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-02584-RPM

(Coordinated with cases 11-cv-02550-RPM, 11-cv-02817-RPM, 11-cv-02819-RPM, and

12-cv-0876-RPM, 12-cv-1069-RPM, 12-cv-1724-RPM)

KEVIN STRINGER,

RYAN O’NEILL,

JOAQUIN MARTINEZ,

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, and

WILLIAM LEGER III, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER APPROVING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

______________________________________________________________________________

Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule [63] filed March 28,

2013, it is

ORDERED that the parties in this case shall proceed on the following schedule:

• Deadline for Plaintiff O’Neill to confer with Defendant on any dispute as to the

administrative record filed at Dkt. 34: April 22, 2013.

• Defendant for Plaintiff O’Neill to file any motion to supplement the record and/or

any motion to seek discovery: April 29, 2013. If Plaintiff O’Neill files any such

motion, the response and reply deadlines shall be governed by

D.C.COLO.L.Civ.R. 7.1, and the parties will confer at that time and propose

appropriate modifications to the remaining schedule.

• The deadlines for filing motions for summary judgment: Plaintiff O’Neill’s

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 64 Filed 03/29/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
motion by May 13, 2013; Defendant’s opposition and cross-motion by June 3,

2013. The remaining response and reply deadlines shall be governed by D.C.

COLO. L.Civ.R. 7.1.

Dated: March 29th, 2013. 

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

____________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 64 Filed 03/29/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
CALVIN CARVER

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3361

Opinion filed October 5, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Calvin Carver, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

LEW IS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00366-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ANA ISABEL JAIMES-OCAMPO,

Defendant.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

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

(#12) on October 12, 2011, by Defendant. 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 November 16, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. and a

Sentencing hearing is set for February 6, 2012, at 11:00 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 final trial preparation conference set for November 18, 2011, and the
November 21, 2011, trial date are VACATED.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

927 COLE STREET, GOLDEN, COLORADO, and

2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER VIN # JTEES42A182076495;

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

WARRANT FOR ARREST OF PROPERTY IN REM - 

2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER VIN # JTEES42A182076495

______________________________________________________________________________

TO: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND/OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: 

PURSUANT to the Order for Warrant for Arrest of Property In Rem issued by this Court,

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ARREST AND SEIZE as soon as practicable, the

defendant property described as follows: 2008 Toyota Highlander, VIN # JTEES42A182076495 ,

and to use whatever means may be appropriate to protect and maintain it in your custody until

further order of this Court;

PROMPTLY TO make your return of this Warrant with the Court; 

DONE at Denver, Colorado, this _____ day of __________________, 2011.

GREGORY C. LANGHAM

Clerk of the United States District Court

By: _____________________________

 Deputy Clerk

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 1-2 filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending August 26, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCOMERICA BANK                                                                                                           PWINotice by Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas, to make a community development and public welfare investment.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableCOMERICA BANK                                                                                                           PWINotice by Comerica Bank, Dallas, Texas, to make a community development and public welfare investment.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableFIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                         CICRetroactive notice of Change in Control filed by Marvin Edward Singleton III, Waxahachie, Texas, individually, to control greater than 25 percent of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., and indirectly Citizens National Bank of Texas, both of Waxahachie, Texas; and retroactive notice of Change in Control filed by Marvin Edward Singleton III, Waxahachie, Texas individually, Singleton Grandchildren's Trust (Marvin Edward Singleton III trustee), and the Separate Trust created under Section 6.22 of the George H. Singleton and Shirley K. Singleton 2011 Irrevocable Trust Agreement (Marvin Edward Singleton III trustee), both of Waxahachie, Texas, together, a group acting in concert, to control greater than 25 percent of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., and indirectly Citizens National Bank of Texas, both of Waxahachie, Texas.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableNOBLE BANCORPORATION, INC.                                                                                              * 3A1Application by Noble Bancorporation, Inc., Spring, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Falcon Bancorporation, Inc., Memphis, Texas, and therefore indirectly First Bank and Trust of Memphis, Memphis, Texas.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 09/20/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02647-MSK-BNB

JONATHON PERSON; and

SHAY PERSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LA TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and

DAMIR ABLYAZOV,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

Case 1:11-cv-02647-MSK-BNB Document 4 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02647-MSK-BNB Document 4 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1436 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1436

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add clementines to the list 
of fruits and vegetables subject to minimum quality import requirements 
                issued by the Secretary of Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2007

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add clementines to the list 
of fruits and vegetables subject to minimum quality import requirements 
                issued by the Secretary of Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEMENTINES.

    Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-
1(a)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937, is amended in the matter preceding the first 
proviso in the first sentence by inserting ``clementines,'' after 
``nectarines,''.
                                 <all>
```
1

 “[#64]” 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-02421-REB-MJW

ALEMAYEHU GETACHEW,

Plaintiff,

v.

7-ELEVEN, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting the Court To

Reconsider Its June 8, 2012 Order and Disregard Its Consideration of Defendant’s

“Judicial Notice” Because He Did Not Confer with the Plaintiff as the Court Rule

Requires [#64]1

 filed June 25, 2012. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of my Order Re:

Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge [#56] filed June 8, 2012. 

Exercising my prerogative to rule on the motion without benefit of a response,

D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., I deny the motion.

The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:

Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an

intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence

previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear

error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for

reconsideration is appropriate where the court has

misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 66 Filed 06/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

 To the extent that plaintiff complains that defendant filed the request without conferring with him

as required by the Local Rules, that issue can be addressed, if appropriate, within the context of the

magistrate judge’s consideration of the motion to dismiss.

2

controlling law. 

Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations

omitted). Plaintiff’s motion offers nothing suggesting that any of these grounds are

implicated in this case. 

Instead, it appears that plaintiff is confused by the reference at page 1 of the

Order to “more recent developments in the case.” That reference was linked to my

order re-referring defendant’s motion to dismiss to the magistrate judge in light of

plaintiff’s stated intention not to amend his complaint despite the magistrate judge’s

order directing him to do so. It had no relation to defendant’s Notice of Filing in

Related Case and Request for the Court To Take Judicial Notice [#53] filed May 22,

2012, which notice I did not consider in issuing my ruling.2 

 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting the Court

To Reconsider Its June 8, 2012 Order and Disregard Its Consideration of

Defendant’s “Judicial Notice” Because He Did Not Confer with the Plaintiff as the

Court Rule Requires [#64] filed June 25, 2012, is DENIED.

Dated June 26, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 66 Filed 06/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

December 23, 2020

161797

161805

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161797

COA: 343818

Arenac CC: 17

- 004120

- FH

MICHELINE NICOLE LEFFEW,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161805

COA: 344240

Arenac CC: 17

- 004119

- FH

JEREMIAH JAMES LEFFEW,

Defendan t

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the April 9, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on the applications. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellants shall each fil e a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of

this order addressing whether the common law affirmative defense of defense of others

may be raised as a defense to the felony and misdemeanor charges against them, see

People v Dupree , 486 Mich 693 (201 0); People v Triplett , 499 Mich 52 (2016), and

whether trial defense counsels’ failure to request such an instruction deprived the

defendants of the effective assistance of counsel, see Strickland v Washington , 466 US

668 (1984). In addition to the brief, the appellants shall electronically file an appendix

conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the briefs, citations to the record must provide the

appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file aI, 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.

December 23, 2 020

s1216 2

Clerk supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellants’ briefs. The

appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use

of the appendix filed by the appellants. Replies, if any, must be filed by the appellants

within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit

mere restatements of their application papers.

The total time all owed for oral argument shall be 40 minutes: 20 minutes for the

appellants to be divided at their discretion, and 20 minutes for the appellee. MCR

7.314(B)(2).

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys

Association of Michi gan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issues presented in these cases may move the Court

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Motions for permission to file briefs amicus

curi ae and briefs amicus curiae regarding these cases should be filed in People v

Micheline Nicole Leffew , Docket No. 161797, only and served on the parties in both

cases.
GRANTED The moving party is hereby OR-DERED

to providc a copy ofthls Order to rny pro

se partles who have entered rn

ippearlnce in this action wlthin l0 days

from the date ofthis order. Dennis Jo Hall

