alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 60 Filed 07/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edgar Gill, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered February 16, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well established that a plea of guilty operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review of nonjurisdictional defects *(People v Thomas,*74 AD2d 317, *affd*53 NY2d 338). The defendant has therefore waived the right to seek review of his claims on this appeal that the People’s alibi request should have been stricken as unconstitutional, and that the language concluding the indictment, characterizing his offenses as "against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of New York”, should have been stricken as prejudicial. These purported defects are not jurisdictional, and may not now be raised. In any event, we note that contrary to the defendant’s contention, CPL 250.20, governing the People’s alibi notice, is constitutional *(People v Peterson,*96 AD2d 871). Also, the language concluding the indictment merely identifies the defendant’s acts as public, rather than private, wrongs.

The sentence imposed, which was within the range promised by the court during the defendant’s plea allocution, was appropriate and will not be disturbed *(People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
-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 Sentencing hearing is set for Tuesday, March 27, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., in

Courtroom A-1002.

Based on the recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States

in Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 556 (Dec. 10, 2007) and Kimbrough v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (Dec. 10, 2007), all motions for variance, downward

departure, upward adjustment, and for any sentence outside the advisory

guideline range shall be filed not later than fourteen (14) days prior to sentencing. 

Responses to these motions shall be filed not later than seven (7) days prior to

sentencing hearing.

Motions for acceptance of responsibility and motions to dismiss

counts/indictment, and proposed orders as to these motions, shall be filed not

later than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the date of sentencing. Proposed orders

shall also be electronically submitted to the chambers e-mail account. This deadline

does not in any way alter or affect deadlines for the filing of objections or other

pleadings established pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

There will be no exceptions to this policy, and sanctions may be imposed

for failure to comply.

 Dated: December 21, 2011.

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 32 Filed 12/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

January 29, 2021

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2020-1266

DEBORAH N. MOUTON-MILLER,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Intervenor

Decided: January 19, 2021

Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following changes:

On page 9, line 22, change “3312(a)(2)” to “3321(a)(2)”.

On page 9, line 27, change “3312(a)(2)” to “3321(a)(2)”.

On page 9, line 28, change “3312(a)” to “3321(a)”.

On page 9, line 32, change “3312(a)(1)” to “3321(a)(1)”.

On page 9, line 35, change “3312” to “3321”.

On page 10, line 9, change “3312” to “3321”.

On page 10, line 13, change “3312” to “3321”.

On page 12, line 8, change “3312” to “3321”.

Case: 20-1266 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2203

FREHIWOT TAFESSE, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A74-674-106) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frehiwot Tafesse, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Allen Warren Hausman, Assistant Director, Joshua Eric Terrence Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Frehiwot Tafesse, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), (b)(1) (2001); Matter of Cerna , 20 I. & N. Dec. 399 (BIA 1991). We accordingly affirm the Board’s order. We grant Respondent’s motion for leave to file answering brief out of time, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered May 31, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 01670 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01672 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00101 - CR QUIDALE D. DICKERSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Cour t No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s. F 11 - 59093 - L , F11 - 5909 4 - L, F10 - 61899 - L 

### O RDER Appellant’s May 23, 2013 motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED to the extent the time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED to THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 22, 2020

NO. 03

- 18

- 00517

- CV

Z Bar A Ranch, LP, Appellant

v.

Tax Appraisal District of Bell County, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUS TICE S GOODWIN, BAKER, AN D TRIANA

VACATED AND DISMISSED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the ju dgment si gned by the tr i a l court on May 9, 2018

. Having reviewed

the record, this Court holds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

the Court vacates the distr ict co urt ’s t ak e nothing judgme nt and dism iss es Z Bar A Ran ch, LP ’s

cla im for lack of sub

ject matter jurisdiction

. The appel lant shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

            Certification by Chief Financial Officer of Annual Report

                         CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT

I, Steven Spooner, Chief Financial Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation
("Mitel"), 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Mitel, for the fiscal year ended April 24,
2005, and for the six day transition period ended April 30, 2005, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: October 20, 2005

                                              /s/ Steven Spooner
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name: Steven Spooner
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM

BRANDON BAKER, Rev.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF COLORADO, and

JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice and Complaint of Clerk Error

[Docket No. 40; Filed January 9, 2012] (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the

Court to strike Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss [#23] and already-ruled-upon Motion

to Accept Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in Excess of Page

Limitation (“Motion to Accept”) [#26]. Plaintiff further states that he will “motion the court

to reconsider Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.”

With respect to Plaintiff’s first request, he argues that the Motion to Dismiss and

Motion to Accept were “improper, excessive, void and untimely.” See Motion [#40] at 2.

Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that Defendants violated numerous Orders and

Practice Standards of the District Judge. Without more detailed information, the Court may

not grant relief with respect to these alleged violations. Plaintiff does make two specific

complaints, however. First, with respect to his conferral complaint, the Court notes that

Defendants are not required to confer with Plaintiff on a motion made pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12, as is their Motion to Dismiss. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Second, Plaintiff

avers that Defendants violated Rule III.F.2.a. of the District Judge’s Practice Standards.

However, he fails to state how Defendants violated that standard. Therefore, the Court

may not grant relief with respect to these alleged violations, either. Consequently, the

Court DENIES the request to strike the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Accept.

