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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02639-MSK-CBS

SHERRY L. DERAY, as heir and next of kin of JOHN R. WINKLER (deceased)

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS,

COLORADO, RICHARD MYERS, 

RONALD SHEPPARD, 

CARLOS SANDOVAL, and 

JOHN HAVENAR,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

CONSENT ORDER TO WITHDRAW OBJECTION AND AMEND COMPLAINT and

TO WITHDRAW CONSENT MOTION TO STAY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Pursuant to the court’s MINUTE ORDER (Document No. 19, filed on 12/22/2011)

counsel have agreed:

1) to withdraw objection to Second Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify #1 Complaint

(Docket No. 10, filed 11-29-2011) to permit addition of Plaintiff’s status as Personal

Representative of the Estate of John R. Winkler, deceased, to which Plaintiff was appointed by

the probate division of the El Paso County, Colorado, District Court on December 5, 2011, in

probate proceeding 2011 PR 1327 and to allow such amendment by declaration in this order,

2) to withdraw as part of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Document 5), the

argument stated as “Element 4:” at pp. 10-11 of said Motion concerning Plaintiff’s lack of

standing as personal representative, reserving to Defendants the right to raise this standing issue

Case 1:11-cv-02639-MSK-CBS Document 20 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
in the future if deemed appropriate, and

3) to withdraw the joint Unopposed Motion to Continue Scheduling Conference

(Docket No. 12, filed 11/30/2011) and proceed with case scheduling and procedure.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED 

1) Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. #10) is GRANTED. The

caption is modified to include Plaintiff as Personal Representative of the Estate of John R.

Winkler and the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1) is modified at paragraph 2 to include “and

Plaintiff hereby brings claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 as Personal Representative of the Estate of

John R. Winkler, deceased.” The court will not require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 

2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 5), is modified as to the argument stated

as “Element 4:” at pp. 10-11 of said Motion concerning Plaintiff’s lack of standing as personal

representative, reserving to Defendants the right to raise this standing issue in the future if

deemed appropriate. The court will not require Defendants to file an amended motion.

3) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Scheduling Conference (Doc. #12) is

WITHDRAWN. A scheduling conference will be held on February 15, 2012 at 10:45 a.m. in

in Courtroom A-402, Fourth Floor, of the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street,

Denver, Colorado. Parties shall adhere to the instructions and deadlines previously set forth in

the court’s Order Setting a Scheduling Conference (Doc. #4).

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02639-MSK-CBS Document 20 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
No. 72-1148.

#### Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent *v.*Naughten.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OAKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company; THE TRAVELERS

INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut Insurance Company; ST. PAUL FIRE AND

MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company; ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company; TRAVELERS PROPERTY

CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance company; EVEREST NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company; and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL

SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

Defendants.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________________

Please be advised that a status/scheduling hearing regarding the above matter is set

Thursday, August 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom C-401, Byron G. Rogers United States

Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. Counsel shall be present in person.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties shall have a corporate representative present

in person at the August 8, 2013 hearing.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

DATED: July 11, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 214 Filed 07/11/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
No. 72-6226.

#### Figueroa *v.*Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Incentra Solutions, Inc.
      (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Anthony
      DiPaolo, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                May 15, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Anthony DiPaoloAnthony
                DiPaoloChief
                Financial Officer


___________________________________________________________________________


This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-PO-00149-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. MARK HALPER,

Defendant.

 

ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

The Defendant sent a letter to the Court requesting that he be released from custody to 

perform community service in the State of New York;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s request is DENIED.

DATED: December 4, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-po-00149-DW Document 74 Filed 12/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HILARIO QUINTERO-RODRIGUEZ,

 a/k/a “The Big Guy,”, a/k/a “Santa Claus,”

2. ABEL LAST NAME UNKNOWN (LNU),

3. OCTAVIO QUEZADA-PEREZ,

 a/k/a “Tavi,”

4. FLODINA BELETSO GALLEGOS,

5. GUADALUPE RUIZ-GUARDADO,

 a/k/a “Lupe,”

6. JULIO MARES-RUIZ,

 a/k/a “Mariano,”

7. LUIS JORGE MARTINEZ-VALDIVA, and

8. ROBERT MASON BYAS,

 a/k/a “Robin,”

Defendants.

