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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02336-LTB-BNB

BRENDA PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

n/k/a Dex Media East, inc., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion Request to Amend My Complaint . . . .

[Doc. #21, filed 11/14/2011] (the “Motion”). The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART.

The plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Complaint. She states that she is “unaware of how

to submit an amendment with the Courts, in the proper format and follow appropriate []

procedure to amend my complaint.” Motion, ¶ 6. However, I recently issued an order wherein I

explained the procedure:

[T]he plaintiff must either obtain consent from the defendant or

file a motion seeking leave of court to amend her Complaint. The

plaintiff may not amend her Complaint by simply including what

appear to be amended claims in the Papers. Rather, she must

include with her motion the entire proposed amended complaint. 

Because she is proceeding pro se, the proposed amended

complaint must be submitted on the court’s standardized form. 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1A. The plaintiff may not incorporate by

reference her original Complaint into the proposed amended

complaint. The proposed amended complaint must stand alone; it

must contain all of the plaintiff’s claims. Mink v. Suthers, 482

Case 1:11-cv-02336-LTB-BNB Document 23 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that “an amended

complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the

original complaint without legal effect”). 

Order issued October 27, 2011 [Doc. #18], pp. 2-3. 

The plaintiff has not attached a proposed amended complaint to her motion to amend. 

Therefore, the motion to amend is denied without prejudice, subject to compliance with Rule 15,

Fed. R. Civ. P.; Rule 8.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR; and my order of October 27, 2011.

The plaintiff also requests that the court cease serving papers on her former attorneys. 

This request is granted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The plaintiff’s request to amend her Complaint is DENIED without prejudice subject

to compliance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P.; Rule 8.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR; and my order of

October 27, 2011;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall cause the plaintiff’s former attorneys to be removed from

the service list; and

3. In the future, titles to all motions shall not exceed ten words.

Dated November 17, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02336-LTB-BNB Document 23 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
ERNST & YOUNG	**Ernst & Young LLP** 	 Phone: (216) 861 5000
1300 Huntington Building	www.ey.com

925 Euclid Avenue	

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 1405

	

Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance

With Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the

Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors

National City Mortgage Co.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report of Management, that National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during the year ended December 31, 2002. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertions about the NCM's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by                      the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included              examining, on a test basis, evidence about NCM's compliance with those requirements              and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.             We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion, that NCM complied with the aforementioned requirements during the year ended December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the audit committee, management, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National Mortgage Association, and NCM's private investors and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
**Ernst & Young LLP**
February 24, 2003
Order entered June 3, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00700-CV

IN RE KYLE J. BROWN, SR., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-10-07565

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
#### HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

No. 6437.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit

Nov. 28, 1941

Rehearing Denied Dec. 31, 1941.

Gladney & Limerick, of Bastrop, for appellant.

Madison, Madison & Files, of Bastrop, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Fulmer v. Great American Indemnity Co., 5 So.2d 923, this day decided by us, the judgment of the district court is reversed and set aside, and the demands of plaintiff are rejected and the suit dismissed at its costs.
#### Charley FORD v. STATE.

6 Div. 724.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-454-CR

BARBARA COURSEY HERTEL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Barbara Coursey Hertel attempts to appeal her conviction for

driving while intoxicated, for which she was sentenced to 180 days’

confinement on August 22, 2008. Hertel timely filed a motion for new trial on

September 5, 2008. Hertel’s notice of appeal was due November 20, 2008,

but was not filed until December 3, 2008.
2

On December 5, 2008, we sent Hertel a letter stating that the court was

concerned that it lacked jurisdiction over her appeal because her notice of

appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. Our letter also stated

that the trial court’s certification stated that this is a plea-bargain case, that

Hertel had no right of appeal, and that she had waived her right of appeal. We

instructed Hertel or any party desiring to continue the appeal to file with the

court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We have received

no response.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure set out rules that must be

followed in order to invoke this court’s jurisdiction over an appeal. White v.

State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). If the jurisdiction of a

court of appeals is not properly invoked, the power of the appellate court to act

is as absent as if it did not exist. Id. Appellate jurisdiction is invoked by giving

timely and proper notice of appeal. Id.

Additionally, rule 25.2(a)(2) of the appellate rules provides that in a pleabargain case, an appellant may appeal only “those matters that were raised by

written motion filed and ruled on before trial” or “after getting the trial court’s

permission to appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, Hertel waived all

pretrial motions, and the trial court has not given permission to appeal. See

Estrada v. State, 149 S.W.3d 280, 282 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004,
3

pet. ref’d) (stating that there is no exception for the trial court’s refusal to grant

permission to appeal). 

