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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Date: June 17, 2013

Courtroom Deputy: J. Chris Smith

FTR Technician: Kathy Terasaki

____________________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02550-RPM

 (Coordinated with cases 11-cv-02584-RPM, 11-cv-02817, 11-cv-02819-RPM, 

 12-cv-01724, 12-cv-01069 and 12-cv-0876-RPM) 

SIAMAK AMIRINOOR, William W. Muhr

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Scott A. Risner

Defendant.

And

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER, Kimberly P. Everette

RYAN O’NEILL,

JOAQUIN MARTINEZ,

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, and

WILLIAM LEGER III, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Scott A. Risner

 Defendant. 

 

COURTROOM MINUTES

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hearing on Motions

2:32 p.m. Court in session.

Plaintiff Mr. Amirinoor

Court’s preliminary remarks.

Statements by Mr. Muhr regarding status of the case and explanation for motion for withdrawal. 

Mr. Muhr answers questions asked by the Court.

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 73 Filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

June 17, 2013

11-cv-02550-RPM

11-cv-02584-RPM

Ms. Everette answers questions asked by the Court regarding representation.

Mr. Risner answers questions asked by the Court regarding status of related cases filed in this district.

Mr. O’Neil states he is attempting to ascertain counsel with class action experience.

Mr. Muhr answers questions regarding status of using plaintiff O’Neall as a test case.

Statements by plaintiff Mr. Amirinoor and answers questions asked by the Court.

Mr. Amirinoor states he agrees to the motion withdraw of Mr. Muhr.

ORDERED: Attorney William Muhr’s Motion to Withdraw [35] in 11-cv-02550-RPM, is

granted. Mr. Muhr and his law firm have no further representation responsibility.

Mr. Amirinoor shall retrieve a copy of his file at Mr. Muhr’s office.

Mr. Muhr shall obtain a copy from Mr. Rector of Mr. Amirinoor’s file and turn it

over directly to plaintiff Amirinoor.

Mr. Amirinoor shall find new counsel and advise the Court by the filing of an entry

of appearance.

Discussion between Court and Mr. Risner regarding the case concerning plaintiff O’Neill.

Further statements by Ms. Everette.

ORDERED: Motion to Stay Proceedings [71] in 11-cv-02584-RPM, is granted with respect to all

related cases with the exception of plaintiff O’Neill.

Defendant in 11-cv-02584-RPM shall file its motion for summary judgment with

respect to plaintiff O’Neill by July 17, 2013 and plaintiff’s response due in

accordance with the rules.

3:02 p.m. Court in recess. 

Hearing concluded. Total time: 30 min.

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 73 Filed 06/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
1

 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed a day after this deadline and therefore violates the court’s

Minute Order Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with court-ordered deadlines resulted in the

court entering a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. (See Doc. No. 22.) Nevertheless,

the court proceeds to the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02695–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

IBEW LOCAL #111, 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due

to Continual Unresoved [sic] Problems.” (Doc. No. 51, filed May 24, 2012.) Plaintiff’s Motion

is ostensibly responsive to the court’s May 9, 2012 Minute Order, which directed Plaintiff to file

a motion no later than May 23, 20121

 demonstrating good cause to support the revocation of her

Electronic Case Filing (ECF) privileges. (Doc. No. 39.) Plaintiff’s Motion, however, seeks only

a partial revocation of her ECF registration and access—specifically, Plaintiff proposes that she

retain her ECF access to file documents electronically, but be served via United States mail. 

Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 55 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

The court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is properly denied. Registration as an ECF

participant “shall constitute consent to electronic service of all documents . . . .” See ECF

Procedures for the District of Colorado (Civil Cases) 3.2C (emphasis added). Thus, a registered

party’s consent to receiving electronic service is part and parcel of their privilege to file

documents electronically. Accordingly, the court is not at liberty, nor is it otherwise inclined, to

grant Plaintiff’s proposed partial revocation of her ECF registration and access.

Additionally, because Plaintiff has not sought to fully revoke her ECF privileges, the

court finds that Plaintiff’s ECF registration and access shall remain in effect. Hereafter, Plaintiff

shall file all documents electronically using the ECF System consistent with ECF Procedure

1.1—unless electronic service is excepted under ECF Procedure 1.2—and will be served

electronically consistent with ECF Procedure 3.2C. In other words, Defendant is no longer

required to serve Plaintiff with any filings via U.S. Mail, nor will the court be serving Plaintiff

via U.S. Mail with paper copies of court-initiated filings.

It is ORDERED 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due to Continual Unresoved [sic]

Problems” (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 55 Filed 05/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### ANTHONY S. MANCUSO AND MILDRED CAGLIONE, RESPONDENTS, v. UMBERTO LOFFREDO, APPELLANT.

