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-2704-REB-CBS

PATRICK COLLINS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN DOE, 

Defendant.

ORDER

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

This civil action is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party

Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference” (filed October 20, 2011) (Doc. #5). Pursuant to the

Order of Reference dated October 18, 2011 (Doc. #3) and the memorandum dated October 21,

2011 (Doc. #6), this matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed

the pending Motion, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the

premises. 

Plaintiff alleges that an unknown John Doe Defendant utilized a “BitTorrent,” peer-topeer file sharing system to reproduce and distribute infringing copies of Plaintiff’s copyrighted

motion picture. See Complaint (Doc. #1 at 3 of 11). Plaintiff seeks an order from this court to

serve third party subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 on Defendant’s Internet Service Provider

(“ISP”) to determine the identity of the John Doe Defendant. See Motion for Leave to Serve

Third Party (Doc. #5 at 2 of 6). Plaintiff seeks leave to serve subpoenas because “[a] party may

Case 1:11-cv-02704-REB-CBS Document 9 Filed 11/10/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f),”

unless authorized by the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

Under similar circumstances, the court in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. v. Colorado

Members of Swarm, granted a motion for expedited discovery to allow plaintiffs to serve

subpoenas for the purpose of identifying John Doe defendants in a file-sharing, infringement

case. 2011 WL 1812554, *1 (D. Colo. 2011). In doing so, the court articulated a good cause

standard for permitting expedited discovery. Id. at 1. The good cause standard is satisfied in

cases “involving infringement and unfair competition,” when the “[d]efendants must be

identified before [the] suit can progress.” Id. at *2 (quoting Arista Records, LLC. v. John Does,

551 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2008)). Recognizing the factual similarities between this case and

Liberty Media, and applying Liberty Media’s good cause analysis, the court finds that Plaintiff

has shown good cause and should be permitted to serve third party subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45 for the limited purpose of discovering Defendant Doe’s identity. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior

to a Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference” (filed October 20, 2011) (Doc. #5) is GRANTED.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 10th day of November, 2011. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/Craig B. Shaffer 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02704-REB-CBS Document 9 Filed 11/10/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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 annual report of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael S. Ives, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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: March 25, 2009 |  | /s/ Michael S. Ives                  
|                     |  | Michael S. Ives,                     
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



79
|                                                                       |                | Exhibit 99(c)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------
|Household Finance Corporation                                          |                |              
|HRSI Funding, Inc. II                                                  |                |              
|Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2002-1
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|Original Class A Principal                                             | 400,000,000.00 |              
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                                        | 400,000.00     |              
|Original Class B Principal                                             | 53,850,000.00  |              
|Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                                        | 53,850.00      |              
|Original Class C Principal                                             | 30,775,000.00  |              
|Number of Class C Bonds (000's)                                        | 30,775.00      |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                | 2003 Totals  
|                                                                       |                |              
|CLASS A                                                                |                |              
|Class A Principal Distributions                                        |                | 0.00         
|Class A Interest                                                       |                | 21,999,999.96
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|CLASS B                                                                |                |              
|Class B Principal Distributions                                        |                | 0.00         
|Class B Interest                                                       |                | 970,391.27   
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|CLASS C                                                                |                |              
|Class C Principal Distributions                                        |                | 0.00         
|Class C Interest                                                       |                | 756,833.76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00424-WYD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

1. LUIS FRANCIA-SALDANA, 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. To ensure that all 

pre-trial phases of the case are complete before the commencement of the jury trial, it is 

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by Friday, November 25, 2011,

and responses to these motions shall be filed by Wednesday, December 7, 2011. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall request a hearing on all pending 

motions, if necessary, and final trial preparation conference at a future date. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that a 2-day jury trial is set for Monday, December 19, 

2011, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom A-1002.

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL 

CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02758-WJM-KLM

MARY NETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRIFFITH CENTERS FOR CHILDREN, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss

filed January 4, 2012 (ECF No. 6). The Court being fully advised hereby ORDERS as

follows:

The Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The above-captioned matter is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay her or its own attorney’s fees and costs.