Because the trial court certified that Hertel possesses no right of appeal

and because Hertel failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we hold that we do

not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208,

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Absent appellate jurisdiction, we can take no

action other than to dismiss the appeal. See id.; Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d

519, 523, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal

for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Vann v. State, No. 02-

08-00332-CR, 2008 WL 4779601, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30,

2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 22, 2009
#### Rose AUFRICHTIG, Joined by Her Husband, Benjamin M. Aufrichtig, Appellants, v. Howard R. FRAZEE, as Administrator, etc., et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Lambdin & Ramseur, of St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Ellis & Watson, of St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellants.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1523-000]


Coburn Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

October 6, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Coburn Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 27, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d2b283f2e2203010403083e181d1d021f192d0b081f0e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e787b6c7d71505257505b6d4b4e4e514c4a7e585b4c5d10595148">[email protected]</span></a> 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24153 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1392 

To increase the authorization for the major medical facility project to consolidate the medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the 

University Drive and H. John Heinz III divisions, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2007 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To increase the authorization for the major medical facility 

project to consolidate the medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the University Drive and 

H. John Heinz III divisions, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1392 IS

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION FOR MAJOR 

2 MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECT TO CONSOLI3 DATE THE MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DE4 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AT THE 

5 UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND H. JOHN HEINZ III 

6 DIVISIONS, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA. 

7 Section 802(12) of the Veterans Benefits, Health 

8 Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (Public 

9 Law 109–461; 120 Stat. 3443) is amended by striking 

10 ‘‘$189,205,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$248,000,000’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241, AS ADOPTED 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, J. Michael A Gerlich, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the “Registrant”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 26, 2007
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal No. 11-PO-01133-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. CAMERON JORDAN McARTHUR,

Defendant.

 

MINUTE ORDER RESCHEDULING MOTIONS HEARING

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

This case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge David L. West on October 11, 2011. Currently

there is a motions hearing scheduled for November 23, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom C201 in

Denver, Colorado. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions hearing scheduled for November 23, 2011

at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED and RESCHEDULED before Magistrate Judge David L. West on

November 4, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 601, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.

DATED: October 14, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge
**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 CardioDynamics InternationalCorporation (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steve P. Loomis, Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: February 28, 2006
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00601

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF F.V.R. , a Child

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02330 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s attorney is GRANTED, an d the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as an indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED December 3, 2014.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 7, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.201 SDR Certificates and Treasury Currency** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02588-MSK-KMT FTR - Courtroom C-201

Date: May 23, 2012 Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards

ROBERT P. HAMMOND,

Plaintiff,

James A. Cederberg

Luke Cederberg

v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New York corporation,

Defendant.

Jack M. Englert, Jr.

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING

Court in session: 11:04 a.m. 

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Motion Hearing is called regarding Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Allow Discovery

(Unopposed in Part) [Doc. No. 27, March 2, 2012] and Unopposed Motion for Extension

of Time for Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 40, May 10,

2012].

Oral argument from plaintiff.

Counsel tenders Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to the court for purposes of this hearing only.

Exhibit 1 will be held under Restriction - Level 2. Portions of this transcript discussing

Exhibit 1 are hereby placed under Restriction - Level 2.

Oral argument from defendant.

It is ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Allow Discovery [27] is DENIED.

Defendant has responded in an appropriate manner to plaintiff’s

discovery requests and does not need to supplement responses

further.

It is ORDERED: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time [40] is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s shall file a Motion to Supplement the Administrative

Record, if needed, on or before June 8, 2012. The parties agree to

Case 1:11-cv-02588-MSK-KMT Document 42 Filed 05/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

submit a joint glossary of terms in connection with plaintiff’s reply

brief. 

Court in Recess: 12:16 p.m. 

Hearing concluded.

Total In-Court Time 01:12

*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.

Case 1:11-cv-02588-MSK-KMT Document 42 Filed 05/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Stewart McDONALD, Federal Housing Administrator, Appellant, v. B. G. GENTRY, Trustee, Rath Packing Company, Davis Produce Company, Cudahy Brothers, Dan Perkins Company, L. E. Lichford, Caskie Paper Co., Inc., M. W. Callaham & Sons, Inc., Callahan Produce and Grocery Co., Inc., Conner Produce Co., Neuhoff, Inc., and Mabel G. M. Goddard, Appellees. In the Matter of SCOTT BROTHERS, a Partnership Composed of John R. Scott and Raymond L. Scott, Bankrupts.

No. 4251.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 1937.

Joseph H. Chitwood, U. S. Atty., of Roanoke, Va., for appellant.

B. G. Gentry, of Lynchburg, Va., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Case dismissed under rule 20 in accordance with agreement of counsel.