alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 105 Filed 12/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 105 Filed 12/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02630-WJM-MEH Document 105 Filed 12/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the****Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. R. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

 

|        |                                                                                                                                         |        | /s/ H. R. Brown                           |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date:  |           August 14, 2003           |   |                                           |
|   |                                                                                                                                    |   | **H. R. Brown**                           |
|   |                                                                                                                                    |   | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

          - [AA-11265, AA-9807, AA-9515, AA-9804, AA-9742, AA-9891, AA-9887, AA-9672, AA-10191, AA-11366, AA-9650, AA-9649, AA-10281, AA-10194, AA-9679; AK-962-1410-HY-P]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

# SUMMARY:

As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Calista Corporation for lands located in the vicinity of Newtok and Chefornak, Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Anchorage Daily News.

# DATES:

The time limits for filing an appeal are:

1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until November 14, 2008 to file an appeal.

2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.

# ADDRESSES:

A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at                         *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.*                         Persons who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.                    

Judy A. Kelley,

Land Law Examiner, Resolution Branch (962).

[FR Doc. E8-24389 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 26 0 . ERI C SHEPHERD v . THE STATE.

In Ap ri l 2 01 3

, t h e t ri al co u rt rev o k ed t h ree y ears o f E ri c Sh ep herd ’ s p ro b at i o n,

aft er fi n d i n g t h at Sh ep h erd vi o l at ed a s peci al co n d i t io n of pro b at i o n. Sh ep herd fi l ed

a d irect ap p eal fro m t h a t o r d e r , w h i ch was di s m i s s ed b as ed on h i s fai l u re t o fo l l o w

t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u res

. S h ep h er d v. S t a t e , Cas e No

. A1 4 A1 0 6 5

(d i s m i s s e d M a r c h 1 1

, 20 1 4 ). He al s o fi l ed an ap pl i cat io n fo r d is cret i o nary ap p eal

fro m t h e o rd er, wh i ch we d i s m i s s ed as u n t i m e l y. S h ep her d v. S t a t e , Cas e No

. A1 4 D0 32 2 (d i s m i s s ed M a y 6

, 2 0 1 4 ). Sh ep h erd th en fi l ed an ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u r t ’s o rd er cl ari fy i n g a co n d it i on o f h i s

p ro b at i o n , wh i ch w e d en i ed o n t h e m eri t s

. S h ep her d v. S t a t e , Cas e No

. A1 5 D0 1 0 2

(d en i ed No v em

b er 7

, 2 0 1 4 ). Sh ep h erd has n o w fi l ed a n o t i c e o f a p p eal fro m t h e

d en ial o f h is ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

.

“ It i s ax i o m at i c t hat th e s am e i s s u e can n ot b e rel i t i g at ed a d in f i n i t u m

. Th e

s am e is t ru e o f ap p eal s o f t h e s am e i s s u e o n t h e s am e g ro u n d s.” Ech o l s v. S t a t e , 2 4 3

Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 5

, 7 7 6 (5 3 4 SE2 d 4 6 4 ) (2 0 00 ); s ee al s o Jo rd a n v. S t a te

, 2 5 3 Ga. Ap p.

5 1 0

, 5 1 1 (2 ) (5 59 SE2 d 5 2 8) (2 0 0 2 ). Th e d en ial o f Sh ep herd ’ s ap p l i cat i o n f o r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal w as an ad ju d i cat i o n o n t h e m eri t s an d i s n o t a d irect l y ap p eal ab l e

o rd er. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap peal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

March 26, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/26/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02745-LTB

WILLIAM L. GLADNEY,

Applicant,

v.

PEOPLE OF COLORADO, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REINSTATING CASE

This matter arises on the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. # 11) filed by Applicant, a

pro se prisoner litigant, on February 6, 2012. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the

Order of Dismissal and the Judgment entered on December 8, 2011. The Court must

construe the Motion liberally because Applicant is proceeding pro se. See Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.

1991). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the Motion.

The Court dismissed this action without prejudice because Applicant failed to

comply with Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s October 28, 2011 Order directing him

to submit a current, certified copy of his prisoner’s trust fund statement. On January 3,

2012, Applicant filed a Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) asking

that the dismissal be vacated. The Court denied the Rule 59(e) Motion because

Case 1:11-cv-02745-BNB Document 13 Filed 02/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Applicant failed to provide any reason or explanation that would explain his failure to

submit a certified account statement within the time provided.

