alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shay *v.*North Side Bank and Trust Company (et al., Appellant)

No. 2.

Argued April 25, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cun-*66NINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and RHODES, JJ.

June 27, 1938:

*Harvey B. Lutz,*with him *C. V. Henry, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Eugene D. Siegrist,*with him *W. H. Dunbar, 3d,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

For the reasons stated in the opinion filed at No. 56, October Term, 1938, the judgment appealed from is vacated at the costs of appellant.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1659 

To limit the simultaneous deployment to combat zones of dual-military couples 

who have minor dependents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2007 

Mr. GREGG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To limit the simultaneous deployment to combat zones of 

dual-military couples who have minor dependents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON SIMULTANEOUS DEPLOYMENT 

4 TO COMBAT ZONES OF DUAL-MILITARY COU5 PLES WHO HAVE MINOR DEPENDENTS. 

6 In the case of a member of the Armed Forces with 

7 minor dependents who has a spouse who is also a member 

8 of the Armed Forces, and the spouse is deployed in an 

9 area for which imminent danger pay is authorized under 

10 section 310 of title 37, United States Code, the member 


cnoel on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 1659 IS

1 may request a deferment of a deployment to such an area 

2 until the spouse returns from such deployment. 

Æ 


cnoel on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0589

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 16, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 12 2021

05/12/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0589
812 A.2d 1106

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-MOVANT, v. KEVIN SISLER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

November 15, 2002.

Leave to appeal is granted.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the CardioDynamics International Corporation (the “Company”)Annual Report on Form 10-k for the period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen P. Loomis, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, dohereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| Date:  February 28, 2003 |                                                                     |   |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | /s/ STEPHEN P. LOOMIS                                                    |   |
|                          |                                                                          |   |
|                          | **Stephen P. Loomis Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer** |   |
Exhibit 10.12
 AMENDMENT #1 TO
MANAGEMENT CONTINUITY AGREEMENT
  WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    The last sentence of Section 3.3 of the Agreement is amended to provide as follows:
  2.
    
    Section 4.2 is amended to provide as follows:
 4.2 Section 162(m)
 3.
    
    A new Section 14 is added to the Agreement to provide as follows:
 14. Compliance with Section 409A.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 MONARCH COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVEBy:
    
    /s/ Donald L. Denney
    
    
    
    /s/ Andrew J. Van DorenDonald L. Denney
    
    
    
    Andrew J. Van DorenIts:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
 2
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00407-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EDWIN LEHI, JR.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

A Notice of Disposition was filed in the above matter on November 18, 2011. A

Change of Plea hearing is set for Wednesday, December 21, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. 

Counsel for the parties shall deliver all change of plea documents separately to

Judge Daniel’s chambers AND to the Probation Department not later than 72

HOURS before the hearing date. If the documents are not timely submitted, the

hearing will be VACATED. There will be no exceptions to this policy, and

sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply.

 Dated: November 18, 2011.

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 26 Filed 11/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### DATSON DAIRIES, Inc. v. GIBSON.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAY H. WILLIAMS, an individual, and 

NEWTON TEN, INC., a Colorado corporation

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION AND APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulation for Order

Approving Settlement Agreement, Entering Judgment in Accordance therewith, and

Stay of Execution (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 67). The Court having reviewed the

Stipulation, the Settlement Agreement, and all related exhibits, pleadings and

documents, and being fully advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Parties’ Stipulation for Order Approving Settlement Agreement is GRANTED

(ECF No. 68). The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement between the parties,

which was attached as Exhibit A to the Stipulation (ECF No. 67), and hereby

APPROVES the Settlement Agreement and ENTERS same as an Order of the Court.

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 71 Filed 04/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated this 16th day of April, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 71 Filed 04/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
1

 This order is amended to correct a clerical error in the previously entered Order [#76] filed June

20, 2012. Footnote 3 of that order has been deleted. No further changes, and no substantive changes,

are worked by the entry of this amendment.

2

 “[#73]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

3

 Although plaintiff styles her motion as “unopposed,” there is nothing therein to suggest that she

sought or obtained defendant’s agreement to the relief requested therein. Regardless, I exercise my

discretion pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. to rule on the motion without awaiting a response.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02697-REB-KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND

TRAINING COMMITTEE,

Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER1

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To Reconsider Order of

Magistrate Judges [sic] Decision to District Court Judge [#73]2 filed Jun 18, 2012. I

deny the motion.3

Plaintiff’s motion pertains to non-dispositive matters that were referred to the

magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a), I may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have reviewed her filings more liberally than

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 78 Filed 06/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

pleadings or papers filed by attorneys. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94,

127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d

1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

I have reviewed the magistrate judge’s order and the apposite motion. I conclude

that the magistrate judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To

Reconsider Order of Magistrate Judges [sic] Decision to District Court Judge [#73]

filed Jun 18, 2012, is DENIED.

Dated June 27, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 78 Filed 06/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 8, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.105 State and Local Governments, Excluding Employee Retirement Funds1** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### BACON v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc., et al.

No. 13724.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 30, 1931.

•r *r, -rr-^ -,*. „ A , . Ivy G. Kittredge, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling, M. Truman Woodward, Jr., and Lawrence K. Benson, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for defendant insists that'we were in error in holding that the boy, on whose behalf this suit was brought, was not contribu-torily negligent in riding on the front platform of defendant’s street car at the time of the accident.