Jefferson District COurt Judge

DATE OF ORDERINDICATED ON AT「 ACHMENT

OF COLORADO

Court Address: 10o Jefferson COunty Parkway

Golden,Colorado 80401

Phone Numberi(303)271-6145

Plainti∫∫:

GEORGE MAGNANI

V.

Defendant:

MARIE DALTON

(iO JcffersOn(:oullty District COurt ist

Filing Datc:Nov 18 2011 8:43Aヽ 1■lST

Fili:lg ID:40959650

Rcvicw Clcrk:Roxanna卜 IC

COURT USE ONLY▲

D

Casc No.:201lCV2134

Divi ctm:

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PIARIE

DALTON

The District Court, having examined the file of the above captioned case and the documents

contained therein, finds that Marie Dalton was served with Plaintiff s Complaint on September 20, 20ll via substituted service, more than 20 days have expired from the date of service, and no

responsive pleadings have been filed.

Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff George Magnani.

Default judgment is hereby granted against Defendant Marie Dalton.

Venue has been considered and is proper.

Plaintiff George Magnani is entitled to the full amount of $540,000.00, which represents

his principal invesfinent of $100,000.00 plus twenty-percent monthly interest from

December 12,2009 to December 12,2010 on that investment pursumt to the terms of the

Agreement entered into between the parties.

Pursuant to C.R.S. $ l8-4-405, Paintiff is entitled to treble damages on all actual damages

in the amount of $ 1,620,000.00.

In light of the facts presented in this case, the Court frnds that Marie Dalton was

improperly transferred, has improperly exercised control over, and did convert at least

$910,356.44 from fuchard Dalton/Universal ConsultingResources,Inc., whichrepresents

investor funds that should have been issued to Plaintiff.

3.

4.

5.

6.

§ GOVERNMENT

 EXHIBIT

l 13

8

V

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 78-13 filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado pg 1

of 2
Therefore, Plaintiffis entitled to and awarded $910,356.44 from Defendant.

PlaintiffGeorge Magnani is arso entitred to attomeys' fees and costs that have accrued up

to the date of the entry of this judgment, in support of which plaintifls counsel shail

provide a verified statement within fifteen (15) days ofthe entry of this order.

Finally' Plaintiff will be entitled to post-judgment interest on this award in the amounr of

eight-percent per annum.

Intotal, Plaintiffceorge Magnani is awarded $910,356.44 in damages, plus attomeys fees

and costs to be assessed hereafter, prus post-judgment interest fr-om the date of iefaurt judgment at the rate of eight-percent per annum.

9

10

Dated this 2011

BY THE COURT:

Distnct Court Judge

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 78-13 filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado pg 2

of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7868
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTONIO GOODMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-92-1-BO, CA-95-31-2-BO) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Antonio Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion to remand the case and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Goodman , Nos. CR92-1-BO; CA-95-31-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB ofEast Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William R. Pracht, President and Chief Principal Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   |   |   | /s/ William R. Pracht                 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | William R. Pracht                     |
|   |   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   | Dated: March 29, 2007                 |

 

 

----
#### MARY A. K. PECKITT, PROSECUTOR, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 7, 1947

Decided January 15, 1948.

*406Before Justices Donges, Colie and Eastwood.

For the prosecutor, *Paul R. Cranmer.*

For the defendant, *Gilbert H. Van Note.*

For Gladys F. Dircks, *amicus curiæ, Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona & Combs (Theodore D. Parsons*and *William R. Blair, Jr.,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

This matter comes before the court on the return of a rule'to show cause why a writ of *certiorari*should not be allowed to review the denial by the Board of Adjustment of an application and refusal to recommend to the governing body of the municipality the use of the premises in question as a rooming house.

The action of the Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Spring Lake in denying the application was rendered on May 28th, 1947. The application for writ of *certiorari*was made July 7th, 1947. The applicable statute *R. S.*40:55-46 provides that “No writ of *certiorari*to review any decision of the Board of Adjustment shall issue unless application therefor be made within thirty days after the filing of the decision in the office of the Board. * * *” A reasonable statutory limitation upon the time within which *certiorari*may issue has been held constitutional and what is a reasonable limitation will be determined upon the facts of each case as it arises. *Owen et al.*v. *Atlantic City,*125 *N. J. L.*145.

We deem that a thirty day limitation within which to apply for a writ of’ *certiorari*to review a decision of a Board of Adjustment is a reasonable one and that prosecutor’s application was not within time. The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.