Attached to the instant motion to reconsider, Applicant has submitted a

memorandum from the case manager at his facility. The memorandum explains that

Applicant’s case manager inadvertently provided him with an account statement that

was not certified. Based on the documentation Applicant has submitted, the Court finds

sufficient reason for vacating the dismissal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Applicant’s Motion (Doc. # 11) is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment, entered on

December 8, 2011, are vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to reinstate and

return this action to the Pro Se Docket. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action (Doc. No. 4) is

granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that process shall not issue until further order of the

Court.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of February , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02745-BNB Document 13 Filed 02/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Karen Argenti et al., Appellants, v Charles R. Serrano, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.), entered on August 17, 1990, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                                   SCOOP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>

                                                                              THREE MONTHS                      NINE MONTHS
                                                                            ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,             ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                         -------------------------      -------------------------
                                                                            1996           1997             1996         1997
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
<S>                                                                      <C>           <C>              <C>           <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        2,826,000      5,493,000        2,680,000     4,554,000
Conversion of redeemable common stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          927,000              0          412,000       309,000
Equivalent shares from the assumed exercise of options and             
  warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          301,000        301,000          301,000       301,000
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
Weighted average shares used in calculation of net loss per 
  share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        4,054,000      5,794,000        3,393,000     5,164,000
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
Net loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       $ (769,300)   $(1,676,300)     $(1,422,700)  $(3,325,500)
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------

Net loss per common share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       $    (0.19)   $     (0.29)     $     (0.42)  $     (0.65)
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
                                                                         ----------    -----------      -----------   -----------
</TABLE>














                                       18
#### GOOD et al. v. PICONE.

No. 9830.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 30, 1931.

Gordon Boswell and Milo Williams, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

St. Clair Adams and St. Clair Adams, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Suit was filed in the district court on June 2, 1922. Judgment in favor of the defendant was signed on March 7, 1924, and plaintiff secured an order of appeal on August 13, 1924. When the matter appeared on the docket of this court, it was several times continued by preference, and, finally, on November 3, 1926, was continued indefinitely. On November 9, 1931, more than five years after the indefinite continuance referred to, no action having been taken to restore the case to the docket and no other proceeding having been filed in the matter, appellees filed this motion to dismiss. i

 Article 3519 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, as amended by Act No. 107 of 1898, reads as follows:

> “If the plaintiff in this case, after having made his demand, abandons or discontinues it, the interruption [of prescription] shall be considered as having never happened.

> “Whenever the plaintiff having made his demand shall at any time before obtaining final judgment allow five years to elapse without having taken any steps in the prosecution thereof, he shall be considered as having abandoned the same.”

The Supreme Court, in the matter of Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Zimmerman & Sons, Inc., 167 La. 751, 120 So. 283, 284, held the codal provision above referred to to be applicable to suits pending on appeal, and in that decision is found the following language:

> “The codal provision applies to suits pending in this court as well as to suits pending in the inferior courts. New Orleans v. New Orleans Jockey Club, 129 La. 64, 55 So. 711. Since the plaintiff and appellant has failed to take any steps in the prosecution of its appeal during 5 years, it must be considered as having abandoned the suit.”

The facts on which that case was dismissed are identical .with those which we find presented here, and here, as there, the motion *871to dismiss was not opposed. See, also, Teutonia Loan & Building Co. v. Connolly, 133 La. 401, 63 So. 63; Losch v. Greco, 173 La. 223, 136 So. 572.

The motion .to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
"Date","Total","Households","Business","State and local govts.","Federal"
"1996",5.2,6.7,6.2,-1.5,4.0
"1997",5.3,5.9,9.0,4.3,0.6
"1998",6.8,7.8,12.3,6.3,-1.4
"1999",6.4,8.4,10.6,3.4,-1.9
"2000",4.9,9.1,9.2,1.3,-8.0
"","","","","",""
"2001",6.3,9.3,6.0,8.8,-0.2
"2002",7.2,10.6,2.5,11.0,7.6
"2003",8.2,11.6,2.7,8.3,10.9
"2004",9.0,11.6,5.9,7.4,9.0
"2005",9.5,11.7,7.8,10.2,7.0
"","","","","",""
"2005Q1",9.2,9.6,6.5,9.9,13.0
"2005Q2",8.2,11.9,7.8,7.3,0.6
"2005Q3",9.7,11.9,8.2,12.3,5.8
"2005Q4",9.6,11.6,7.7,9.7,8.0
"","","","","",""
"2006Q1",9.5,9.7,9.6,3.5,11.3
"2006Q2",6.7,9.2,8.4,6.6,-2.4
"2006Q3",6.7,6.8,7.7,9.3,3.3
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50049

