alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS

RESON LEE WOODS and

SHAUN K. WOODS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DURANGO, a chartered National Bank,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

The Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of

Their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), filed February 28, 2012

[ECF No. 39] is GRANTED. Defendants amended memorandum brief in support of

their motion to dismiss, filed at [ECF No. 40], is accepted.

 

Dated: February 28, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS Document 41 Filed 02/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### In re PEANUT CROP INSURANCE LITIGATION Texas Peanut Farmers, et al. v. U.S.A., United States Court Of Federal Claims, C.A. No. 1:03-445

No. 1634.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Feb. 13, 2006.

*1350Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.

*ORDER DENYING TRANSFER*

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

Before the Panel is a motion brought, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, by plaintiffs in a United States Court of Federal Claims action *(TPF).*Movants ask the Panel to transfer *TPF*to the Eastern District of North Carolina for inclusion in the MDL-1634 proceedings centralized there before Judge Malcolm J. Howard. The Court of Claims is currently under an appellate mandate to transfer the claims of TPF’s constituent plaintiffs to the federal districts (apparently as many as fourteen) where the various *TPF*plaintiffs should, under the relevant jurisdictional statute, have brought them claims. Entry of a Court of Claims order enforcing this mandate would create new actions pending in federal district courts. This presumably accounts for the *TPF*plaintiffs’ alternative request to “issue as many as 14 separate orders transferring the cases to the transferee district...,” even though at this point in time there are no such cases yet pending in district courts that could be subject to Section 1407 transfer by the Panel for inclusion in the MDL-1634 pretrial proceedings. Defendant United States of America opposes both of the plaintiffs’ requests.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 transfer of *TPF*to the Eastern District of North Carolina is inappropriate at this time. Given the unique circumstances under which this matter has come before the Panel, we are persuaded that denial of transfer is appropriate in order to permit the Court of Claims to implement the existing mandate of the appellate court. If implementation of the mandate results, as contemplated, in the creation of new civil actions which share questions with previously centralized MDL-1634 actions and which are pending in federal district courts other than the Eastern District of North Carolina transferee district, then procedures are available whereby the Panel can initiate the process of Section 1407 transfer without further delay. *See*Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for Section 1407 transfer of this action is denied.
2004419805_1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROCK USA LLC, and the CITY OF COQUITLAM,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT (Doc. #96)

THE COURT hereby finds and concludes that the Orders reflected in ECF Nos. 79 and 

91 resolves the claims and counterclaims presented to the Court.

Furthermore, based upon the Parties stipulation, the Court hereby Orders that in the event 

that the above-referenced Orders are reversed and remanded to this Court, the parties will be 

allowed to pursue all claims, counterclaims and defenses asserted in this matter prior to the entry 

of this Final Judgment, consistent with the remand order and the issues presented by the parties 

on appeal.

Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 58(d), the Court hereby directs the Clerk to 

enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Colorado Casualty Insurance Company.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 97 Filed 10/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.3

                               THIRD AMENDMENT TO
               NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC. STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

                  The Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. Stock Ownership Plan is
hereby amended as follows, effective as of  May 16, 1997.

                  Section 6(a) of the Plan is amended by deleting the numeral
"4,000,000" and substituting therefore the numeral "5,250,000", by deleting the
numeral "12" and substituting therefore the numeral "15", and by inserting the
phrase "the Third Amendment to" between the words "of" and "the Plan". The
amended Section 6(a) shall read as follows:

         6.       Authorized Awards; Limitations

                  (a) Except for adjustments pursuant to Section 7, the maximum
         number of shares of Common Stock that shall be available for issuance
         under the Plan (the "Authorized Plan Shares") shall be 5,250,000
         (approximately 15% of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock
         on the effective date of the Third Amendment to the Plan).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment is hereby executed this 20th day of October,
1997.

                                              NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC.

                                                   D. J. Anderson
                                              ------------------------------
                                                  Senior Vice President

ATTEST:  Peter A. V. Huegel
         ---------------------
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20522 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS M. TORNE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-97-ALL

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus M. Torne, federal prisoner #76034-079, appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment against him for delay, pursuant to F ED . R. C RIM . P. 48(b). When Torne pleaded guilty, he waived all nonjurisdictional defects, including the right to object under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 48(b) or the Sixth Amendment for any delay in bringing charges to the grand jury. See United States v. Grayson , 416 F.2d 1073, 1077 (5th Cir. 1969). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 8053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2436]



[[Page 8053]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial 
gauger.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, SGS 
North America, Inc., 2301 Brazosport Blvd., Suite A 915, Freeport, TX 
77541, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, 
organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in 
accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to 
employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and 
receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger 
service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific 
gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to 
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#016263712f6d60636970416569722f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc9f9e8cd2909d9e948dbc98948fd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories. http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/

DATES: The approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger 
became effective on May 18, 2007. The next triennial inspection date 
will be scheduled for May 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program 
Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 
20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E8-2436 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER

RYAN O’NEILL;

JOQUIN MARTINEZ;

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON; and

WILLIAM LEGER, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to

Plaintiff Ryan O’Neill and Order for Remand [88] entered by Senior District Judge

Richard P. Matsch today, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision denying Ryan O’Neill’s

application for benefits under TSGLI is vacated and this matter is remanded to the

United States Army.

