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-02740-CMA-MEH

LORI MONK,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYON BELLERUD, II,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 6, 2012.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Issuance of Order to Show

Cause [filed June 11, 2012; docket #22]. Defendant filed no response to the motion in the time

allowed under D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1C.

Plaintiff contends that the “Defendant has refused to answer the post-judgment

interrogatories and has disobeyed an order of the court by not answering the written interrogatories.”

However, a review of the record in this case indicates that no motion to compel discovery responses

has been filed and the Court has issued no order requiring the Defendant to respond to postjudgment interrogatories. The Plaintiff cites to no such motion to compel or order in the present

motion. Therefore, the Court is unable to grant the Plaintiff’s request to require Defendant to appear

for a hearing to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for disobeying a court order and,

as such, the Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Case 1:11-cv-02740-CMA-MEH Document 24 Filed 07/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLOR9360000.L51040000.FI0000-09; HAG-09-0006; WAOR61140 and WAOR61142]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Delta Petroleum Corporation for competitive oil and gas leases WAOR61140 and WAOR61142, for lands in Benton County, Washington. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the leases terminated under the law.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee, Delta Petroleum Corporation, has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16-2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Bureau of Land                           ( print page 60715)                        Management for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice.                

The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the leases as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). Therefore, the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate leases WAOR61140 and WAOR61142, effective April 1, 2008, subject to the original terms and conditions of the leases and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. No other valid lease has been issued affecting the lands.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Michael Reed, Land Law Examiner, Minerals Section, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, PO Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208, (503) 808-6282,                         *Mike_Reed@or.blm.gov*.                    

Date: October 7, 2008.

Christopher B. DeWitt,

Chief, Minerals Section.

[FR Doc. E8-24258 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CAPSTEAD
MORTGAGE CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: July 29, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBSAndrew F. JacobsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: July 29, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCHPhillip A. ReinschSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Connie CURCIO et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 10847.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1937.

William L. Vandeventer, of Springfield, Mo., for appellants.

Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Atty., and Richard K. Phelps, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed on motion of appellee and certificate of clerk under rule 38.
**Exhibit 4.4**

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ESCROW AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRSTAMENDMENT TO THE ESCROW AGREEMENT BETWEEN EAST KANSAS AGRI-ENERGY, LLC (“EKAE”)AND GARNETT STATE SAVINGS BANK as escrow agent (the “Escrow Agent”) is made andentered into effective as of the 31st day of December, 2003 (the“Effective Date”) by and between EKAE and the Escrow Agent.

 

WHEREAS, EKAEand Escrow Agent agree to amend the Escrow Agreement between them.

 

NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Escrow Agreement is amended as follows:

 

1.  Paragraph 6 is amended by deleting Paragraph6 in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:

 

6.   TERMINATION OF ESCROW.  This Agreement and the Escrow createdhereunder shall be terminated as provided in paragraph 7 hereof or as of February13, 2004.

 

2.  Except as specifically amended above, all ofthe provisions of the Escrow Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the Parties hereto have hereunto affixed their signatures as of theday and year first written above.

 
| EKAE:                            |              |           |
|----------------------------------|-------------------|----------------|
|                             |              |           |
| EAST KANSAS  AGRI-ENERGY, L.L.C. |              |           |
|                             |              |           |
|                             |              |           |
|   /s/ William R. Pracht     |              |           |
| William R.  Pracht, President    |              |           |
|                             |              |           |
|                             |              |           |
| ESCROW  AGENT:                   |              |           |
|                             |              |           |
| GARNETT  STATE SAVINGS BANK      |              |
|                             |              |           |
|                             |              |           |
| By:                              | /s/ Dwight Nelson |           |
|                             |              |
|                             | Name:             | Dwight Nelson  |   |
|                             |              |           |
|                             | Title:            | Vice President |   |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998             FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997             AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                          602251                  602251
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    23826                   23826
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      20861                   20861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1313349                 1313349
<PP&E>                                         2967288                 2967288
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1895579)               (1895579)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3385050                 3385050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           331223                  331223
<BONDS>                                           5381                    5381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        197318                  197318
<OTHER-SE>                                     2773028                 2773028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3385050                 3385050
<SALES>                                         191139                  349522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 31692                  455665
<CGS>                                            29714                   51656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   148622                  639338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (5515)                 (11260)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (111415)                  187587
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (83019)                   19798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (28396)                  167789
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28396)                (167789)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)                     .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)                     .17
        

</TABLE>
#### Flora GOLDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Solomon E. SHAHMOON et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 129, Docket 28370.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct., 18, 1963.

Decided Oct. 18, 1963.