Argued October 7, 1947

Decided January 12, 1948.

Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Wachenfeld.

For the appellant, *Louis Santorf.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

This is an appeal from the District Court. The state of demand alleges the leasing of premises at 122 Marshall Street, Paterson, at a yearly rental of $780, payable monthly from March 1st, 1946, and a subsequent parol agreement whereby the landlord agreed to furnish hot water for the additional sum of $3 per month. This agreement the tenant alleges was breached; hence, this action.

The state of demand pleads tender of the money due and refusal to furnish hot water. The plaintiffs had judgment.

Anthony S. Mancuso has since become bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy, though noticed, has not appeared in the case and there is no brief for either respondent. The lease in writing obligated the landlord to furnish water. It did not specify hot water.

The basis for the recovery was failure to furnish hot water, the right to which was predicated upon the parol -agreement mentioned. It was additional to the written undertaking.

The court on the proofs could find that the additional agreement did not vary the written lease but adds a new requirement not provided for.

It is next urged that the new agreement was void since it was not to be performed within one year. *R. S.*25:1-5. The *371defense, though not pleaded, was available under a general denial of the contract. *Owen*v. *Riddle, Ex’r,*81 *N. J. L.*546; *Ziegener*& *Lane*v. *Daeche,*91 *Id.*634; *Maagget*v. *A. Brawer Silk Co., 95 Id.*72.

The learned trial court could find that the agreement was to furnish hot water for a stated sum during the period of the lease. Such a contract would have consideration and is like a promise to pay a sum weekly as long as the promisee resides in a certain place. *Burgesser*v. *Wendel,*73 *N. J. L.*286. This is a promise to pay monthly as long as the defendant furnishes hot water. Such a promise is not within the statute. *Georgetti*v. *Steuber,*80 *Id.*482.

“The rule is stated with admirable clarity by the late Judge White in *Smith*v. *Batch*[89 *N. J. Eq.*566], as follows: ‘In order for this provision of the statute *(R. S.*25:1-5 e) to apply it must appear that the parties intended when they made the contract that it should not be performed within the year. If this does not expressly or clearly appear and the contract is one which, taking in consideration the subject-matter, may be performed within the year, the statute does not apply, although, in fact, a longer time was actually taken in performance.’ It follows, therefore, that the trial court’s refusal to nonsuit or direct a verdict for the defendant on this ground fails.” *Reynier*v. *Associated Dyeing and Printing Co.,*116 *N. J. L.*481, 484.

Nor do we think that the damages were impossible of assessment. The natural and probable consequences of the failure to furnish hot water are capable of a finding and we think the finding of the trial judge was sustained by the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABEL SANCHEZ-LEON,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE CRAIG B. SHAFFER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s “Unopposed Motion to Reconsider Appointment of 

Counsel from the CJA Panel” (doc. #491) is GRANTED. CJA counsel Mr. David L. Owen, Jr. shall be 

appointed to represent Defendant Sanchez-Leon.

DATED: March 19, 2013

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 494 Filed 03/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 22
- 00044
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.R., A CHILD

From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30,068

ABATEMENT ORDER

W e have received the clerk’s record i n this proceedin g . Upon its review , we have
noted an issue that must be addressed because it relates to our jurisdiction as to one of the parties in the trial court proceeding. See T EX

. R. A PP P . 25.1(b). A notice of appeal was filed on February 7, 2022 by attorney Paul K. Sweitzer , counsel for the Unknown Father of the c hil d . That notice of appeal had not been previously forwarded by the clerk to the Court of Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.1(f). The trial court signed two related orders on February 9, 2022. By sub

- section 4.1
of one of the orders , the trial court ordere d , “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that PAUL SWEITZER earlier appointed to represent UNKNOWN FATHER is relieved of all duties based on a finding of good cause.”In the Interest of A.M.R

. Page 2 On the same date , the trial court signed a separate order that granted Paul K. Sweitzer ’s
motion t o withdraw as counsel for the Unknown Father . Although the separate order has a space for the appointment of new counsel, the line where the name of the new counsel was to be inserted is blank. Both orders were subsequently filed in the trial court
on Fe bruary 11, 2022. A notice of appeal having been filed, but counsel having been allowed to withdraw for “good cause” and without the appointment of new counsel, we have an appeal in which we have no party with whom we can communicate and no attorney to rep resent that party. Accordingly, this proceeding is ABATED to the trial court to appoint counsel , within 7 days from the date of this Order, to proceed with the appeal as it relates to the appeal filed on behalf of the Unknown Father of the child. A supp lemental clerk’s record containing the appointment of counsel must be filed within 14 days from the date of this
Order.
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal abated Order issued and filed March 4 , 2022 [RWR]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FRANTZ BRIFIL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D 23

- 141

[ July 27, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Nine teenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County; Robert L. Pegg

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56 2018CF002443

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. Solages

Jones, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C IKLIN and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action: 11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: February 29, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

RESON LEE WOODS, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Cheryl Ann Thompson 

Daniel Joseph Lowenberg

v.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DURANGO,

THE, et al., 

Defendants.