 

ORDER AND NOTICE OF CHANGE OF PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARINGS

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court following the filing of a Notice of Disposition 

(#105) on January 9, 2012, by Defendant Byas. The Court construes this Notice as a motion to

change his/her plea and to have the Court consider the terms of the parties’ plea agreement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) and (I), the speedy trial clock is tolled

pending determination of those matters. 

2. A Change of Plea hearing is set for March 26, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. and a

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 123 Filed 01/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
1

 In criminal cases originating from the Grand Junction or Durango Jury Divisions of this Court, counsel

shall be prepared to advise the Court at the time of the change of plea hearing whether a written request to have the

sentencing hearing conducted at the courthouse in either Grand Junction or Durango will be filed. See

Administrative Order 2007-8.

Sentencing hearing is set for June 18, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States

District Court for the District of Colorado, Courtroom A901, Alfred A. Arraj U.S.

Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.1

3. The motion hearing set for January 24, 2012, and the February 21, 2012, trial

date are VACATED as to Defendant Byas.

Dated this 17th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 123 Filed 01/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-REB-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 30, 2013.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renew [sic] Motion for Assistance [filed April 29, 2013;

docket #78]. It is unclear exactly what relief the Plaintiff seeks. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks

the assistance of volunteer counsel, the Court has already granted Plaintiff’s request and his case has

been placed on a list seeking volunteer counsel. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks assistance in

paying for copies of his medical file, the Court has already ruled that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(c), the Court is required only to assist prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis with expenses

related to printing a record on appeal or printing a transcript of court proceedings under certain

circumstances. Thus, in either case, the motion is denied. 

The Court notes that discovery has recently begun in this case and to the extent Plaintiff

seeks copies of documents or information from the Defendants, he may ask for them through his

discovery requests.

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 80 Filed 04/30/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Flory *v.*Ashe, Warden.

September 19, 1938:

Per Curiam,

The relator was tried in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County on an indictment (No. 33 Nov. Sess. 1932) charging.him with robbery while armed with an offensive weapon, to wit, a revolver, and with felonious assault, beating etc. with intent to rob, under section 100 of the Criminal Code (Act of March 31,1860, P. L. 382), as amended by the Act of April 18, 1919, P. L. 61, and was found guilty on April 11, 1933. The maximum sentence authorized by the Act of 1919 was separate or solitary confinement at labor for twenty years. He was sentenced, the same day, to imprisonment in the Western Penitentiary for not less than ten years nor more than forty years, to be computed from Oc*406tober 18, 1932. The sentence was illegal. It was not authorized under section 182 of the Criminal Code, for the indictment did not charge a former conviction *(Commonwealth v. Payne,*242 Pa. 394, 399, 89 A. 559). Nor was it authorized by the Act of April 29, 1929, P. L. 854, for the record produced before us fails to show that the relator had been convicted of any of the offenses recited in section one of that Act before his conviction on the above named indictment, and the Act of 1929 relates to a conviction for a second offense committed within five years *“after having been convicted”*of any crime or attempt to commit a crime mentioned in section one of that Act.

The relator is not entitled to be discharged, but should be remanded to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County to be sentenced according to law: *Commonwealth ex rel. Paige v. Smith,*130 Pa. Superior Ct. 536, 548, 198 A. 812; *Beale v. Commonwealth,*25 Pa. 11, 22; *Commonwealth v. Curry,*285 Pa. 289, 298, 132 A. 370; *Halderman’s Case,*53 Pa. Superior Ct. 554, 557, 558; *Commonwealth ex rel. Snyder v. Francies,*58 Pa. Superior Ct. 273; *Commonwealth ex rel. Gaffigan v. Francies,*75 Pa. Superior Ct. 269.

And now, September 17, 1938, it is ordered and adjudged that the relator be remanded, and that the record be remitted to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County, to the end that appropriate process may be issued to bring him into court for re-sentence in accordance with law, taking into consideration the time he has already served.
<PAGE>

                               DCB FINANCIAL CORP

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Benton,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Jeffrey Benton


Jeffrey Benton
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2003




                                       35
818 A.2d 1284

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DANIEL D. RIVERA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March 18, 2003

Decided April 8, 2003.

