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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: October 9, 2012

Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom

Probation Officer: Gary Burney

Interpreter: Tatiana Contreras

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, James Boma

Plaintiff,

v.

LUIS JORGE MARTINEZ-VALDIVIA, John Baxter

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

3:36 p.m. Court in session.

Defendant present in custody.

Interpreter sworn.

Change of Plea Hearing on May 24, 2012. Defendant pled guilty to Counts 1, 3, 4 and 7 of

the Superseding Indictment.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.

The Government does request departure (Doc. #372, 380, 390) Argument.

The parties do not contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a).

Allocution. - None.
Sentencing Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. No further argument.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #372) is DENIED as

moot. 

The Government’s Amended Motion for Downward Departure (Doc. #390) is

DENIED. The departure request is based on Doc. #380 pursuant to the

Government’s request.

THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

The defendant is advised of his right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for the

District of Colorado.

4:14 p.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 38 minutes.

Hearing concluded.
#### LINK v. SANTCO.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00406-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. MANUEL SANTISTEVAN,

2. DANIEL SHAW,

3. DUSTIN PFEIFFER,

Defendants.

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING SENTENCING

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. In preparation for the December

6 and 7, 2012 sentencing hearings in this case, the Court questions whether the

USSG § 2A3.1(b)(3) enhancement applies to the Defendants, who are prisoners,

not correctional officers. 

USSG §2A3.1(b)(3)(B) imposes a two-level enhancement under two scenarios:

If the victim was

A) in the custody, care or supervisory control of the Defendant; or

B) a person held in the custody of a correctional facility.

Because the victim was in the custody of a correctional facility, the broad and

general language of subparagraph (B) appears to encompass Defendants. However,

when subparagraph (B) is read in full context, taking into consideration the clause in
2

subparagraph (A), it appears to the Court that the two-level enhancement provided for

in this provision was intended to be applicable only if the perpetrator of the abuse was

a person in control of the victim, i.e., if it had been a correctional officer that committed

the assault. The Court researched this issue and could find no case that applied this

enhancement in the circumstance where the perpetrators of the assault were other

prisoners. Therefore, the Court

ORDERS that the parties shall submit further briefing on the issue of whether

the 2A3.1(b)(3))(B) enhancement applies in the context of this case, which involved

prisoner-on-prisoner abuse. Such briefing is to be filed no later than Noon on

Wednesday, December 5, 2012. 

DATED: December 3, 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-2650-RBJ-BNB

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY as subrogee of Chet Hayes,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INTERMOUNTAIN RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,

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-02650-RBJ Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL DAVID FOWLER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF NEVADA and NEVEN,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-15280

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00691-KJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Paul David Fowler appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his

jury-trial conviction for first-degree murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

JUL 13 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15280

§ 2253, and we affirm.

Fowler contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to

investigate and present evidence regarding his state of mind at the time of the

killing and the possible culpability of one of the witnesses. This contention fails

because Fowler has not shown that his counsel’s performance was deficient, or that

he suffered any prejudice from counsel’s alleged errors. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d

1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to present witnesses at trial whose testimony

would have been cumulative was not prejudicial under Strickland).

Fowler also contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to

raise certain claims on direct appeal. This contention lacks merit because Fowler

has not shown his counsel’s failure to raise those claims was objectively

unreasonable, or that the claims had a reasonable probability of success on appeal. 

See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000).

Thus, the state court’s decision rejecting Fowler’s claims was neither

contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HOLLY GAIL CRAMPTON,

Appellant,

v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER

DISCIPLINE,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00074

- CV

Appeal from

30th District Court

of Wichita County , Texas

(TC # 179,451

- A )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5 , on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2016

.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00427-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. CARLOS PERLA-ALBERTO, a/k/a Carlos Arestides Perla-Alverto,

Defendant.

 ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Upon consideration of the Response to the Order to Show Cause filed by

Assistant Federal Public Defendant Brian Rowland Leedy on April 24, 2012 [ECF No.

30]. I find that the Order to Show Cause entered April 23, 2012 [ECF No. 28], is hereby

DISCHARGED. 

Dated: April 25, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cr-00427-WYD Document 32 Filed 04/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Sylva Leduc, certify, that:



1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Conscious Intention, Inc.;



2.       Based on my knowledge, the quarterly 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, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information 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 defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



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



b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee or registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 controls.







/s/ Sylva Leduc

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

Sylva Leduc

Chief Executive Officer

Duly Authorized Officer and Principal

Financial and Accounting Officer





Date: April 7, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,809                  23,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  58,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,332                  84,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,267                   1,541
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,753                 174,722
<PP&E>                                           9,804                  19,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,593                   4,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,964                 195,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,429                  47,878
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           233                     490
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,067                 145,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,964                 195,042
<SALES>                                        168,453                 277,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,453                 277,575
<CGS>                                          118,858                 185,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,415                 238,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   389                     258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   447                     787
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (881)                 (2,138)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,919                  37,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,354                  14,789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,565                  22,901
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,565                  22,901
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23                    0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23                    0.46
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Kara Spitler

Date: October 16, 2012

Probation: Veronica Ramirez and 

 Darren Streich 

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00434-RBJ 

Parties:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAN MICHAEL PHILLIPS, 

Defendant.

