alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-2542-RBJ-KMT

BEVERLY J. PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTURYTEL OF COLORADO, INC., d/b/a Century Link, f/k/a QWEST 

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The parties are ordered to set an initial 

scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 no later than 45 days after all responsive pleadings are filed. Each 

party’s lead trial counsel shall attend the conference. The conference shall be held in Courtroom 

A-702, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. The parties are 

directed to jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-4694 or by email at 

Jackson_Chambers@cod.uscourts.gov to obtain a scheduling conference date. 

A meeting for the purposes of attempting to agree on a scheduling order and satisfying 

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) should be held no later than 21 days before the 

proposed scheduling order is tendered. The proposed scheduling order, which should be 

prepared as described in Appendix F to the local rules, should be tendered no later than five days 

before the scheduling conference. The proposed scheduling order should set forth the parties’

agreement or their respective positions on the matters set forth in Appendix F. A copy of 

instructions for the preparation of a scheduling order and a form scheduling order can be 

downloaded from the Court’s website (http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx).

DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02542-RBJ-KMT Document 4 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of United WisconsinGrain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, J. F. Robertson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ J. F. Robertson     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | J. F. Robertson         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated: March 24, 2006   |

 

----
---

|Exhibit 32.1                               
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|                                           
|CERTIFICATION                              
|PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350         
|AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)       
|OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2007 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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.

|Dated: May 15, 2007 | /s/
      Lutz Klingmann                 
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                    | Lutz Klingmann                           
|                    | President and Principal Financial Officer

---
816 A.2d 151

#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES T. DAVIS, II, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 26, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-197, recommending that JAMES T. DAVIS, II, formerly of ROSELAND, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, and who has been on disability inactive status since May 20, 1997, be disbarred for violating *RPC*1.15(a) and (b) (knowing misappropriation of client trust funds), *RPC*5.5(a) (practicing law while ineligible to do so), *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and *Rule*1:28-2 (failure to pay annual assessment to Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection);

And JAMES T. DAVIS, II, having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JAMES T. DAVIS, II, be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that JAMES T. DAVIS, II, be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2105

___________

T. W. Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Natalie Jones, Correctional Officer, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Patricia Stokes, Correctional Officer, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Jamaal Davenport, Correctional Officer, *

EARU, ADC (originally sued as *

Davenport), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 19, 2005

Filed: May 24, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H.

David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Arkansas inmate T. W. Johnson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the

record, see Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of

review), we affirm. 

We agree with the district court that Johnson cannot seek damages based on his

assertion that defendants failed to protect him from the possibility he could have been

the victim when one inmate attacked another. See Doe v. Welborn, 110 F.3d 520,

523 (7th Cir. 1997). Further, Johnson’s assertion that defendant Officer Natalie

Johnson retaliated against him and conspired with others to retaliate against him

because Johnson ended an affair with her does not state an actionable claim of

retaliation or conspiracy. See Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004)

(per curiam) (conduct that retaliates against exercise of constitutionally protected

right is actionable); Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999) (to prove

§ 1983 conspiracy claim, plaintiff must show constitutional deprivation occurred). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### In OLITSKY’S ESTATE. Jack OLITSKY, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. L. G. SMITHWICK, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Jack Olitsky, Individually and Formerly Trading as Jack’s Market, Bankrupt, Appellee.

No. 4226.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1937.

Steingold & Steingold, of Norfolk, Va., for appellant.

P. A. Agelasto, Jr., of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Case dismissed under rule 20 in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         11,201
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  85,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                   28,932
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,956
<PP&E>                                         16,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,184,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,090,112
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,716
<OTHER-SE>                                     96,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,184,759
<SALES>                                        328,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               864,388
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  827,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                29,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            29,345
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   29,345
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00422-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HA MANH DO,

2. HAI MANH DO,

3. NATHAN TOAN MANH DO, and

4. RICHARD CROSSE,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER1

The matter is before the court sua sponte. On May 9, 2012, various motions to

suppress were set for hearing to be held on August 17, 2012. See Minute Order [#135]

filed May 9, 2012. However, the suppression hearing is set after the trial that is

scheduled to commence July 23, 2012. See Order [#65] filed December 1, 2011, at 7, ¶

9. Thus, the suppression hearing now set for August 17, 2012, must be vacated and reset to a date and time not less than 30 days before trial is set to commence.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the suppression hearing now set for August 17, 2012, is VACATED and

CONTINUED pending further order; and

2. That on May 15, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. (MDT), the court shall conduct a

telephonic2

 setting conference to re-set the suppression hearing; provided that counsel

for the government shall arrange, schedule, and coordinate the conference call

necessary to facilitate the setting conference. 