With respect to the latter request, the District Judge issued an Order [#39] denying

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment on January 5, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Reconsider [#42] that Order the same day that he filed the present Motion [#40]. Because

the Motion to Reconsider involves an Order of the District Judge and seeks the same relief

as Plaintiff’s request in this Motion, the Court DENIES the request here. Accordingly,

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 43 Filed 01/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

Dated: January 11, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02578-PAB-KLM Document 43 Filed 01/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-CR-00402-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. SHANE FRENCH,

Defendant.

 

ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

As a result of the Defendant’s refusal to leave his cell at the La Plata County Jail and be

transported to a hearing before the Magistrate Judge on April 12, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in order to assist the Court, the Court has requested the

Defendant’s mother, Patty French, visit with the Defendant at the La Plata County Jail if she wishes

to do so and that the La Plata County Jail allow the Defendant’s mother to have an “unscheduled”

visitation with the Defendant on the afternoon of April 12, 2012 or the morning of April 13, 2012.

DATED: April 12, 2012. 

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00402-DW Document 49 Filed 04/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.02


     I, Steven B. Graham, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sbarro, Inc.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly
Report;

     3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other  financial
information  included in this Quarterly  Report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;

Date:  November 18, 2002


/s/ Steven B. Graham
------------------------------
Steven B. Graham,
Vice President and Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer)




















                                     Pg. 45
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY WRIGHT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 68 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
T HE S TATE EX REL
. B AUM , A PPELLANT , v. I NDUSTRIAL C OMMISSION OF O HIO ET AL ., A PPELLEES
. [Cite as State ex rel. Baum v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Workers’ compensation – Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause returned for compliance with State ex rel. Noll. (No. 97-1098 – Submitted October 12, 1998 – Decided December 30, 1998.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD05-666.

__________________ Brian & Brian and Richard F. Brian , for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery , Attorney General, and Cordelia A. Glenn , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh and Mary E. Randall , for appellee Republic Engineered Steels, Inc.

__________________ The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for furthe r proceedings in compliance with State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. D OUGLAS , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY and P FEIFER , JJ., concur. M OYER , C.J., C OOK and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., dissent.

__________________ L UNDBERG S TRATTON , J., dissenting. I dissent and would affirm the court of appeals. M OYER , C.J., and C OOK , J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.13

                                  SCHEDULE D

                                 PROJECT ORDER
                                 -------------

This Project Order confirms the mutual understanding and agreement of
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("B-MS") and Mediconsult (the "Company") as to
terms under which this Company will provide to B-MS the services described in
this Project Order (the "Order").

This Order is being entered into in accordance with the provisions of the
Medical Education Services Agreement dated as of between B-MS and the Company
(the "Agreement"), and except as otherwise provided in this Order, all
applicable provisions of the Agreement are incorporated into this Order by this
reference and each term defined in the Agreement will have the same meaning when
used in this Order.

The term of this Order will commence on 3/31/00 (the "Project Effective Date"),
and will continue thereafter until completion of the services described on the
attached Schedule D-1, D-2, as the case may be, unless terminated earlier in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

The Company and B-MS agree that the Company will perform the services described
in the attached Schedule D-1, D-2. For the services and resources provided by
the Company to B-MS under this Order, B-MS will pay the Company the amount set
forth in Schedule D-3, hereto, in accordance with Article 4.0 of the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, each by a duly authorized
representative, have entered into this Order this 31st day of March 2000.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company               Mediconsult.com Limited

By: /s/ Brian Markson                      By: /s/ Robert Jennings
   ---------------------------                ---------------------------

Name: Brian Markson                        Name: Robert Jennings
     -------------------------                  -------------------------

Title: President MD                        Title: CEO
      ------------------------                   ------------------------

Date: 3/31/00                              Date: 3/31/00
     -------------------------                  -------------------------
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           12-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                06-30-1999
<CASH>                          14,702
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,235
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                15,937
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  15,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            3,796
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                        23,200
<OTHER-SE>                      (3,706)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    15,937
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     0
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 7,316
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (7,353)
<EPS-BASIC>                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .00
Exhibit 32.01

# 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 Sbarro, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended October 8, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Beaudrault, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

| | (1) |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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: November 20, 2006

/s/ Peter BeaudraultPeter BeaudraultPresident
and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
Executive Officer)

NOTE: A signed original of this
certification 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.
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 9
Case 1:11-cr-00392-RBJ Document 23 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH

DELORES MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE ESTATE OF AUSTIN KRAAL,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter comes before the Court on the Stipulation [sic] Motion to Dismiss

Defendant With Prejudice [Docket No. 46]. The Court has reviewed the pleading and is

fully advised in the premises. It is

ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Defendant With Prejudice [Docket No. 46]

is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), this matter, and all claims

asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’

fees and costs. It is further

ORDERED that the trial preparation conference scheduled for June 10, 2013 at

3:30 p.m. and the jury trial scheduled for June 25, 2013 are vacated. 

DATED June 10, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH Document 47 Filed 06/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company; THE

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut Insurance Company;

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance

company; ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance

company; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut

insurance company; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey

insurance company; and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________

Upon the Notice Re Pretrial Deadlines (Doc 231, filed August 8, 2013), the Pretrial

Order has not been stricken (Doc 233). Certain motions have been stricken. This Court

may enter a revised Pretrial Order. Therefore, it is ORDERED that all pretrial deadlines

remain.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

DATED: August 9, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 234 Filed 08/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1