Conceding that the boy was negligent, a violent assumption, nevertheless his presence on the platform, even though negligent, had no causal connection with the accident, which we have found to be due entirely to the joint negligence of the motorman of the street car and the truck driver. Stout v. Lewis, 11 La. App. 503, 123 So. 346.

Plaintiff has asked for an increase in the award, and, after due consideration and for the reasons expressed in our original opinion, we have concluded not to disturb the original amount allowed.

For these reasons both applications for re- ‘ hearing are denied.

Rehearing refused.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Ustaszewski,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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/ John A. Ustaszewski

John A. Ustaszewski
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
May 7, 2004

                                                                             24.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02613-DME-MEH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$782,893.49 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant.

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

THIS MATTER is before the Clerk's Office on Plaintiff's Motion for Clerk’s Entry 

of Default. Upon examination of our records, we find that:

(a) Service to all known interested parties was made via first class U.S. Mail, 

and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, as evidenced by the Plaintiff’s Certificate 

of Service filed with the Court on October 18, 2011 (Doc. 6); and

(b) Notice of Civil Forfeiture was posted on an official government internet site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on October 23, 2011, 

as required by Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime 

Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, as evidenced by the Notice of Publication filed with 

the Court on November 30, 2011 (Doc. 7); and

(c) To date, no claim, answer, or other responsive pleading has been filed as 

to this defendant property.

Therefore, DEFAULT of the defendant property is herewith entered.

Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 8-1 filed 01/04/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
2

DONE at Denver, Colorado this ____ day of __________, 2012.

FOR THE COURT:

GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK

 By: _____________________________

 Deputy Clerk

Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 8-1 filed 01/04/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
#### Frank D. JOHNS, Appellant, v. D. E. DENSON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Nov. 30, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

*878I
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.210 Agency- and GSE-backed Securities1** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

 “[#42]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02663-REB-MEH

DEMPSEY ALEXANDER KENNEDY, and

CRYSTAL PHIFER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Tennessee corporation, and

TAMMY MOSNESS, an individual,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is the recommendation to continue the trial in this matter

contained in the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#42]1

 filed

June 29, 2012. No objection having been filed, I review the recommendation for plain

error only. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418

F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no such error in the magistrate judge’s

recommended disposition, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be

approved and adopted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#42], filed June

29, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

Case 1:11-cv-02663-REB-MEH Document 48 Filed 08/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

2. That the Trial Preparation Conference, currently scheduled for Friday,

November 2, 2012, at 3:30 p.m., and the trial, currently scheduled to commence on

November 19, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., are VACATED and CONTINUED pending further

order of the court; and

3. That the Trial Preparation Conference and trial SHALL BE RESET during a

telephonic setting conference on August 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (MDT); provided,

furthermore, that counsel for plaintiffs SHALL ARRANGE and COORDINATE

the conference call necessary to facilitate the setting conference.

Dated August 9, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02663-REB-MEH Document 48 Filed 08/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

WENDY CABRERA,

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 16, 2012.

The Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order [filed March 14, 2012; docket #47]

is granted. The Stipulated Protective Order, as modified in paragraphs 5 and 6, is accepted and

issued contemporaneously with this minute order.

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 52 Filed 03/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Incentra Solutions, Inc.
      (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Anthony DiPaolo,
      as
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, 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.




Date:
                August 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Anthony DiPaoloAnthony
                DiPaoloChief
                Financial Officer




This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 72-6268.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02572-MSK-BNB

MICHAEL E. SHANER, and

JANELLE M. SHANER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARIA T. ANDERSON, M.D.,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate and Reschedule

Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference [docket no. 6, filed January 17, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. The Scheduling Conference will go

forward as previously set. However, it may be viewed as a Status Conference. If defendant has

been served before February 29, 2012, plaintiff may again motion to reset the Scheduling

Conference.

DATED: January 18, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02572-MSK-BNB Document 8 Filed 01/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1352 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1352

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the ``Dr. Francis 
                    Townsend Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DR. FRANCIS TOWNSEND POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dr. 
Francis Townsend Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### John Jos. RUIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS, ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee. Paul PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. James PURNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Manuel PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Louis ENCALADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Jordon FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Benny GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Tony MONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Domingo CAMPO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Jacob HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Vincent ALMOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Tony FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. James WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Henry LACROIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME. Chas. CROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAME.

Nos. 13247, 13246, 13389, 13230, 13237, 13238, 13239, 13242, 13243, 13244, 13229, 13228,’ 13227, 13207, 13009.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 27, 1933.

*810PER CURIAM.

The above cases arise as the result of the Caernarvon crevasse which was artificially created in 1927. Each of the above cases involves a claim based on the charge that the claimant was deprived of the ability to earn his livelihood' in his chosen occupation.

In Alfred Oliver & Co. v. Board of Commissioners Orleans Levee District, 169 La. 438, 125 So. 441, the Supreme Court of Louisiana considered a case involving a question identical with that presented in each of the above cases and held that there was no right to recover. See, also, Acosta v. Board of Levee Commissioners, 12 La. App. 488, 126 So. 463; Foret v. Board, 169 La. 427, 125 So. 437; Fabre et al. v. Board, 170 La. 210, 127 So. 603, and Louisiana Southern Railway Company v. Board, 176 La. 687, 146 So. 470.

The judgment appealed from in each of the above cases is affirmed.

Affirmed.