Dated this 6th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02758-WJM-KLM Document 8 Filed 01/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61100-61101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24396]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB)

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the State Energy Advisory 
Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced 
in the Federal Register.

DATES: November 18-20, 2008.
    Location: L'Enfant Plaza Hotel 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 
DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Burch, STEAB Designated Federal 
Officer, Office of Commercialization and Project Management, Golden 
Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, 
CO 80401, Telephone 303-275-4801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative 
policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as 
designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 
1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Discuss ways STEAB can continue to support DOE's 
commercialization efforts, consider potential collaborative activities 
involving the State Energy Offices and the land grant institutions of 
the USA and their cooperative energy extension services, and update 
members on routine business matters.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gary Burch at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be 
received five days prior to the

[[Page 61101]]

meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested 
topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct 
the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site, http://www.steab.org.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on October 8, 2008.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-24396 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
216 La. 867

#### HAMILTON v. DABBS.

No. 39727.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 13, 1950.

Gatlin & Hill, New Orleans, for appellant.

Connor, Durham & Clarke, James Thomas Connor, New' Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Plaintiff (appellee) 'has' moyed to dismiss the instant appeal of defendant, the motion being predicated on" the contention that a previous appeal was taken and abandoned by appellant.'

From the record it appears that on June 9, 1949, defendant secured an order for a suspensive appeal from a judgment theretofore rendered against him, and on the same day he furnished the required bond. However, the transcript under that order and bond (the appeal was returnable here July 15; 1949) was never filed in this court..

On November 17, 1949; from the sáme judgmént, defendant ’ applied for and'' obtained the devolutive 'appeal presently before us. ' ■

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The established jurisprudence of this-court is that where a suspensive appeal has been abandoned by a failure to file the transcript within three judicial days after the return day (if ,no extension of time has been, granted) the appellant cannot after-wards take a devolutive appeal from the same judgment. To this effect, and involving a factual situation ' identical with that here, is each of the following: Ducournau v. Levistones, 4 La.Ann. 30; Collins v. Monticou, 9 La.Ann. 39; Redmond v. Mann, 24 La.Ann. 149; Laussade v. Maury, 31 La.Ann. 858; Hymel v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 116 La. 42, 40 So. 525; Dupierris *v.*Sparicia, 164 La. 290, 113 So. 851, 852.

In the last mentioned case, we stated:

> “The counsel for appellant contends 'that the first appeal ¡bond was given for' a suspensive appeal, and. the failure to bring up the transcript of that appeal could not be considered an abandonment of the devolutive appeal-.

> “The jurisprudence is otherwise.

> “Where an appeal, whether suspensive' or devolutive, has been perfected by giving the required bond and the appellant fails to file the transcript within the time prescribed by law or the order of court, the right of appeal itself is lost.

> “The authorities cited and relied on by counsel were cases where the appeal had not been perfected by giving the bond.

> *897“Of course, there is no appeal to be abandoned until the bond is executed. ******

> “In the instant case the defendant complied with the first order of appeal by giving the bond, and, having failed to file the transcript in time, she could not thereafter renew the appeal, and it makes no difference whether the abandoned appeal was suspensive or devolutive.”

The appeal is dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

E L PASO COUNTY

,

Appellant

,

v.

SUNLIGHT ENTERPRISES CO., INC.,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 0 81

- C V

Appeal from the

346 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2014DCV3555 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is a petition for permissive appeal filed by El Paso County. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 28.3. The petition is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 28.3(k), a notice of appeal is

deemed to have been filed by El Paso County on the date of this order and the appeal will be

governed by the rules applicable to accelerated appeals. El Paso County is directed to take all

necessary steps to cause the appellate record to be filed. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 34.5, 34.6. The

clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, if any, are due to be filed no later than May 30 , 2016

.

The Clerk of the Court shall file a copy of this order with the trial court clerk. See T EX .R.A PP .P.