*Hillary K. Horton,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant *(Peter C. Harvey,*Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; *Ms. Horton*and *James F. Smith,*Assistant Atlantic County Prosecutor, on the briefs).

*Bernadette N. DeCastro,*Acting Deputy Public Defender II, argued the cause for respondent *(Yvonne Smith Segars,*Public Defender, attorney).

*Mitchell E. Ignatoff,*argued the cause for *amicus curiae,*Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Weissbard’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 351 *N.J.Super.*93, 797 A.2d 175 (2002).

*613
      *For affirming*— Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI — 6.

*Opposed*— None.
[No. 34396.

Department One.

June 26, 1958.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*Jim Zoulas, *Deceased.*James Pappas, *Appellant,*v. Spedo Southas, *as Administrator, et al., Respondents.**1*

*Christ D. Lillians*and *Sam Peach,*for appellant.

*T. B. Asmundson*and *Livesey, Kingsbury & Livesey,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 326 P. (2d) 1010.

Per Curiam.

This probate proceeding was previously before this court and is reported in *In re Zoulas’ Estate,*48 Wn. (2d) 298, 293 P. (2d) 395 (1956).

In accordance with that: decision, the partnership assets were inventoried and appraised. Objections thereto were filed and a hearing was had upon the objections to the inventory and appraisement. The court overruled the objections, and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The final account was approved, and the estate distributed. The heirs have appealed, assigning error to three of the court’s findings of fact.

Our review of the record convinces us that the court’s findings are amply supported by the proof.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Paul TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

No. 75-1985.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1977.

Rehearings Denied March 2,1977.

G. Edward Merritt, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Owen J. Bradley, New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOD-BOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellee and cross-appellant, Paul Turner, a merchant seaman, brought an action against Delta Steamship Lines, the appellant and cross-appellee, to recover for the impairment of his hearing as a result of excessive noise on the vessel of Delta on which he was employed. A jury trial was had and a verdict was rendered for Turner. Under the coercion of a conditional order for a new trial, Turner filed a remittitur for the amount which the district court had found to be unjustified. Judgment was entered for the remaining amount. Delta has appealed from the judgment. In his cross-appeal Turner asserts that he is entitled to the full amount of the verdict.

Although the grounds for the appeal and the cross-appeal are phrased in terms of legal propositions, the contentions are primarily factual. There is no error disclosed by the record. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02635-RPM

DEBRA A. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODNEY D. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Grand County, also known

as the Grand County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff’s Office, and in his individual

capacity,

Defendants. 

 

 

ORDER TO COMPLY WITH D.C. COLO.LCivR 7.2

 

The Court has signed a Protective Order for the confidentiality of certain information in

this case. The order does not expressly provide for compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 in

court filings. It is

ORDERED, that in all court filings, counsel shall comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2 as to

any information to be restricted based on the Protective Order.

DATED: October 24th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

__________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 41 Filed 10/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 34.5

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” that HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(viii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (Applicable Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions secured by private label credit card receivables that are identified in management’s “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (the Platform), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth in Item1122(d) are not applicable to the Company's activities. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Ourprocedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 16, 2009
Case 1:11-po-00043-GJR Document 16 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.2.2

                 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE HOMEGOLD FINANCIAL, INC.
                   1995 EMPLOYEE AND OFFICER STOCK OPTION PLAN

         The HomeGold Financial, Inc. 1995 Employee and Officer Stock Option
Plan, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3 thereto
(collectively, the "Plan") is hereby amended to increase the total number of
shares issuable hereunder from 1,466,667 shares to 1,966,667 shares.

         In all other respects the Plan shall remain unchanged.

         This Amendment No. 4 shall be effective as of the 28th day of April
2000.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 annual report on Form 10-K of Balqon Corporation (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, as amended; and




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






Dated:
      March 31, 2009
              By:
              /s/ BALWINDER
      SAMRABalwinder
      Samra
                Chief
      Executive Officer (principal executive officer)


Dated:
      March 31, 2009
              By:
              /s/ ROBERT
      MIRANDARobert
      Miranda
                Chief
      Financial Officer (principal financial officer)


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.