alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elizabeth MALVEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. F. David MATHEWS, Secretary of Health Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-2252

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1977.

Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., Daniel J. McNulty, Asst. U. S. Atty., Beaumont, Tex., Suzanne Cochran, Atty., Dept, of HEW, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Ernest L. Sample, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GEE and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In *Malveaux*v. *Mathews,*5 Cir. 1976, 542 F.2d 647, we remanded the Secretary’s appeal of the district court’s reversal of the Secretary’s denial of Ms. Malveaux’s application for disabled widow’s insurance benefits to the district court “for a clarification of the reasons for its decision”. 542 F.2d at 649. The district court has since elaborated upon its reasons for reversing the Secretary’s disposition of Ms. Malveaux’s application. *Malveaux*v. *Mathews,*E.D.Tex. (No. B-74-387-CA, Dec. 1, 1976). After independently reviewing the record, we agree with the district court “that there is not substantial evidence to support the administrative determination”. As the district court observed:

> The Social Security regulations are stringent by statute, but eligibility for benefits is to be administered with reason. Theoretical ability to engage in substantial gainful activity is not enough. *Hayes v. Celebrezze,*5 Cir. 1963, 311 F.2d 648. There is no reasonable evidence in this record that the claimant can perform the duties that she previously performed as a household maid.

*109The district court “awarded social security benefits dating back to December 26, 1971”. That is the date that Ms. Malveaux, in her initial application for disabled widow benefits filed on December 30, 1971, claimed her disabilities began. However, in allowing disability benefits to accrue as of December 26, 1971, the district court failed to take into account the five month “waiting period” that the statute requires to pass before a claim for disability benefits matures. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1), 423(c)(2)(A) (1970). The proper starting date for Ms. Malveaux’s benefits claim is therefore May 26, 1972, rather than December 26, 1971. Except for our change of the date on which Ms. Malveaux’s claim matured, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

OCTOBER 16, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33000

Re: HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. RICHARD A. CARDEN and ROSALIE P. CARDEN, Defendants-Appellants.
#### KLEID v. KLEID.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
#### DESSER v. BANKS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
**Exhibit 12.2** **Certification**     I, Steven Spooner, certify that:      1.     I have reviewed this report on    Form 20-F/A    of Mitel Networks Corporation for the period ended    April 30, 2007;      2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual 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(s) 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 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 its 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 period covered by the annual report that has materially    affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the    registrant’s internal control over financial    reporting; and      5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have    disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of    directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);      (a)     All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design    or operation of internal control 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 control over financial reporting. /s/  Steven    Spooner    Name:     Steven Spooner     Title:     Chief Financial Officer     Date: November 21, 2007
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1752 

To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment 

of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United 

States against ballistic missile attack. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2007 

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

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To establish the policy of the United States with respect 

to deployment of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United States against ballistic missile attack. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense Against Re5 gional Threats Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLIED MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY. 

7 It is the policy of the United States to provide for 

8 deployment as soon as is technologically possible of effecVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:05 Jul 10, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1752.IS S1752

bajohnson on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 1752 IS

1 tive missile defense systems capable of defending Israel 

2 and all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Or3 ganization against ballistic missile attack from Iran. 

4 SEC. 3. ALLIED BURDENSHARING. 

5 It is the policy of the United States to seek continued 

6 negotiated burdensharing agreements with the nations 

7 specified in section 2 to share the costs of development 

8 and deployment of ballistic missile defense systems. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC61 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21.1

GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD.

Subsidiary List  December 31,
2010



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|100% Subsidiaries owned of Gastar Exploration Ltd. (Alberta, Canada)
|Gastar Exploration USA, Inc. (Michigan)                             
|                                                                    
|100% Subsidiaries owned of Gastar Exploration USA, Inc. (Michigan)  
|Gastar Exploration New South Wales, Inc. (Michigan)                 
|Gastar Exploration Victoria, Inc. (Michigan)                        
|Gastar Exploration Texas LP (Delaware) (1)(2)                       



|(1) | Gastar Exploration Texas LLC (Delaware), General Partner (1%)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Gastar Exploration Texas, Inc. (Michigan), Limited Partner (99%)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.229 Identified Miscellaneous Financial Claims - Part I** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
ACCEPTED 04-14-00620-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/24/2015 4:54:12 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
811 A.2d 904

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT S. SUSSER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

April 5, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 97-419, concluding that ROBERT S. SUSSER of RED BANK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1979, and who thereafter was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years by Order of the Court filed on November 18, 1997, and who remains suspended at this time, should be suspended from practice for a period of two years for violating *RPC*1.7(a)and(b)(conflict of interest), *RPC*1.8(business transaction with a client), *RPC*3.3(a)(l)(false statement of material fact to a tribunal), *RPC*8.4(e)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and *RPC*8.4(d)(eonduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to complete the Skills and Methods Course offered by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education, and that on reinstatement, respondent should be required to practice under supervision for a period of three years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ROBERT S. SUSSER is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court, retroactive to December 10, 2000; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall complete the Skills and Methods Course offered by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education and shall provide the Office of Attorney Ethics with proof of his satisfactory completion thereof; and it is further

*57ORDERED that following reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney-approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of three years and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Letter Agreement dated May 14, 2004



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 CDC Mortgage Capital Inc. 
 36th
Floor 
 9 West 57th Street 
 New York, NY 10019 
 Attention: John Racy 
  
 May 14, 2004 
  
 Dear Mr. Racy: 
  
 Reference is made to the Master Agreement dated as of June 23, 2003 among New Century Mortgage Corporation, NC Capital Corporation (collectively, the
“Sellers”), and CDC Mortgage Capital Inc. (the “Buyer”), as amended (the “Agreement”). Terms used in this letter not otherwise defined shall have meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 Sellers would like to request a temporary increase in the Maximum Amount under the Agreement
to $700,000,000 (the “Temporary Increase”) from the date hereof to the opening of business on June 1, 2004. Except for this Temporary Increase, all other terms and conditions in the Agreement and all other Repurchase Documents shall remain
in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms. New Century Financial Corporation, as Guarantor, consents to this Temporary Increase and reaffirms its Guaranty. 
  