28.3(k).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 0 th day of May , 20 1 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1484 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1484

 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore 
  the Medicare treatment of ownership of oxygen equipment to that in 
     effect before enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2007

  Mr. Roberts (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Voinovich) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore 
  the Medicare treatment of ownership of oxygen equipment to that in 
     effect before enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

    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 ``Home Oxygen Patient Protection Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF MEDICARE TREATMENT OF OWNERSHIP OF OXYGEN 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395m(a)(5)), as amended by section 5101(b) of the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171), is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(E), and (F)'' and 
        inserting ``and (E)''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (F).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as of the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall 
apply to individuals receiving oxygen equipment before, on, or after 
December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02635-RPM

DEBRA A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE

OF COLORADO, and

RODNEY D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Grand County, also known

as the Grand County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff’s Office, and in his individual

capacity,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR STATUS HEARING

_____________________________________________________________________

This civil action was removed to this court by the notice of removal filed by

defendant the Grand County Board of Commissioners and Grand County Sheriff

Rodney D. Johnson on October 7, 2011. As required, the notice of removal attached

the pleadings in the District Court, Grand County, Colorado, preceding the notice of

removal, including a filing in that court on September 23, 2011, of Plaintiff’s “New”

Amended Complaint, setting forth a breach of contract as the first claim for relief and a

claim for Constitutional due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the second claim for

relief. That claim forms the basis for the assertion of federal question jurisdiction in the

notice of removal. A response to that pleading was filed in this court on October 22,

2011, by Sheriff Johnson. On October 24, 2011, the plaintiff filed in this court a Reply to

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify and Revise, for Case 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 15 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Management and to Vacate, filed September 22, 2011, in the state court. Because it is

unclear as to what matters are properly before this court, it is

ORDERED that a hearing will be held in this court at a time to be scheduled with

counsel to determine the status of this case and the manner in which this civil action will

proceed in this court.

DATED: October 28, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 15 Filed 10/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24435]

[[Page 61454]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Management Service; Senior Executive Service: Combined 
Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Members of Combined Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 
appointment of the members of the Combined Performance Review Board 
(PRB) for the Financial Management Service (FMS), Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing (BEP), the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), the United 
States Mint and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The 
Board reviews the performance appraisals of career senior executives 
below the level of bureau head and principal deputy in the bureaus, 
except for executives below the Assistant Commissioner/Executive 
Director level in the Financial Management Service and Bureau of the 
Public Debt. The Board makes recommendations regarding proposed 
performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments and other 
appropriate personnel actions.
    Composition of Combined PRB: The Board shall consist of at least 
three voting members. In the case of an appraisal of a career 
appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career 
appointees. The names and titles of the Combined PRB members are as 
follows:

Primary Members

    Rita Bratcher, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Management Services, 
FMS; Pamela J. Gardiner, Deputy Director, BEP; Andrew Brunhart, Deputy 
Director, United States Mint; Anita Shandor, Assistant Commissioner, 
Office of Financing, BPD; John J. Manfreda, Administrator, TTB.

Alternate Members

    Wanda Rogers, Assistant Commissioner, Payment Management, FMS; 
Scott Wilson, Associate Director, Management, BEP; Marty Greiner, Chief 
Financial Officer, United States Mint; Lori Santamorena, Executive 
Director, Government Securities Regulations Staff, BPD; Vicky I. 
McDowell, Deputy Administrator, TTB.

DATE: Membership is effective on 09-30-2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Ford, Director, Human Resources 
Division, Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Hwy., 
Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone Number: 202-874-7080.

    Dated: September 30, 2008.
Judith R. Tillman,
Commissioner, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. E8-24435 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
```
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 1, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00906

- CR

Luis FRANCO

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District C ourt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR3379

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Bri ef is hereby GRANTED. The

State ’ s brief is deemed filed as of November 25, 2014.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### TINDALL v. STOLLBERG.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Ralph M. WINTERS, a Resident of Lucas County, Ohio, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

C. H. Landefeld, Jr., of Hollywood, E. B. Griffis and R. R. Saunders, both of Fort .Lauderdale, for plaintiffs in error.

Casey & Walton, of Miami, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Wen Lian H. Patience v. Christine Hendricks Hodson

Appellate case number: 01-22-00599-CV

Trial court case number: 22-DCV-290170

Trial court: 458th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant Wen Lian H. Patience filed a motion for rehearing on October 13, 2022.

The motion for rehearing is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____Justice Richard Hightower_______________

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower

Date: November 17, 2022