Counsel:

Michael Carey

Matthew Golla

SENTENCING MINUTES

Court in session: 8:29 a.m.

Appearances of counsel.

Defendant is present in custody.

Mr. Golla addresses the Court regarding objections to the Presentence Investigation Report.

Defendant’s counsel makes a statement on behalf of the defendant, offers information in

mitigation of punishment, and comments on matters relating to the appropriate sentence.

Defendant, counsel for the government, the victim and the Probation Officer address the Court

regarding sentencing.

Statement by the Court regarding defendant's offense level, criminal history level and sentencing

guidelines range.

Court states its findings and conclusions.

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 44 Filed 10/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment on February 24, 2012. 

ORDERED: Motion for Discovery #[16] is WITHDRAWN.

ORDERED: Motion to Dismiss Indictment #[17] is WITHDRAWN.

ORDERED: Motion for a Non-Guideline Sentence #[35] is GRANTED.

ORDERED: Defendant shall be imprisoned for sixty-three (63) months to run consecutive to

Western District of Oklahoma case #CR 07-00202-001-H.

ORDERED: Upon release from imprisonment, defendant shall be placed on supervised

release for a period of three (3) years to run concurrent with Western District of

Oklahoma case #CR 07-00202-001-H.

ORDERED: Conditions of Supervised Release that:

(X) Comply with conditions imposed in Western District of Oklahoma case #CR 07-

00202-001-H.

ORDERED: Defendant shall pay $100.00 to Crime Victim Fund (Special Assessment), to be

paid immediately. 

ORDERED: No fine is imposed because defendant has no ability to pay a fine.

ORDERED: Defendant advised of right to appeal. Any notice of appeal must be filed within 14

days.

ORDERED: Defendant is REMANDED to the custody of the U.S. Marshal.

8:54 a.m. Court in recess. 

Hearing concluded.

Total time: 00:25

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 44 Filed 10/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### John PATTON v. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE.

8 Div. 135.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 12

PRIMUS GUARANTY, LTD
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DISTRIBUTIONS OF SUBSIDIARY
(In thousands, except ratios)

Year Ended December 31,2007


2006


2005


2004


2003Earnings (loss):Net earnings (loss)



$
(563,541
)



$
94,891




$
4,083




$
23,685




$
78,471Provision (benefit) for taxes




52





42





46





46





(172
)Distributions on preferred securities of subsidiary




7,568





5,683





3,865





2,138





1,854Income (loss) from continuing operations before taxes (a)




(555,921
)




100,616





7,994





25,869





80,153Add:Fixed charges




28,608





16,698





6,589





3,033





1,854Subtract:Distributions on preferred securities of subsidiary




(7,568
)




(5,683
)




(3,865
)




(2,138
)




(1,854
)Adjusted earnings (loss)



$
(534,881
)



$
111,631




$
10,718




$
26,764




$
80,153Fixed charges:Interest expense




20,729





10,849





2,660





881





—Amortization of capitalized debt issuance costs




311





166





64





14





—Distributions on preferred securities of subsidiary




7,568





5,683





3,865





2,138





1,854Total fixed charges and preferred distributions



$
28,608




$
16,698




$
6,589




$
3,033




$
1,854Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and distributions on preferred securities of subsidiary(b)




(18.70
)




6.69





1.63





8.82





43.23


|
|
|
|

|(a) | Income (loss) from continuing operations before taxes represents income (loss) before income taxes plus adding back distributions on preferred securities of subsidiary.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(b) | Due to the loss for the year ended December 31, 2007, the ratio coverage was lessthan 1:1.
Additional earnings of $563.5 million would be needed to achieve the coverage ratio of 1:1.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000766659
<NAME>                        ENERGROUP TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2001
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,081
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,642
<OTHER-SE>                                    (7,723)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02753-RPM

ISSA H. A. CARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTURA HEALTH CORPORATION, LITTLETON ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, 

 

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 16, it is

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be held on February 28, 2012, at 11:30 a.m.

in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel are directed to comply with the Instructions for Preparation of

Scheduling Order which may be found at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges/judges.aspx

(Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch Procedures) and use the format provided with those instructions

(Rev. 11/11). The proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers

by 4:00 p.m. on February 23, 2012.

 The conference is conducted with lead counsel present in person. No parties or

representatives of parties will be permitted to attend.

Dated: January 19th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02753-RPM Document 8 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1