alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (substituted for

Alcon, Inc.) AND ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________ 

2010-1097

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 06-CV-0234, Judge Sue L. 

Robinson.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to dismiss the present appeal. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

Case: 10-1097 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 02/25/2014
2 ALCON PHARMACEUTICALS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 25, 2014

Case: 10-1097 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 02/25/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02347-RPM

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

_____________________________________________________________________

On July 3, 2012, this Court entered an Order of Dismissal and it is therefore

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter final judgment nunc pro tunc to July 3,

2012, dismissing this civil action.

DATED: August 3rd, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02347-RPM Document 22 Filed 08/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

First
Amendment, dated as of December 14, 2006 (the Amendment), to the Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of July 27, 2006 (the Agreement),
among TierOne Corporation and Gilbert J. Lundstrom (the Executive).

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS,
 pursuant to Section 26 of the Agreement,  the parties to the Agreement desire to modify
the Agreement;

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual agreements herein set forth and
such other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows:

1.       Section
9(b)(ix). Section 9(b)(ix) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in           its
entirety.

2.       Effectiveness.
This Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date           first above written, as
if executed on such date. Except as expressly set forth           herein, this Amendment
shall not by implication or otherwise alter, modify,           amend or in any way affect
any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants           or agreements contained in
the Agreement, all of which are ratified and affirmed           in all respects and shall
continue in full force and effect and shall be           otherwise unaffected.

3.       Governing
Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in           accordance with
the laws the State of Nebraska, except to the extent that           federal law controls.

4.       Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts,           each of which shall
for all purposes be deemed an original, and all of which           together shall
constitute but one and the same instrument.

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
day and year first above written.

|                            | TIERONE CORPORATION                   
|--------------------------- | --------------------------------------
|Attest:                    
|/s/ Judith A. Klinkman      | By:/s/ James A. Laphen                
|Name:  Judith A. Klinkman   | Name:  James A. Laphen                
|Title:  Assistant Secretary | Title:  President and Chief Operating 
|                            | Officer                               
|Attest:                    
|/s/ Judith A. Klinkman      | /s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom              
|Name:  Judith A. Klinkman   | Name:  Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Executive
|Title:  Assistant Secretary
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (08-073)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

October 9, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, Houston, TX 77058-8452; telephone (281) 483-4871; fax (281) 483-6936. 

*NASA Case No. MSC-22939-4:*                         Externally Triggered Microcapsules;                     

*NASA Case No. MSC-24343-1:*                         Cryogenic Transport of High Pressure System Recharge Gas.                     

Dated: October 3, 2008. 

Michael C. Wholley, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E8-24061 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
1 “[#25]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02326-REB-CBS

MICHELLE ZADRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICK MURDIE, former Gunnison County Sheriff, in his official and individual capacity,

MYRL SERRA, former District Attorney for the 7th Judicial District, in his official and

individual capacity,

JACK HAYNES, agent for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, in his official and

individual capacity,

GUNNISON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, a statutory office with mandates by State

legislation,

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GUNNISON COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the State of Colorado,

SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF COLORADO, a political subdivision of the State of

Colorado, and

COLORADO BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, a law enforcement agency of the State of

Colorado,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Notice of Dismissal [#25]1

 December 16, 2011. 

After reviewing the notice and the file, I conclude that the notice should be approved

and that this action should be dismissed without prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Notice of Dismissal [#25] December 16, 2011, is APPROVED; and

Case 1:11-cv-02326-REB-CBS Document 26 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated December 16, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02326-REB-CBS Document 26 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### David SHOLTZ, Governor, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and James B. Watson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.

Loftin, Stokes & Calkins, of Miami, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error quashed on motion of counsel for defendant in error.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


The undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive  Officer of
Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

(a)  the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31,
     2004 (the Report) fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.



Date:  March 15, 2005




                                     /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                     -----------------------
                                     Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                     Chief Executive Officer





A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to the Fund  and will be  retained  by the Fund and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.36

                                 DISCRETIONARY
               SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN ARRANGEMENT
                                      FOR
                          SELECTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


     Levi Strauss & Co. from time to time and at its discretion has established
supplemental executive retirement plans ("SERPs") for individual executive
officers.  A SERP is an arrangement whereby an employer may provide pension
benefits to an individual employee in excess of those offered through an
underlying tax-qualified plan.  SERPs are used because the Internal Revenue
Code places strict limits on how large any participant's retirement benefit may
be under a tax-qualified plan.  Usually, the SERP benefit is based on the same
formula used for the underlying plan, but without any limits that might
otherwise apply to benefits in the qualified plan. In addition, the SERP could
allow for additional years of service credit if the employee satisfies certain
conditions, such as employment for a minimum period of time.  A SERP may be
offered on a group basis or through an individual contract, but in either case
the benefit is typically paid from general corporate assets.  The assets used to
pay the SERP benefit must remain subject to the employer's general creditors so
as not to trigger immediate taxation to the executive.