 

LATREESE TABB,

Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant,

versus

DILLARD, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas 

(A-95-CV-257)

 

April 22, 1997

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment entered on the jury’s finding of intentional

infliction of emotional distress is reversed. The district judge

erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and

judgment J.N.O.V. on this claim. The evidence does not meet the

standard for outrageous conduct under Texas law. The judgment is

otherwise affirmed in all respects. 

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02765-PAB-BNB

DALIP BASANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY METCALF, M.D.,

JASON ROZESKI, M.D.,

PLATTE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, and

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Disclosure of Subsequent Expert

Witness Report Due to Inadvertent Disclosure [Doc. # 126, filed 4/2/2013] (the “Motion In

Limine”);

(2) Defendant United States’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Deposition Time Limit

[Doc. # 131, filed 4/9/2013] (the “Motion re Huffman Deposition”);

(3) Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order and

Motion for Immediate Hearing [Doc. # 135, filed 4/9/2013] (the “Motion to Quash”); and

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce F.R.C.P. 30(d)(1) and Request for Expedited

Briefing [Doc. # 137, filed 4/10/2013] (the “Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony”).

I held a hearing on the motions this morning and made rulings on the record, which are

incorporated here.

Case 1:11-cv-02765-PAB-BNB Document 156 Filed 05/01/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion In Limine [Doc. # 126] is DENIED;

(2) The Motion re Huffman Deposition [Doc. # 131] is GRANTED. The defendants

may reopen the deposition of Dr. Laurence Huffman for an additional 3.5 hours of examination. 

The deposition shall occur in person, and not by video conference, at a date, time, and place as

the parties may agree provided the deposition is completed not later than June 10, 2013;

(3) The Motion to Quash is GRANTED. Although I find that the contract in question

is relevant to matters in dispute of is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence, the United States failed to comply with the requirements of Butler v. Biocare Med.

Tech., Inc., 348 F.3d 1163, 1173 (10th Cir. 2003), concerning giving notice of the subpoena. 

The United States may obtain the contract pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum upon proper

notice and service; 

(4) The Motion re Scope of Expert Testimony [Doc. # 137] is DENIED; and

(5) At the parties’ request and on a showing of good cause, the discovery cut-off is

extended to and including July 2, 2013, for the completion of depositions only. 

Dated May 1, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02765-PAB-BNB Document 156 Filed 05/01/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

January 24, 2017

p0117 

# Order

Clerk January 24, 2017

154116

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154116

COA: 324668
Wayne CC: 14

- 005563

- FC

RUSSELL ROBERSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.3 05(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment

addressing the scoring of Offense Variable 7 (OV 7), MCL 777.37. The trial court record

does not reveal an assessment of a base level of fear or anxiety as sociated with the

offense of assault with intent to murder, and does not include a determination whether the

defendant’s conduct was intended to increase the victim’s fear or anxiety by a

considerable amount. See People v Hardy , 494 Mich 430, 442

- 443 (201 5). We

REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to make the determinations required

under Hardy for deciding whether points should be assigned for OV 7, using the version

of the sentencing guidelines in effect on the date that the sentencing offense wa s committed. MCL 769.34(2). If, after making the determinations required under Hardy

, the circuit court determines that OV 7 was correctly scored, it shall implement the relief

ordered by the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358, 398

- 399

(2015). If the circuit court determines that zero points should have been assigned for OV

7, it shall resentence the defendant. People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006). In all

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuad ed that the

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel: Notice of Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Disease, Disability, and Injury 
Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, Department of Health and 
Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through September 
18, 2010.
    For information, contact Elaine Baker, Executive Secretary, 
Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis 
Panel, Department of Health and Human Services, 57 Executive Park 
Drive, 4th Floor, Mailstop E72, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, telephone (770) 
498-0090; fax (770) 498-0011.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: October 8, 2008.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E8-24409 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P