Leland William Hutchinson , Jr.

Shay Lynn Denning 

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Court in Session: 2:35 p.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Court addresses the parties regarding defendant’s MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending the

Outcome of the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34, filed on 2/21/2012), defendant’s BRIEF in

Support of #34 MOTION to to Stay Discovery Pending the Outcome of the Motion to Dismiss

(Docket No. 35, filed on 2/21/2012), and plaintiff’s BRIEF in Opposition to #34 MOTION to

Stay Discovery Pending the Outcome of the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 38, filed on

2/26/2012).

Mr. Hutchinson, Jr. and Ms. Thompson present oral arguments to the court.

Court addresses the parties regarding the defendant’s pending MOTION to Dismiss for Failure

to State a Claim (Docket No. 32, filed on 2/21/2012). 

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS Document 42 Filed 02/29/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Ms. Thompson feels that additional discovery still needs to be completed. Discussion regarding

possible ruling by Chief Judge Daniel, claims and allegations in Complaint, when responses are 

due, when the court may make its ruling, and pending filing deadlines.

ORDERED: The court will set a Telephonic Status Conference for March 29, 2012 at 8:00

a.m. The court GRANTS defendant’s MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending the

Outcome of the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34, filed on 2/21/2012) and will

stay discovery until noon on March 29, 2012. Counsel shall coordinate to create

a conference call among themselves before contacting the court (303.844.2117)

at the scheduled time.

Hearing concluded.

Court in recess: 3:02 p.m.

Total time in court: 00:27

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at

(303) 825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS Document 42 Filed 02/29/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
J. Lampen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     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.


August 14, 2006                 /s/ Richard J. Lampen
                                ------------------------------------
                                    Richard J. Lampen
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02573–WJM–KMT

SAENG SOUKSAVATH, and

NANCY SOUKSAVATH,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

EMIL MUSGROVE, New York Life Insurance Company, and

PHIL STOKES, New York Life Insurance Company, 

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

This matter is before me on the “Unopposed Motion for Protective Order” (Doc. No. 12, filed

January 31, 2012). The Motion is DENIED without prejudice, and the proposed Protective

Order is REFUSED. The parties are granted leave to submit a motion for protective order and

revised form of protective order consistent with the comments contained here.

Gillard v. Boulder Valley School District, 196 F.R.D. 382 (D. Colo. 2000), set out certain

requirements for the issuance of a blanket protective order such as the one sought here. Among

other things, any information designated by a party as confidential must first be reviewed by a

lawyer who will certify that the designation as confidential is “based on a good faith belief that

[the information] is confidential or otherwise entitled to protection.” Gillard, 196 F.R.D. at 386.

Additionally, the protective order must contain a mechanism by which a party may challenge

the designation of information as confidential. The following language would satisfy this

provision:

A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL information

by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed information. The

written notice shall identify the information to which the objection is made. If the

Case 1:11-cv-02573-WJM-KMT Document 14 Filed 02/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days after the time the notice is

received, it shall be the obligation of the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL

to file an appropriate motion requesting that the court determine whether the disputed

information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a motion is timely

filed, the disputed information shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this

Protective Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a

motion within the prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as

CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with

this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under this provision, the party

designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good

cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.

Gillard at 388-89.

Dated: February 1, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02573-WJM-KMT Document 14 Filed 02/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                              -----------------------------
                                                                  2000            1999
                                                              -------------   -------------
                                                              (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT
                                                                       SHARE DATA)
<S>                                                           <C>             <C>
Diluted net income (loss) per share:
  Net income (loss).........................................   $     1,218     $   (25,953)
  Average number of shares outstanding......................    20,033,600      10,885,000
  Net effect of dilutive stock options-based on treasury
    stock method............................................            --              --
                                                               -----------     -----------
    Total average shares....................................    20,033,600      10,885,000
                                                               ===========     ===========
  Diluted net loss per share................................   $      0.06     $     (2.38)
                                                               ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

                                       24
#### CLINTON FOODS v. BOZEMAN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. EL08-37-000] 

Take notice that on January 29, 2008, Integrys Energy Group, Inc., on behalf of its subsidiaries with electric market-based rate authority, filed a “Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to 18 CFR 207(a) (2007). 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-2414 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P