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-02706-BNB

THARRON DENNIS BROWN,

Applicant,

v.

J.W. WANDS, Warden FCI-Florence, 

 Respondent.

ORDER TO FILE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE

As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed on October 18, 2011, in this case and

pursuant to Redmon v. Wiley, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (D. Colo. 2008), the Court has

determined that a limited Preliminary Response is appropriate. Respondent is directed

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing the affirmative

defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies. If Respondent does not intend to

raise this affirmative defense, Respondent must notify the Court of that decision in the

Preliminary Response. Respondent may not file a dispositive motion as a Preliminary

Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address the merits of the claims in response to

this Order.

 In support of the Preliminary Response, Respondent should attach as exhibits

copies of any administrative grievances Applicant has filed raising the issues asserted in

Case 1:11-cv-02706-BNB Document 4 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

the Application, as well as any responses to those grievances. Applicant may reply to

the Preliminary Response and provide any information that might be relevant to his

efforts to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order

Respondent shall file a Preliminary Response that complies with this Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the

Preliminary Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative

defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Respondent must notify the Court of

that decision in the Preliminary Response.

DATED October 31, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02706-BNB Document 4 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### WOFFORD v. BARNS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02641-RPM 

NBH BANK, N.A., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal of the Plaintiff NBH Bank, N.A. (“NBH”) and

Defendant Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”), all claims asserted by

NBH against Commonwealth, are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and

expenses, including any attorneys’ fees. 

Dated this 10th day of July, 2013. 

BY THE COURT: 

 s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02641-RPM Document 44 Filed 07/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Order entered April 22, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00503
- CV GWENDOLYN GABRIEL, Appellant

V. MERRY OUTLAW, Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 02456



### O RDER
We GRANT John D. Nation’s March 19, 2 01 9 unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for appellant Gwendolyn Gabriel in this appeal . We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to (1) remove Mr. Nation as counsel for Ms. Gabriel in this cause number and (2) send future communications in th is case to Ms. Gabriel at 1160 South Joe Wilson, Cedar Hill, Texas 75104

.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### UNIVERSAL FINANCE CO., Inc. v. TOBY.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30531

DEON TREMELL LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; 

UNITED STATES CONGRESS; STATE OF LOUISIANA,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CV-182

Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Deon Tremell Lee, Louisiana prisoner # 375231, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of 

his case. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the 

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th 

Cir. 1997).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30531 Document: 00514749092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2018
No. 18-30531

2

Lee fails to address the district court’s reasons for finding his case to be 

frivolous. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to 

identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the 

appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Lee has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the 

district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal is 

not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. See 

id. Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied, 

and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH 

CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of the complaint by the district court and the dismissal of 

this appeal as frivolous constitute two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in 

part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762-63 (2015). 

Lee is WARNED that accumulating a third strike will preclude him from 

proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained 

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED

 Case: 18-30531 Document: 00514749092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02496-PAB-KMT

DARRYL J. JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, and

CHARLENE FIELDS, individually and in her official capacity as former Director of

NATIONAL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Denver Campus,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a letter dated January 26, 2012 filed by

plaintiff in this action [Docket No. 6]. In his letter, plaintiff requests that the Court “sever

the above the case and dismiss the summons against defendant Charlene Fields,

without prejudice, as the defendant could not be located.” Docket No. 6 at 1. Although

plaintiff references a severance of this case, the Court interprets plaintiff’s letter as a

notice filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) voluntarily dismissing this action in its

entirety without prejudice as to Charlene Fields. Despite Rule 41(a)(1)’s reference to

the dismissal of an “action,” the weight of authority permits a dismissal of all claims

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) against fewer than all defendants. See Montoya v. FedEx

Ground Package System, Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 2010); Blaize-Sampeur v.

McDowell, 2007 WL 1958909, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2007) (noting that, although the

Second Circuit had previously stated otherwise, it had “since adopted the approach of

Case 1:11-cv-02496-RBJ-KMT Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

the majority of courts in other circuits – that is, that Rule 41(a) does not require

dismissal of the action in its entirety” and permits dismissal of all claims as to a single

defendant). Upon the filing of plaintiff’s letter [Docket No. 6], this action was dismissed

without prejudice as to defendant Charlene Fields. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff intended his letter dated January 26, 2012

[Docket No. 6] to be a motion requesting the issuance of a court order, it is deemed

moot. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s future filings must comply with the Local Rules, see,

e.g., D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1E (“Spacing”), 10.1J (“Caption”), 10.1K (“Signature Block”).

DATED January 31, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02496-RBJ-KMT Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02484-CMA-BNB

BENJAMIN GODFREY CHIPPS, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Modify

Scheduling Order [docket no. 20, filed March 7, 2013] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the defendant shall designate all

experts and rebuttal experts, and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before March 22, 2013. The plaintiff shall designate all rebuttal

experts and provide opposing counsel with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)

on or before April 22, 2013.

