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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02683-RBJ

ELLEN WESSLER and

MONTY WESSLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COLONIAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE, a division of COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A., 

WELLS FARGO BANK,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRY SYSTEMPS, INC., 

EL PASO COUNTY PUBLIC TRUSTEE, 

and all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action,

Defendants.

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).

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 18 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 19th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 18 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, J. Russell Porter, Chief Executive Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 12 months ended
December 31, 2008, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (the Report), filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: October 20, 2009



/s/ J. RUSSELL PORTERJ. Russell PorterChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                        8,422,781
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8,422,781
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                8,422,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                    8,422,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,422,781
<SALES>                       3,750,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,404,637
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,846,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                593,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              475,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 489,070
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             489,070
<DISCONTINUED>                  655,349
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 (45,711)
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                  1,098,708
<EPS-BASIC>                     13.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                     13.59




</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50255 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. E R IC W IL L R IC H , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 95- C R - 257- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder alPu bl i c D ef enderappoi nt ed to repr es ent E r i c W i l l r i c h has m o ve d f o r l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A nders v. Ca lif o rn ia , 3 86 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . W i l l r i c h ha s f i l e d a r e s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w o f

t he r e c o r d, c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f, a nd W i l l ri ch’ s r e s po ns e di s c l o s e s no n on frivo l ou s i s s u e f or a p p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rre s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 4 2 . 2 . W i l l ri ch ’ s m oti on to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50255 Document: 00511027488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010N o. 09- 50255

2 r e lie v e co u n s e l a n d fo ra p p o in tm e n t o f n e w co u n s e l is D E N IE D . Cf. Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

ag n er , 1 5 8 F .3d 9 0 1 , 9 0 2 -0 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Case: 09-50255 Document: 00511027488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
WALTER BRANUM and KAREN ) BRANUM, )

Appellants, ) ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3706 ) PAT FRANK, as Clerk of the ) Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, ) Florida, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 8, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett L. Battles, Judge. Arthur Barksdale, IV and Philip D. Storey, of Alvarez, Winthrop, Thompson & Storey, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants. David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., Tampa; Dale K. Bohner, General Counsel, Tampa; and Shelby K. Russ, Staff Attorney, Tampa, for Appellee Pat Frank, as Clerk of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.- 2 -

MORRIS and BLACK, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1539 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 296
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1539

     To designate the post office located at 309 East Linn Street, 
     Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ``Major Scott Nisely Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2007

  Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Harkin) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             August 1, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To designate the post office located at 309 East Linn Street, 
     Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ``Major Scott Nisely Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MAJOR SCOTT NISELY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The post office located at 309 East Linn Street, 
Marshalltown, Iowa, shall be known and designated as the ``Major Scott 
Nisely Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the post office referred 
to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major 
Scott Nisely Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 296

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1539

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To designate the post office located at 309 East Linn Street, 
     Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ``Major Scott Nisely Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Henry STONE v. STATE.

7 Div. 153.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF CLAYTON HOMES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                                       43912
<SECURITIES>                                 47734
<RECEIVABLES>                               676717
<ALLOWANCES>                                  3650
<INVENTORY>                                 222431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      401982
<DEPRECIATION>                               96503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1506378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       122760
<BONDS>                                      99216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     13750
<OTHER-SE>                                 1022625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1506378
<SALES>                                     993916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1293345
<CGS>                                       660429
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1044496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             20800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (576)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             228625
<INCOME-TAX>                                 84600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         144025
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                144025
<EPS-BASIC>                                 1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.03


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

L.W.O.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-0877

June 26, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan Maulucci, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-24-1997
<CASH>                                         217,000
<SECURITIES>                                 9,388,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,615,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   737,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,626,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,419,000
<PP&E>                                       1,970,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,333,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               36,088,00
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,959,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       110,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,088,000
<SALES>                                     51,526,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,526,000
<CGS>                                       34,323,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,323,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,503,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,610,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,573,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,037,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,037,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
Opinion filed August 28 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____


### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 16 6

- C V

_____ _ _____



### IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.S., M.N.S., AND E.B.S ., CHILD REN

On Appeal from the 3 18 th District Court Midland County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. FM 58239

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A ppellan t , Jacky Spires, ha s filed in this court a n amended m otion to dismis s

h is appeal

. In the motion, Appellant requests that this appeal be dismissed. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant states that h e “ does not want to disturb the
peace of the children any further” and that “it is in the children’s best interest that he
seeks dismissal of this direct appeal .”

The amended motion to dismiss is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

.

PER CURIAM
August 28 , 2015
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J., and Bailey , J.
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02749-WYD-KLM

KIMBERLY ADAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL PUEBLO BOYS & GIRLS RANCH, INC. LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN (a/k/a

“Your Group Employee Benefits Plan”; a/k/a Plan Number G204821/00001; also left

specifically unnamed in an Addendum To Summary Plan Description),

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and the Order filed on

September 5, 2013 by the Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District

Judge, and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth, it is

ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Plan Administrator for further

factfinding on Plaintiff’s disability opinion in accordance with this Order. This case shall

be TERMINATED, but may be reopened upon motion if either party wishes to obtain

court review of the Plan’s determination on remand.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 9th day of September, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/ Edward P. Butler 

Edward P. Butler, Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02749-WYD-KLM Document 42 Filed 09/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



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

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

|(a) | the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                     
|   



|Date: June 27, 2007
|-------------------



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00422-REB-04

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

4. RICHARD CROSSE,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On July 12, 2012, the court conducted a telephonic setting conference to set a

change of plea hearing in this matter. After conferring with the parties, and with their

consent, 

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That on October 9, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m., the court shall conduct a

change of plea hearing in this matter; and

2. That counsel for the parties shall deliver or e-mail a courtesy copy of all

change of plea documents separately to Judge Blackburn’s chambers AND to the

Probation Department not later than 48 hours before the change of plea hearing

date. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1C. If the documents are not timely submitted, the

hearing will be vacated. There will be no exceptions to this policy. On the date of the

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

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

Dated: July 12, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02651-MSK-KMT

SAMUEL G. LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN R. LIVINGSTON,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02647-MSK-BNB Document 5 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129559 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DONALD C. AUSTIN, M.D., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129559 

 COA: 259481 

Wayne CC: 04-414591-CZ

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMUNITY HEALTH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02635-RPM 

DEBRA A. TURNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

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

Defendant. 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

The Court enters the following order, in accordance with the Court’s order of September 

12, 2012: 

Save and except for the information concerning Stephen Holland, who waived his 

confidentiality by virtue of the lawsuit he filed and pursued through trial (09-cv-02550-RPM), 

plaintiff’s counsel shall keep confidential all information the defense provides concerning the 

discipline and dismissal of other deputies during the time of Debra Turner’s employment at the 

Grand County Sheriff’s Office. Absent further order of this Court: 1. Plaintiff’s counsel shall 

not share or discuss the information provided with any other individual, not even his client, 

Debra Turner. 2. Plaintiff’s counsel may, however, share the confidential information with 

members of his law firm and support staff who are working on the case. 3. This order does not 

prohibit plaintiff’s counsel from contacting individuals named in the confidential information, 

but plaintiff’s counsel shall not engage them in discussing the confidential information provided 

under this order. 4. Plaintiff’s counsel shall destroy all information that is subject to this 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 40 Filed 10/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

protective order upon the sooner of (a) the resolution of the case or (b) the entry of final 

judgment. 

DATED this 24th day of October, 2012. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/Richard P. Matsch 

 

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02635-RPM Document 40 Filed 10/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2