     Prior uses of SERPs by Levi Strauss & Co. have been limited to a few cases
involving individual executive officers. In one case, Levi Strauss & Co.
established a SERP to attract a senior level executive from another company. The
SERP was designed to "make-up" the pension benefits the individual lost by
leaving the prior employer. In another situation, Levi Strauss & Co. established
a SERP for an internal senior level executive transferred to the US Home Office
Payroll upon becoming a member of the senior management group in order to bring
the individual's total pension benefit to the level of his peers. Levi Strauss &
Co. does not have a policy or practice of establishing SERPs for employees of a
certain level or grade. Levi Strauss & Co.'s occasional, discretionary use of
SERPs in the past does not establish a right or expectation that it will
establish comparable SERPs in the future for any individual employee or group of
employees.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00408-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LYDIA L. WHITE

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

A Notice of Disposition was filed on March 1, 2012. A Change of Plea hearing is

set for May 4, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for the parties shall deliver or e-mail a

courtesy copy of all change of plea documents separately to Judge Blackburn’s

chambers AND to the Probation Department not later than 48 hours before the

change of plea hearing date. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1C. If the documents are not

timely submitted, the hearing will be vacated. There will be no exceptions to this policy. 

On the date of the hearing, counsel shall then bring with them an original and one (1)

copy of the plea agreement and the statement in advance. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1F.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 

1. That the motions hearing setting conference set for March 26, 2012, and the

Trial Preparation Conference set for May 4, 2012, are VACATED; and

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for the change of

plea hearing set for May 4, 2012. 

Dated: March 1, 2012

Case 1:11-cr-00408-REB Document 30 Filed 03/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40867
Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOSE ALBERTO GONZALEZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 42

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Alberto Gonzalez raises

an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303,

308

- 09 (5th Cir. 2009) , which held that knowledge of drug type and quantity is

not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offe nse . T he motion for summary

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
February 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk Case: 15-40867 Document: 00513383890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David A. Christensen, Chief Financial Officer of HickoryTech, 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 HickoryTech.











/s/ David A. Christensen


David A. Christensen


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


July 30, 2009
Case 1:11-cv-02538-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02538-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02538-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02538-LTB Document 2 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
# EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS 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 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 8, 2006 | By:/s/ Eugene B. Witkowicz           
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                     | Eugene B. Witkowicz, Executive Vice  
|                     | President and Chief Financial Officer
216 La. 764

#### CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY et al. v. STATE MINERAL BOARD et al.

No. 39657.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1950.

Ward T. Jones, Houston, Tex., Liskow & .Lewis, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Madden, Ass't. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

This case was consolidated for all purposes with the suit of The Texas Company v. State Mineral Board et al., 216 La. 742, 44 So.2d 841. The decision in that matter controls here.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02339-LTB

ANDRE BARTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY ECHEART, Adams County Jail,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Plaintiff’s excusable neglect motion (ECF No. 13) filed on October 31, 2012, is

DENIED because it is not clear what relief Plaintiff may be seeking.

Dated: October 31, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02339-LTB Document 14 Filed 10/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00433-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ANTHONY C. JONES,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On August 17, 2012, the court conducted a setting conference with the parties

appearing in chambers to reset the sentencing hearing in this matter. After conferring

with the attorneys and with their consent,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That on November 2, 2012, commencing at 1:30 p.m., the court shall conduct

the sentencing hearing in this matter; and

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for this hearing.

Dated: August 17, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$782,893.49 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

WARRANT FOR ARREST OF PROPERTY IN REM

_____________________________________________________________________

TO: UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE AND/OR ANY OTHER DULY 

AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: 

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

Court, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ARREST AND SEIZE as soon as 

practicable, the defendant property described in the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In 

Rem filed herewith, and to use whatever means may be appropriate to protect and 

maintain it in your custody until further order of this Court; and

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

DONE at Denver, Colorado, this day of _________, 2011.

GREGORY C. LANGHAM

Clerk of the U.S. District Court

 By: _____________________________

 Deputy Clerk

Case No. 1:11-cv-02613-DME-MEH Document 1-2 filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1636 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently allow penaltyfree withdrawals from retirement plans for individuals called to active 

duty for at least 179 days. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 15, 2007 

Mrs. DOLE (for herself and Mrs. LINCOLN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

allow penalty-free withdrawals from retirement plans for 

individuals called to active duty for at least 179 days. 

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 ‘‘National Guard and 

5 Reservists Financial Relief Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1636 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENTLY ALLOWANCE OF PENALTY-FREE 

2 WITHDRAWALS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS 

3 FOR INDIVIDUALS CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY 

4 FOR AT LEAST 179 DAYS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 72(t)(2)(G)(iv) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to application of 

7 subparagraph) is amended by striking ‘‘and before Decem8 ber 31, 2007’’ and all that follows. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to distributions made after the 

11 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certificationof CFO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I certify that this periodicreport containing the issuer’s financial statements fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained In this periodicreport fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ John F Coger                   |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John F Coger                       |
|   |   | Executive Vice President,  CFO/COO |
|   |   | March 16, 2006                     |

 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 21

- 1 0506 Non

- Argument C alendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:20

- cr - 00105

- RAH

- KFP

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus RODNEY MCGHEE , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________ (July 30, 2021)
B efore L UCK , LAGOA and BRASHER , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced

USCA11 Case: 21-10506 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 1 of 22 if it was made knowingly and voluntarily ); United States v. Grinard

- Henry , 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

USCA11 Case: 21-10506 Date Filed: 07/30/2021 Page: 2 of 2