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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1255

LARRY ARDINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND; WASHINGTON

COUNTY, MARYLAND, Board of County

Commissioners,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cv01029-AMD)

Submitted: January 5, 2007 Decided: February 5, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan

R. Topazian, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Washington, D.C., for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Ardinger appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of Washington County, Maryland,

and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County,

Maryland, on Ardinger’s sexual harassment, gender discrimination

and retaliation claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Ardinger v. Washington County, No. 1:05-cv-01029-AMD

(D. Md. Jan. 23, 2006). We 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00420-LTB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. LUIS MOY,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

BY ORDER OF JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

This will confirm that pursuant to proceedings held in open court on November 28,

2011, Defendant shall file either a notice of disposition or an appropriate motion on or

before December 12, 2011.

A further status/scheduling hearing regarding Defendant Moy is set Thursday,

December 15, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom C401, Byron G. Rogers United States

Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. Defendant must be present.

Government Counsel in Washington, D.C. may appear by telephone if the December

15, 2011 date remains a status hearing; however, if Defendant has filed a notice of

disposition and the status hearing is converted to a change of plea hearing, Counsel shall

be present in person in the courtroom.

Dated: November 29, 2011
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02756-PAB-BNB

GREG WILKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

This matter is before me on review of the file. One of my sisters is a partner at

the law firm of Holland & Hart, counsel for defendant. For this reason, it would be

inappropriate for me to preside over this case. Accordingly, I will recuse myself. It is

therefore 

ORDERED that the judge’s file be returned to the clerk’s office for the case to be

reassigned by random draw.

DATED January 10, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02756-WYD-BNB Document 15 Filed 01/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-11265, AA-9807, AA-9515, AA-9804, AA-9742, AA-9891, AA-9887, AA-
9672, AA-10191, AA-11366, AA-9650, AA-9649, AA-10281, AA-10194, AA-
9679; AK-962-1410-HY-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Calista 
Corporation for lands located in the vicinity of Newtok and Chefornak, 
Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until November 14, 2008 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdaca6e3afa1a0e3aea2a3bba8b4aca3aea88daca6e3afa1a0e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60010b4e020c0d4e030f0e160519010e030520010b4e020c0d4e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Judy A. Kelley,
Land Law Examiner, Resolution Branch (962).
[FR Doc. E8-24389 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.50

                          [VIRTUAL COLOUR CC LETTERHEAD]


AGREEMENT

Between

VIRTUAL COLOUR CC
VIRTUAL PRINTING CC
VIRTUAL PROPERTIES CC
VIRTUAL SUPPORT CC
"Seller"

And

COLORSMART.COM INC.
"Purchaser"

          REINSTATEMENT OF SALE OF BUSINESS AGREEMENT

          The parties agree that the Sale of Business Agreement is hereby
          reinstated with full force and effect from date of signature hereof
          save that, and subject to, the terms of this agreement which hereby
          amend, where applicable, the Sale of Business Agreement.


          CHANGE OF EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION DATE

          The definition of "effective date" is now amended to read "means
          the close of business on 15 May 2000".



          SIGNED on behalf of Virtual Colour Group CC at Cape Town on the
          28th of March 2000.


          for: Virtual Colour Group



          /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
          -----------------------------------------------
          Member, who warrants that he is duly authorised
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-98073 on Form S-8 of Community Valley Bancorp of our report, datedFebruary 17, 2006, relating to our audits of the consolidated financialstatements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Community ValleyBancorp for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
|                   |   | /s/ Perry-Smith LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|                   |   |                |
|                   |   |                |
| Sacramento, California |   |                |
| March 14, 2006         |   |                |

 

----
* 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.

** 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40259 Conference Calendar

KEITH THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ESEA D. EDE ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-247

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Keith Thomas, #624254, filed a pro se , in forma pauperis civil rights action against James A. Collins, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; Dr. Michael Warren, the Division Director for Health Services; and Drs. Russell McDonald and Esea Ede, unit physicians at the Stiles Unit, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court, after conducting a Spears v. McCotter ** hearing, dismissed theNo. 98-40259 -2- complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (e)(2)(B)(ii). We have reviewed the record and Thomas’ brief on appeal and perceive no reversible error by district court. Thomas v. Ede , No. 1:96-CV247 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 1998). Even if Thomas’ skin disease is considered a serious medical condition, his written pleadings and testimony at the Spears hearing show no more than a disagreement with the treating physicians concerning diagnosis and treatment. These allegations do not plead a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                           1,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,576)
<INVENTORY>                                     62,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,562
<PP&E>                                          98,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                (68,720)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,268
<SALES>                                        207,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               297,681
<CGS>                                          142,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,646
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANCORP



Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2003



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Foothill Independent
Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) he Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2004 |  |                                      
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/    GEORGE E. LANGLEY             
|                      |  | George E. Langley                    
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1608 

To provide for the conveyance of certain land in Clark County, Nevada, 

for use by the Nevada National Guard. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2007 

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. REID) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance of certain land in Clark 

County, Nevada, for use by the Nevada National Guard. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Southern Nevada 

5 Readiness Center Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD LAND CONVEYANCE. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Clark 

8 County, Nevada, may convey, without consideration, to the 

9 Nevada Division of State Lands for use by the Nevada 

10 National Guard between 35 and 50 acres of land in Clark 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 1608 IS

1 County, Nevada, as generally depicted on the map entitled 

2 ‘‘Southern Nevada Readiness Center Act’’, and dated Oc3 tober 4, 2005. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1585

AN ACT

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1585 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ERNEST CHILDERS DEPART2 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 

3 CLINIC. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Af5 fairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Ernest Childers Depart7 ment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula9 tion, map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

10 States to the outpatient clinic referred to in subsection 

11 (a) shall be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Ernest 

12 Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clin13 ic’’. 

