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-2703-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. #6). Pursuant to the

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

2011 (Doc. #7), 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. #6 at 2 of 6). Plaintiff seeks leave to serve subpoenas because “[a] party may

Case 1:11-cv-02703-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-02703-REB-CBS Document 9 Filed 11/10/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### NOIRAT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without .opinion.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1379 

To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to strike the exception 

to the residency requirements for United States attorneys. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. TESTER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to 

strike the exception to the residency requirements for 

United States attorneys. 

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 ‘‘United States Attorney 

5 Local Residency Restoration Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESIDENCY EXCEPTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 545(a) of title 28, United 

8 States Code, is amended by striking the last sentence. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1379 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall— 

3 (A) take effect on the date of enactment of 

4 this Act; and 

5 (B) apply to any person serving as a 

6 United States attorney or an assistant United 

7 States attorney on or after such date of enact8 ment. 

9 (2) ORDERS.—Any order issued under section 

10 545(a) of title 28, United States Code, as in effect 

11 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, 

12 shall terminate on such date of enactment. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF CASS COUNTY , GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 10th day of April, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;
and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Christopher Alexander Vujovich, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00143

- CR

Trial Court No. 2013

- F

- 004 84

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Christopher Alexander Vujovich, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Just ice of our said Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 15th day of June , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
| 1.   | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Trust Certificates (TRUCs), Series 2002-1 Trust; |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the trust agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |                                           |   |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | By:  /s/ Anthony J. Horan                 |   |
|   |   |   | Name: Anthony J. Horan                    |   |
|   |   |   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer/President |   |
|   |   |   | Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.                    |   |
|   |   |   | Date:  March 13. 2012                     |   |

----
#### Bunt RUFKIN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Rex SWEAT, as Sheriff of Duval County, Florida, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Joseph Wilensky, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of the Attorney General.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse

1929 Stout Street, C450 

Denver, Colorado 80294

LEWIS T. BABCOCK 303-844-2527

 Judge

October 6, 2011

MEMORANDUM

TO: Greg Langham, Clerk

FROM: Judge Babcock s/LTB

RE: Civil Action No. 11-cr-00407-LTB

USA v. Lehi

Exercising my prerogative as a senior judge, I request that this case be reassigned.

LTB/jp

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 14 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23275]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 6:04 a.m. on 
Monday, September 29, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
related to open bank assistance transaction.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, seconded by Chairman Sheila C. Bair, 
concurred in by Director John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency), 
Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), and Director John M. Reich 
(Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), that Corporation business 
required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject 
of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no 
earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest 
did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to 
public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), 
(c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' 
(5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23275 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification ofCEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained In this periodic report fairly presents in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 
|   | By:    | /s/  Keith C Robbins                |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Keith  C. Robbins                   |   |
|   |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | March 12,  2008                |   |

 

 

----
Exhibit 32

Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


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


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002),  I,  the  undersigned  Chief  Executive  and
Financial Officer of Mortgage  Assistance Center  Corporation,  (the "Company"),
during the period covered by this report,  herby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of section
13(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition  and results of operation of the  Company.  A signed  original of this
written  statement  required by Section 906 has been provided to the  registrant
and  will  be  retained  by it and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: August 12, 2005.

                                                           By: /s/ Dale Hensel
                                                              ------------------
                                                              Dale Hensel
                                                              CEO and CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02609-PAB

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its Capacity as Receiver for

FirsTier Bank, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

GEORGE G. MCCONNELL, 

ROBERT G. MCCONNELL, and

SARAH PETERSON, 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 5]. The Court heard the testimony of

Gregory Gilroy on behalf of plaintiff and also of defendants Sarah Peterson and George

McConnell. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court made findings of fact and

conclusions of law. One of the Court’s conclusions of law was that plaintiff carried its

burden of establishing all four factors identified in RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d

1203, 1308 (10th Cir. 2009), in support of its motion for issuance of a temporary

restraining order. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Docket No. 5]

is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below. It is further

ORDERED that defendants George McConnell, Sarah Peterson, their officers,

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons acting in concert with

Case 1:11-cv-02609-PAB Document 12 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

them who receive actual notice of this Order, are hereby enjoined from operating a

haunted house or conducting any activities related to a haunted house on Outlot A of

9849 Isabelle Road, Lafayette, Colorado 80228. It is further

ORDERED that defendants George McConnell and Sarah Peterson shall

remove all structures related to the haunted house from Outlot A of 9849 Isabelle Road,

Lafayette, Colorado 80228 on or before October 28, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that this Order shall expire within fourteen days of the date this Order

was issued, October 7, 2011, unless within that time it is extended for good cause

shown. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall contact the Court on or before October 11, 2011

to set a hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. 

DATED October 7, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02609-PAB Document 12 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
----

----

| 1. | The      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual      Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      April 15, 2008 |   |                                                                           |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | By:    | /s/      P.      Leslie      Hammond        |
|                      |   | P.      Leslie Hammond                                                         |
|                      |   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                   |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JAMES D. LEWIS, JR. AND JAMES P.
RYAN, JR.,

Petitioners

v.

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 383 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61035 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–47] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–47 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
61036 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61037 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.011</GPH>
61038 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 15, 2008 / Notices 61039 

[FR Doc. E8–24400 Filed 10–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN15OC08.013</GPH>
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of TierOne Corporation
(the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, as amended by Amendment No. 1,
               for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies                with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act                of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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 16, 2006 | By:  /s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz
|--------------------- | ----------------------------
|                      | Eugene B. Witkowicz         
|                      | Executive Vice President    
|                      | and Chief Financial Officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40937

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH NELSON CORTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 522

Filed: May 23, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Boise County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joseph Nelson Cortez pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. Idaho Code 

§§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9). The district court sentenced Cortez to a unified term of ten years, with 

a minimum period of confinement of two years. Cortez appeals asserting that the district court 

abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Cortez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.