 Kindly execute below to signify your consent to our request of Temporary Increase. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,
  
 NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION

	
	/s/    KEVIN CLOYD
	

	 Name: Kevin Cloyd
 Title: Executive Vice
President



  

	
	 NC CAPITAL CORPORATION

	
	/s/    KEVIN CLOYD
	

	 Name: Kevin Cloyd
 Title:
President



  










	
	NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, as Guarantor
	
	/s/    KEVIN CLOYD
	

	 Name: Kevin Cloyd
 Title: Executive Vice
President



  

	
	 Acknowledged and Agreed as of the date first written above
  
 CDC MORTGAGE CAPITAL INC.

	
	/s/    ANTHONY MALANGA
	

	 Name: Anthony Malanga
 Title: Managing
Director


  

	
	CDC MORTGAGE CAPITAL INC.
	
	/s/    WILLIAM BRANAGH
	

	 Name: William Branagh
 Title: Managing
Director
Order filed December 3, 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00742

- CV

____________ In the Interest of A.M.W. a/k/a A.W., K.R.W. a/k/a K.W., children

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 2019

- 03213J

ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination appeal. Appellant B.V.W. ’ s brief was due December 2, 2020

. No brief has been
filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases a re to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.
Therefore, we o rder appe llant’s appointed counsel Angela Ellis , to file appellant’s brief no later than December 1 8 , 2020. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why s he should not be held incontempt of court. In addition, the cour t may requ ire appointment of new counsel

due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Ch ristopher, Wise, and H a ssan.
Exhibit 10.5

                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                         NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC.
                    CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN
                                       FOR
                                 KEY EXECUTIVES

         The Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. Change in Control Severance Benefit
Plan for Key Executives (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows, effective as
of October 9, 1997.

         Section 1A(1) of the Plan is amended by deleting from the Section the
words and numbers "twenty-five percent (25%)", in every instance that they
appear in the Section, and in every such instance substituting therefor the
words and numbers "twenty percent (20%)".

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment is hereby executed this 20th day of
October, 1997.

                                        NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC.

                                        David J. Anderson

                                        ---------------------------------
                                        By:  David J. Anderson
                                        Its:  Senior Vice President

ATTEST: Peter A. V. Huegel
        ----------------------
        Assistant Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24244]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (08-077)]


Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting.

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of Meeting; Correction.

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

    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: 73 FR 58668, 
Notice Number 08-067, October 7, 2008.
SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration published a 
document in the Federal Register of October 7, 2008, announcing a 
meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). The document 
announced an incorrect meeting time.
    Correction: Date and time of ASAP meeting is Wednesday, October 23, 
2008, 10 a.m. to 12 noon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety 
Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0732.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-24244 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 7, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.110 U.S.-Chartered Commercial Banks** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 30
Case 1:11-cv-02558-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 30
#### MOTOR FUEL CARRIER v. CARTER.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7050

GLENN A. FROEMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Baltimore County Detention Center,

Towson; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; LILA NOBEL,

Division of Parole and Probation; W. ROLAND

KNAPP, Director,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96-

559-L)

Submitted: August 13, 1996 Decided: August 30, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Glenn A. Froeman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Froeman appeals from the district court's marginal order denying his motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss.

The district court properly denied injunctive relief. Federal

courts may not award declaratory or injunctive relief that would

affect pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary

circumstances involving federally protected rights. Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). The record shows that Froeman was

still seeking relief in the state appellate courts when the district court denied his motions for injunctive relief. See Huffman

v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975). Furthermore, there are

no extenuating circumstances in this case entitling Froeman to

injunctive relief.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 1:11-cv-02328-PAB Document 4 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02328-PAB Document 4 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02328-PAB Document 4 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02328-PAB Document 4 Filed 09/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Date: January 18, 2013 

Courtroom Deputy: Julie Dynes FTR: BNB COURTROOM A-401 

 Parties Attorney(s) 

OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC Jose A. Ramirez 

 Plaintiff(s) 

v. 

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY 

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF 

AMERICA 

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

COMPANY OF AMERICA 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY 

LINES INSURANCE COMPANY 

 Defendant(s) 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

Ryan J. Hesselgesser 

Hilary D. Wells 

Todd E. Jaworsky 

 Cross Defendant(s) 

COURTROOM MINUTES 

MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 10:00 a.m. 

Appearance of counsel. 

Argument presented on [97] The Phoenix Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity 

Company of America, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Surplus Lines 

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 116 Filed 01/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119

Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s Motion to Compel 

or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order. 

ORDERED: [97] The Phoenix Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company 

of America, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Surplus 

Lines Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of 

America’s Motion to Compel or in the Alternative Motion for Protective 

Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as indicated on the 

record. 

Court in Recess: 10:56 a.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 00:56 

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 116 Filed 01/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2