Sidney L. Garwin, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Julius Zizmor, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In open court we affirm the judgment below.
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 23 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANN MICHELE CABRERA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMAS J. HORGAS and DANIEL

S. MCCONKIE,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-4231

(D.C. No. 98-CV-773)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

This is a non-prisoner pro se appeal from the district court’s order denying

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff-appellant Ann Michele Cabrera filed

a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and also filed an

application to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The
- 2 -

district court denied Cabrera’s application on grounds that she appeared to have

sufficient means to pay the required filing fees.

The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 lies

within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Cross v. General Motors Corp.,

721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 980 (1984); Burns v.

Veterans Admin., No. 98-5069, 1998 WL 704704, *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 1998)

(unpublished disposition). 

Upon review of the affidavit originally submitted by Ms. Cabrera in support

of her application, as well as her arguments on appeal, we find no abuse of

discretion by the district court. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Ms. Cabrera’s

Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
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 Homeland Security

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount for Small Project Grants to State and local governments and private nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 1, 2008.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 1, 2008, and applies to major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James A. Walke, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC  20472, (202) 646-3834.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422 of the Stafford Act, to $64,200 for all disasters declared on or after October 1, 2008.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 5.4 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2008.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2008.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance Grants.

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E8-24062 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 107



CALCULATION OF
REGISTRATION FEE1



|Title
    of each Class of Security being
registered                                          |  | AmountbeingRegistered |  | ProposedMaximumOfferingPrice PerSecurity(1) |       | ProposedMaximumAggregateOfferingPrice(1) |   | Amount
    ofRegistrationFee
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------
|Units,
    each consisting of one share of common stock, $.0001 par value, and one Warrant(2) |  | 11,500,000
    Units  |  | $                                           | 10.00 |                                          | $ | 115,000,000                 
|Shares of common
    stock included as part of the Units(3)                                   |  | 11,500,000 Shares     |  |                                             | —     |                                          |   | —                           
|Redeemable Warrants
    included as part of the Units(3)                                      |  | 11,500,000 Warrants   |  |                                             | —     |                                          |   | —                           
|Shares of common
    stock underlying Redeemable Warrants included as part of the Units(3)    |  | 11,500,000 Shares     |  | $                                           | 11.50 |                                          | $ | 132,250,000                 
|Total                                                                                         |  |                       |  |                                             |       |                                          | $ | 247,250,000                 



|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | Estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the registration fee.                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | Includes 1,500,000 Units, consisting of 1,500,000 shares of common stock and 1,500,000 Redeemable Warrants underlying such Units,
which may be issued on exercise of a 45-day option granted to the underwriter.  
|(3) | Pursuant to Rule 416, there are also being registered an indeterminable number of additional securities as may be issued to prevent
dilution resulting from stock splits, stock dividends or similar transactions.
|(4) | No fee pursuant to Rule 457(g).
#### SANCHO, Treasurer, v. ACEVEDO.

No. 3229.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Dec. 8, 1937.

Col. William C. Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, of San Juan, P. R., and Nathan R. Margold, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

O. B. Frazer, of New York City (Valenten Polancode Jesus, of Cíales, P. R., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissing an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the District Court of San Juan, on the ground that the appeal was frivolous as it had previously decided a like question in a case where it had held that the Legislature of Puerto Rico had no power to enact a law by joint resolution.

The question raised is the same as the one decided by this court on December 8, 1937, in the case of Sancho v. Valiente & Company, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 327, where it was held that, under section 34 of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico of 1917, 48 U.S.C.A. §§ 822-841, 843, 844, no valid law could be enacted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico ex*332cept by bill. The question here presented is governed by that decision.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is affirmed, with costs to the appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Criminal Action No. 11-po-1133-KMT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

1. CAMERON JORDAN McARTHUR,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter comes before the court sua sponte based upon issues raised by the Defendant

at the detention hearing on October 10, 2011. Because the allegations in this case concern events

which allegedly transpired at the federal courthouse in Denver, Colorado, there may be a

reasonable basis for calling the impartiality of any of the Magistrate Judges sitting in Denver into

question pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. § 455. In applying § 455(a), a judge’s actual state of mind,

purity of heart, incorruptibility, or lack of partiality are not the issue, but rather whether a

reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge’s

impartiality. United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.1993) (citations omitted).

Cognizant of both the duty to disqualify and the duty to sit, as well as the requisite

determinations regarding these duties which must be made here, I will exercise my responsibility

to recuse myself from this case. Magistrate Judge David L. West, who predominately presides

Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 19 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

over matters occurring in the Durango, Colorado and western slope area, has expressed his

agreement to preside over this matter.

IT IS ORDERED

The Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to Magistrate Judge David L. West for all

further proceedings.

Dated this 13th day of October, 2011.

Case 1:11-po-01133-DW Document 19 Filed 10/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2