Passed the Senate December 13, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1585

AN ACT

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Outpatient Clinic’’.‘‘Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the
(,**~**



### 128th

## JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

# Courtney .Jlrkeen Judge LATOUIA DUBOIS- Court Coordinator Orange County Courthouse ldubois@co.orange.tx.us 801 W. Division HOLLI HARRISON- Court Reporter Orange, Texas 77630 April13, 2015 Court ofCriminal Appeals ofTexas Abel Acosta, Clerk P. 

### 0. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 PHONE: (409) 882-7085 FAX: (409) 670-4101

Re: Pedder, David Clifford Jr. r CCA No. WR-82,450.-01

Trial Court Case No. A100640AR Dear Mr. Acosta:

·Please accept this letter as my request for a 60 day

## exten~iorrin**th~~·above** referenced case. The Defendant has retained private counsel and filed a First Amended Writ ofHabeas Corpus on April10, 2015. The current deadline is April 14, 2015. Thank you.


## RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

## APR 16 

## 2015 Abet

## Acosta, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1



Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Palo Alto, California


                              September 19, 2000


Efficient Networks, Inc.
4849 Alpha Road
Dallas, TX 75244

     Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-8 to be filed by you
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about September 19, 2000 (the
"Registration Statement") in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of an additional 1,000,000 shares of your
Common Stock reserved for issuance under the 1999 Stock Plan (the "1999 Plan").
As your legal counsel, we have examined the proceedings taken and are familiar
with the proceedings proposed to be taken by you in connection with the sale and
issuance of such Common Stock under the 1999 Plan.

     It is our opinion that, when issued and sold in the respective manners
referred to in the Plan and pursuant to the agreements which accompany the Plan,
the Common Stock issued and sold thereby will be legally and validly issued,
fully paid and non-assessable.

     We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and further consent to the use of our name wherever appearing in the
Registration Statement, including any amendments thereto.


                                    Very truly yours,

                                    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
                                    Professional Corporation

                                    /s/ Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Alfred A. Arraj

United States Courthouse

901 19th Street

Denver, Colorado 80294

www.cod.uscourts.gov

Jeffrey P. Colwell, Clerk Phone: (303) 844-3433

November 8, 2021

In re: Wessler et al v. Colonial National Mortgage et al, 11-cv-2683-RBJ-KMT

Dear Counsel,

I have been contacted by Judge R. Brooke Jackson who presided over the abovementioned case.

Judge Jackson informed me that it has been brought to his attention that while he 

presided over the case he or his spouse owned stock in Wells Fargo. The ownership of stock 

neither affected nor impacted his decisions in this case. However, this stock ownership would 

have required recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and thus, Judge 

Jackson directed that I notify the parties of the conflict.

Advisory Opinion 71, from the Judicial Conference Codes of Conduct Committee, 

provides the following guidance for addressing disqualification that is not discovered until after 

a judge has participated in a case:

[A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing on 

disqualification as soon as those facts are learned, even though 

that may occur after entry of the decision. The parties may then 

determine what relief they may seek and a court (without the 

disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, 

arising from the participation of the disqualified judge in the 

entered decision.

Although Advisory Opinion 71 contemplated disqualification after a Court of Appeals 

oral argument, the Committee explained “[s]imilar considerations would apply when a 

judgment was entered in a district court by a judge and it is later learned that the judge was 

disqualified.”

With Advisory Opinion 71 in mind, you are invited to respond to Judge Jackson’s 

disclosure of a conflict in this case. Should you wish to respond, please submit your response 

by November 30, 2021. Any response will be considered by another judge of this court without 

the participation of Judge Jackson.

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 118 Filed 11/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Sincerely,

Jeffrey P. Colwell

Clerk, United States District Court

CC: Gary Fielder, Christopher Groen, Phillip Vaglica, Reagan Larkin, Marie Williams, and Nadia 

Malik

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 118 Filed 11/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Felix Castro,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 11-2197 (JDB)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives, 

 Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this action brought pro se under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552, plaintiff sought records from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

pertaining to him and DNA analysis of a weapon. See Def.’s Statement of Material Facts As to

Which There is No Genuine Dispute [Dkt. # 10] ¶ 1. On February 10, 2012, defendant moved

for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 based on its full release to

plaintiff of “the only document it located that was responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.” Id.

¶ 11. 

By Order of February 21, 2012, plaintiff was directed to respond by March 27, 2012, to

defendant’s motion or risk entry of judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has not responded to the

motion and, thus, has not disputed defendant’s fact establishing its compliance with the FOIA by

disclosing all responsive records. Hence, the Court will grant defendant’s motion for summary
judgment and enter judgment accordingly. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum 1

Opinion. 

 s/ 

 JOHN D. BATES

DATE: May 2, 2012 United States District Judge

 See In re Miller, No. 03-7146, 2004 WL 963819 (D.C. Cir. May 4, 2004) (In managing 1

its docket under the circumstances presented, “the court may choose to . . . resolve the motion for

summary judgment on the merits without an opposition . . . or [] treat summary judgment as

conceded.”)

2