Dated: May 10, 2012

1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. 

2

 The appearances of the defendants are waived for the limited purposes of the setting

conference.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERRY LEE KEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, 

at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:97-cr-00033-1)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lee Key, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Jennifer Rada Herrald, Assistant United

States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lee Key appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

reimbursement of a $1000 fine ordered as part of his 1997 sentence for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Key, 

No. 2:97-cr-00033-1 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 2017). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32(1).

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned officer of Hycor Biomedical Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and Item 60(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange
Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A)
shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

Date: March 28, 2004

                                                 /s/ J. DAVID THOLEN
                                                 Name: J. David Tholen
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1633 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1633

    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
    resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of 
     including the battlefield and related sites of the Battle of 
Shepherdstown in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, as part of Harpers Ferry 
  National Historical Park or Antietam National Battlefield, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 2007

   Mr. Byrd introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 
    resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of 
     including the battlefield and related sites of the Battle of 
Shepherdstown in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, as part of Harpers Ferry 
  National Historical Park or Antietam National Battlefield, 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. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY, SHEPHERDSTOWN 
              BATTLEFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.

    (a) Special Resources Study.--The Secretary of the Interior 
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a special 
resource study relating to the Battle of Shepherdstown in 
Shepherdstown, West Virginia, to evaluate--
            (1) the national significance of the Shepherdstown 
        battlefield and sites relating to the Shepherdstown 
        battlefield; and
            (2) the suitability and feasibility of adding the 
        Shepherdstown battlefield and sites relating to the 
        Shepherdstown battlefield as part of--
                    (A) Harpers Ferry National Historical Park; or
                    (B) Antietam National Battlefield.
    (b) Criteria.--In conducting the study authorized under subsection 
(a), the Secretary shall use the criteria for the study of areas for 
potential inclusion in the National Park System contained in section 
8(a) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(a)).
    (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds 
are made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the 
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report 
containing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study 
conducted under subsection (a).
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
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 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Urban von Euler,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The 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.


                                               /s/ Urban von Euler
                                               --------------------------
                                               Urban von Euler
                                               President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  August 22, 2005
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GEORGE McCLOSKEY
, Appellant,

v.

NANCY McCLOSKEY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 48

[ December 19, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Paul B. Kanarek , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312016CA000264

.

Wayne R. McDonough of Wayne R. McDonough, P.A., Vero Beach, for appellant.

Owen Schultz of McCarthy, Summers, Wood, Norman, Melby & Schultz, P.A., Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
226 La. 642

#### TOWN OF PLAQUEMINE, Louisiana, v. Edward E. BROWN.

No. 41891.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 1954.

Edward N. Engolio, Plaquemine, for appellant.

Charles O. Dupont, Plaquemine, for ap-pellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The defendant was convicted in the Mayor’s Court of the Town of Plaquemine in Iberville Parish in three separate cases charging him with giving false fire alarms through an electric fire alarm system in violation of Ordinance 543 of the town. He was sentenced in each case to pay a fine of $100 and to be confined in the parish jail for 90 days, the sentences to run consecutively. He has appealed.

There are no bills of exception in the record and no issue was raised in the lower court as to the legality or constitutionality of the ordinance or sentence. It appears that the defendant sought to give this Court jurisdiction of the appeal by the accumulation of the sentences rendered in three separate cases. We do not have appellate jurisdiction over any of the three cases because the fine in each case does not exceed $300 and the imprisonment imposed does not exceed six months. Article 7, Section 10 of the Constitution. The ap*916pellant evidently realized this because no effort was made on his behalf to prosecute the appeal.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1674 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1674

  To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to give preference to local 
     communities in the application consideration process for the 
                     conservation reserve program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2007

  Mr. Salazar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to give preference to local 
     communities in the application consideration process for the 
                     conservation reserve program.

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

SECTION 1. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

    Section 1234 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Offers by Resident Owners and Operators.--In determining the 
acceptability of contract offers for new enrollments, the Secretary 
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, give preference to an offer 
from an owner or operator that is a resident in the county in which the 
land is located, or in a contiguous county, if the land would provide 
at least equivalent conservation benefits (as determined by the 
Secretary) as compared to land under competing offers.''.
                                 <all>
```