DATED: December 13, 2013

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

s/M. V. Wentz

By__________________________

Deputy

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 89 Filed 12/13/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1638 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1638

 To adjust the salaries of Federal justices and judges, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 2007

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Reid, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. 
  Feinstein, and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To adjust the salaries of Federal justices and judges, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judicial Salary Restoration 
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
annual rate of salary of--
            (1) the judges of the district courts, as established under 
        section 132 of title 28, United States Code, shall be adjusted 
        to $247,800;
            (2) the judges of the Court of International Trade, as 
        established under section 251 of title 28, United States Code, 
        shall be adjusted to $247,800;
            (3) the judges of the courts of appeals, as established 
        under section 44 of title 28, United States Code, shall be 
        adjusted to $262,700;
            (4) the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, as 
        described under section 1 of title 28, United States Code, 
        shall be adjusted to $304,500; and
            (5) the Chief Justice of the United States, as described 
        under section 1 of title 28, United States Code, shall be 
        adjusted to $318,200.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the first 
applicable pay period beginning on or after the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 3. COORDINATION RULE.

    If a pay adjustment under section 2 is to be made for an office or 
position as of the same date that any other pay adjustment would take 
effect for such office or position, the adjustment under this Act shall 
be made first.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as necessary to 
carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
STEPHEN ANTHONY MILLER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senio r D istrict Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00013

- TDS

- 2 )

Submitted : March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.
Stephen Anthony Miller , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7245 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Stephen Anthony Miller appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. S ee United
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Miller , No. 1:10

- cr 00013

- TDS

- 2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2022). * We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* On appeal, Miller requests permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, such a request should be made in a separately filed 28 U.S.C. § 2244 motion. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7245 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HILARIO QUINTERO-RODRIGUEZ,

 a/k/a “The Big Guy,”, a/k/a “Santa Claus,”

2. ABEL LAST NAME UNKNOWN (LNU),

3. OCTAVIO QUEZADA-PEREZ,

 a/k/a “Tavi,”

4. FLODINA BELETSO GALLEGOS,

5. GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO,

 a/k/a “Lupe,”

6. JULIO MARES-RUIZ,

 a/k/a “Mariano,”

7. LUIS JORGE MARTINEZ-VALDIVA, and

8. ROBERT MASON BYAS,

 a/k/a “Robin,”

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#105) on January 9, 2012, by Defendant Byas. The Court construes this Notice as a motion to

change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’ plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for March 26, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. and a
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

Sentencing hearing is set for June 18, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The motion hearing set for January 24, 2012, and the February 21, 2012, trial

date are VACATED as to Defendant Byas.

Dated this 17th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
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 9, 2005 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 21, 2005

/s/ Peter Beaudrault
-----------------------------
Peter Beaudrault
President 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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5326

_____________________________

SHANNON CASTRO,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

JOSE CASTRO,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Darlene F. Dickey, Judge.

January 25, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

H. E. Ellis, Jr., of Staples, Ellis + Associates, P.A., Pensacola, for 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

R. Stan Peeler of Peeler Law Firm, PLLC, Pensacola, for 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Case 1:11-cr-00421-WJM Document 66 Filed 05/28/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### MINA PARKER, APPELLANT, v. JOHN A. ROEBLING’S SONS COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Argued October 24, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the appellant, *George Pellettieri.*

For the respondent, *Crawford Jamieson.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Wachenfelcl in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
**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 September 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:
                November 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.
Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 35 Filed 12/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00420-LTB-01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUIS ENRIQUE MOY

Defendant.

ORDER

Defendant Luis Enrique Moy currently is detained at the El Paso Detention Center 

(ICE Facility) in El Paso, Texas. Defendant claims that he has served thirty-month 

sentence imposed by this Court and now is subject to a deportation proceeding. 

Defendant asks that he be allowed to file pro se in this Court the necessary documents to 

challenge his deportation, because the immigration law judge overseeing his immigration 

case stated that he may have a Asmall chance@ of staying in this country.

ECF No. 55 at 1.

Because Defendant is pro se, the Court must construe his request liberally. See 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 

(10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. 

See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny 

Defendant=s request.

Under the Real ID Act, petitions for review filed with the court of appeals are Athe 

sole and exclusive means@ of review of most administrative orders of removal, 

1

Case 1:11-cr-00420-LTB Document 56 Filed 11/16/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
deportation, or exclusion. 8 U.S.C. ' 1252(a)(5). The statute defines Aorder of removal@

as an administrative order concluding that an alien is removable or ordering removal. 8 

U.S.C. ' 1101(a)(47)(A). Accordingly, if Defendant is subject to a removal order the 

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider any challenges to the removal order.

The Real ID Act, however, did not eliminate a district court=s jurisdiction to review 

habeas petitions challenging an alien=s detention. 8 U.S.C. ' 1252(a)(1). Nonetheless, 

any challenge specific to Defendant=s detention is more properly presented in a 28 U.S.C. 

' 2241 action and not in Defendant=s criminal case. Defendant is instructed that a ' 2241 

action is filed in the federal district court that is located where Defendant is detained. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant=s request for this Court to assist him with Afighting@ his 

deportation proceedings, ECF No. 55 at 1, is improperly filed in this criminal case or in a 

federal district court and is denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 16th day of November , 2015.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

2

Case 1:11-cr-00420-LTB Document 56 Filed 11/16/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2