DATED: March 7, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02484-CMA-BNB Document 22 Filed 03/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
No. 72-470.

#### Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent *v.*Hairston.

C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.
<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 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: May 21, 2003


/s/ Stephen K. Onody
----------------------------------
Name:  Stephen K. Onody
Title: Chief Executive Officer and
       President
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2







              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




The Board of Directors
Conseco, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference of our report dated January 27, 1998, 
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Green Tree Financial Corporation 
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the 
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in 
the December 31, 1998 Form 10-K of Conseco, Inc., in the following Registration 
Statements of Conseco, Inc.:  Nos. 33-57079, 33-56901, 33-57931, 33-40556, 
33-58710, 33-58712, 333-10297, 333-18037, 333-18581, 333-19783, 333-23251, 
333-28305, 333-32615, 333-32617 and 333-51123 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-56611 and
333-32621 on Form S-3.  Our report refers to the Company's adoption of the 
Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Financial Accounting 
Standards No. 125, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets 
and Extinguishments of Liabilities," in 1997.


                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 1999
Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc.
7 Richmond Lane
Blythewood, SC 29016

November 28, 2003

Craig Thompson
608 Cypress Creek Villas
Atlantis, FL 33462

Dear Craig:

I wanted to thank you for your endorsement and support of Good
Buddy's Coffee Express.  In this letter I want to draw the terms of
our agreement and with your signature have these terms solidified.

1.	Craig Thompson agrees to loan Good Buddy's Coffee
Express, Inc (A Florida Company) $15,000 at a 5% interest rate.
Payments will begin on June 1, 2004 and will be concluded June 1,
2009.  Interest begins accruing on the date of this signature, 28
November 2003.

2	Craig Thompson reserves the right to call the note after
January 31, 2006 for any reason that he feels compelled to act upon.


Sincerely,


/s/ Scott Massey
-----------------
Scott Massey
President




/s/ Craig Thompson
-----------------------------------------
Craig Thompson
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

January 30, 2014 

# Order

Clerk January 30, 2014

147187 ( 43 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 147187

v COA: 312242

Wayne CC: 11

- 001972

- FH

RYAN CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to extend the time

to file it s brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief submitted on January 17, 2014, is

accepted for filing.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Mark H. Cosmez II, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Giga-tronics, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: 06/13/05      /s/ MARK H. COSMEZ II
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

# **CERTIFICATION**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of Arctic Cat Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annualperiod ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or itsstaff upon request.

 

 

Date: June 14, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Timothy C.  Delmore  |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy  C. Delmore,     |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11
Case 1:11-cv-02430-WYD-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11
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 Quarterly Report of Focus Affiliates, Inc. ( the
"Registrant" ) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ( the
"Quarterly Report" ), I, Michael Burke, President and Director of the
Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Registrant.


Dated : December 10, 2008         Signature :  /s/ Michael Burke
                                               --------------------------
                                                   Michael Burke
                                                   President and Director


<PAGE>
#### SMITH *v.*MASHOUR.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11



                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Statement - computation of per share earnings

                Statement of Computations of Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 For the Three Months        For the Six Months
                                                     Ended June 30              Ended June 30
                                               -------------------------  ------------------------
                                                   1998           1997        1998         1997
                                               -----------   -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                           <C>           <C>                 <C>          <C>
Net Earnings                                   $ 4,066,000   $ 3,715,000  $ 8,317,000  $ 6,910,000
                                               ===========   ===========  ===========  ===========
                                                          
Weighted average common                                   
shares outstanding                              15,005,000    15,025,000   15,005,000   15,032,000
                                               ===========   ===========  ===========  ===========
                                                          
Basic and diluted earnings per share
of common stock                                $       .27   $       .25  $       .55  $       .46
                                               ===========   ===========  ===========  ===========
 
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROBERT GARY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (J.D. ECKMAN, INC.),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00425-LTB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. FRANCISCO FRANCO-OROZCO,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

BY ORDER OF JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

This will confirm that a status/scheduling hearing regarding Defendant FrancoOrozco is set Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom C401, Byron G.

Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. Defendant must

be present. An interpreter is required.

Dated: October 28, 2011

Case 1:11-cr-00425-MJW Document 12 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Opinion filed October 11, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-18-00252-CV

___________

SALETA HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA AND 

NATIONAL CATASTROPHE ADJUSTERS, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 26732-B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Saleta Hernandez has filed in this court a motion to withdraw her notice of 

appeal. In the motion, Hernandez requests that her notice of appeal “be deemed 

withdrawn . . . and the appeal herein dismissed.” In accordance with that request, 

we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

October 11, 2018 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.