS, an individual, and

NEWTON TEN, INC., a Colorado corporation,

Defendants.

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Parties’ Stipulation

(“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 67), and the Order For Entry of Judgment, entered by the

Honorable William J. Martínez, United States District Judge, on April 16, 2013, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Parties’ Motion for Judgment is GRANTED (ECF No. 69).

2. Consistent with the Stipulation and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54, Final

Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants,

jointly and severally, on Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief - Fraud related to

Lien Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief - Fraud related to

Omnibus Amendment for the total principal amount of $800,000.00, plus

post-judgment interest from the date of the Settlement Agreement at the

rate of 36% per annum (“Fraud Judgment”).

3. Plaintiff shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 74 Filed 04/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
incurred in attempting to collect and/or enforce the Fraud Judgment, which

fees and costs shall be added to and included in the judgment amount.

4. Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and this Court’s Order approving

same, execution of the Fraud Judgment is stayed so long as Defendants

fulfil their payment obligation to Plaintiff.

5. Final Judgment is entered in accordance with this Order.

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 17th day of April, 2013.

APPROVED: BY THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

Judge William J. Martínez By s/ Edward P. Butler 

United States District Court Edward P. Butler, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 74 Filed 04/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WESLEY MITCHELL, DEFENDANT-PROSECUTOR. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES STEWART, DEFENDANT-PROSECUTOR.

Submitted October 7, 1947

Decided January 20, 1948.

*421Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Wachenfeld.

For the plaintiff-respondent, *Edward Cohn (H. Russell Morss, Jr.,*of counsel).

For the defendants-prosecutors, *Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld (Samuel L. Rothbard, Emil Oxfeld*and *Abraham L. Friedman,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wachenfeld, J.

On December lltli, 1946, Wesley Mitchell was indicted by the Union County grand jury for interfering with a police officer and on June 20th, 1946, Charles Stewart was likewise indicted for the same offense.

Mitchell’s application for a writ of *certiorari*is grounded upen a claim that there was “deliberate and .unconstitutional exclusion from the grand jury panel and the grand jury chosen therefrom, of all daily and hourly paid wage earners and others of the poorer classes” and “all persons likely to be members of labor unions or believers in labor unionism” and “all persons of the colored race.” The application of Stewart is based upon similar grounds. Both allege that the jury commissioners acted in violation of their oath and intentionally secured a panel that was incapable of being impartial or fair. One of the applications was made to a single justice and denied. The court there said:

“Since the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in *Norris*v. *Alabama,*294 *U. S.*587; 79 *L. Ed.*1074, and *Thiel*v. *Southern Pacific Co.,*328 *U. S.*217; 90 *L. Ed.*1180, holding that the exclusion of all persons of the African race and the exclusion of all persons who work for daily wages from the list of jurors, either grand or petit, may be ground for reversal, it is obvious that the questions raised on these applications are important, and so far as the exclusion of wage earners is concerned, of novel impression in this state.”

In *State*v. *McCarthy,*76 *N. J. L.*295; *State*v. *Borg,*8 *N. J. Mis. R.*349; *In re Ellenstein,*119 *N. J. L.*597; *In re Donovan,*129 *Id.*25, similar applications were made on matters *dehors*the indictment and allowed.

*422A charge of bias and prejudice in the selection of a grand jury as here alleged raises an issue of importance in the administration of justice and should be answered quickly and as completely as judicial procedure will permit, and in the highest forum presently available.

We make no determination of the facts as charged but believe they are sufficient to warrant the presentation of competent proof so that the issues may be disposed of.

The writs are granted.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700365

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

CHRISTIAN J. WYDAJEWSKI

Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Mark D. Sameit, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Support 

Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West-Marine Corps Base, Camp 

Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel Todd 

Enge, USMC.

For AppellantCaptain Scott F. Hallauer, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 23 March 2018

_________________________

Before MARKS, JONES, and GEIS, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51267 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE GUERRA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-44-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge GuerraHernandez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, November 3-7, 2008Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,867,655 90,943 234,017 739,868 500,814 29,526 22,09Number of loans 28,540 2,305 4,144 13,137 4,351 578 52Weighted average maturity (months)1 26.46 9.06 14.20 22.28 23.94 9.72 187.

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 7.03 6.32 5.84 9.19 3.33 1.50 2.7

Weighted average risk rating3 3.09 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 4.99 6.16 5.45 4.97 4.36 5.21 6.5 Standard error5 .18 .40 .27 .52 .49 .25 .5

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.17 7.08 6.25 6.40 5.34 6.16 7.5 25th percentile 3.82 4.60 4.50 3.56 3.51 4.33 6.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.73 5.43 5.52 4.94 4.03 4.80 6.5 Other livestock 5.22 7.41 5.26 5.53 4.50 4.07 5.7 Other current operating expenses7 5.08 6.32 5.47 4.97 4.14 5.67 7.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.47 8.11 6.32 6.62 5.70 11.07 7.5 Farm real estate 6.09 6.42 5.63 6.80 4.79 n.a. 7.5 Other8 4.07 4.62 4.63 3.75 4.35 4.39 2.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 78.36 32.09 58.18 83.79 88.68 79.14 79. Under commitment 76.03 59.97 64.04 84.64 83.28 97.37 72.7 Callable 16.61 42.67 23.20 23.21 3.70 6.04 2.2 Subject to prepayment penalty 3.09 .59 2.53 6.24 .79 n.a. n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 12.51 25.86 20.23 5.53 5.27 .81 1. Other livestock 11.12 7.86 7.93 11.73 16.13 1.71 3.5 Other current operating expenses7 41.68 57.11 58.90 44.28 34.18 61.86 17. Farm machinery and equipment 2.57 .76 2.41 3.15 1.43 .48 7.5 Farm real estate 11.06 6.56 6.10 10.19 11.87 n.a. 50.5 Other8 21.05 1.85 4.44 25.11 31.12 35.14 19.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 16.75 8.94 7.43 16.39 6.13 5.47 50.5 Other 80.39 86.55 87.64 80.77 92.47 94.53 43. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
216 La. 756

#### STANOLIND OIL & GAS COMPANY v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39649.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

Wm. P. Hardeman, Lake Charles, W. W. Heard, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appel-lee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### Frank FULLER, Appellant, v. J. M. McCAULEY, Warden, Washington State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 8660.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 14, 1938.

Frank Fuller, in pro. per.

G. W. Hamilton, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Toner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The order herein appealed from, 20 F.Supp. 206, is affirmed upon the authority of Hall v. People of State of California, 9 Cir., 79 F.2d 132, and cases there cited. See, also, McCauley v. Palmer, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 1017; McCauley v. Goldberg, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 1016; and McCauley v. Mehlhorn, 9 Cir., 91 F.2d 1017.