alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

PNC Bank, National Association, successor in
interest by merger to National City Bank,
successor in interest by merger to MidAmerica
Bank, FSB

Plaintiff,
Vv.

North Star Trust Company, an Illinois
Corporation, as Successor Trustee to Mid
America Bank, a Federal Savings Bank,
Successor in interest to Mid Town Bank and
Trust Company of Chicago, as Trustee under
Trust Agreement dated June 30, 1994 and known
as Trust Number 1929; Victor M. Colindres;
Matilde A. Colindres,

Defendants. _|

+

Case No. 12 cv 01307
Assigned Judge: Elaine E. Bucklo

Magistrate Judge: Martin C. Ashman

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association, successor in interest by
merger to National City Bank, successor in interest by merger to MidAmerica Bank, FSB, by its

attorneys Crowley & Lamb, P.C., and moves the Court for the entry of a Judgment of

Foreclosure and Sale in its favor and against the Defendant(s):

North Star Trust Company, an Illinois Corporation, as Successor Trustee to Mid America
Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, Successor in interest to Mid Town Bank and Trust Company of

Chicago, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated June 30, 1994 and known as Trust Number

1929; Victor M. Colindres and Matilde A. Colindres, and as grounds thereof state:


As appears from the Affidavit of Plaintiff placed on file in support of this Motion, and
from the pleadings and admissions on file, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
the Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in this case as a matter of law.

PNC Bank, National Association, successor to

National City Bank, successor in interest to
MidAmerica Bank, fsb

By: __/s/ Shannon C. McKinley
One of Its Attorneys

Patrick D. Lamb (ARDC #3128062)
Shannon C. McKinley (ARDC#6298914)
CROWLEY & LAMB, P.C.

221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1550
Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 670-6900

plamb @crowleylamb.com
smckinley@crowleylamb.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,889,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,946,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,680,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,471,880
<PP&E>                                      78,062,128
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,573,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,096,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,898,730
<BONDS>                                     14,460,274
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,624,729
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,956,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,096,095
<SALES>                                     68,365,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,925,409
<CGS>                                       69,414,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               71,938,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,022,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,220,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,176,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                   355,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,821,077
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,821,077
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        

</TABLE>
#### § 770.41 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to promulgate regulations and procedures governing entry upon Naval Submarine Base New London, and to prevent the interruption of the stated functions and operations of Naval Submarine Base New London, by the presence of any unauthorized person within the boundaries of Naval Submarine Base New London.
367002/1/WASHINGTON

January 16, 2015

VIA EMAIL

Mr. Robert Finamore

Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Polynesian Limited—Request for Thirty-Day Extension of Cabotage Operations, Docket

DOT-OST-2014-0144

Dear Mr. Finamore:

In accordance with the Department of Transportation’s Notice of Action Taken issued

December 30, 2014, in the captioned docket, I am writing on behalf of Polynesian Limited

(“Polynesian”) to request approval of an additional thirty days of cabotage operations between

Pago Pago and the Manu’a Islands, American Samoa. Polynesian requests approval of

cabotage operations through February 28, 2015.

The circumstances described in Polynesian’s initial application have not changed and

Polynesian’s application continues to meet the requirements of 49 USC 40109(g) for grant of

an emergency cabotage exemption. The Pago Pago-Manu’a Islands route remains without

U.S. carrier service. Polynesian is the only air carrier able to provide much needed

transportation between the two points, thus preventing severe hardship to American Samoa

residents. During November/December, Polynesian performed several medical evacuations

from the Manu’a Islands and also transported more than one hundred passengers,

government employees and engineers between Pago Pago and the Manu’a Islands. There is

a clear need for continued service for an additional thirty days.

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

1200 19th Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20036

charles.donley@squirepb.com

+1.202.626.6840
Mr. Robert Finamore

January 16, 2015

Page 2

367002/1/WASHINGTON

Please contact the undersigned with any questions.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Charles F. Donley II

Charles F. Donley II

cc: Office of the Governor

Executive Office Building, Third Floor, Utulei

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Fax: 011 684-633-2269

jhill@cooley.com; perkmann@cooley.com

alex.sene.jr@gmail.com

steve.morrissey@united.com; dan.weiss@united.com

pdoell@naca.cc
- 00001.TIF
- 00002.TIF
- 00003.TIF
- 00004.TIF
- 00005.TIF
- 00006.TIF
- 00007.TIF
- 00008.TIF
- 00009.TIF
- 00010.TIF
- 00011.TIF
- 00012.TIF
- 00013.TIF
- 00014.TIF
- 00015.TIF
- 00016.TIF
- 00017.TIF
- 00018.TIF
- 00019.TIF
- 00020.TIF
- 00021.TIF
- 00022.TIF
- 00023.TIF
- 00024.TIF
- 00025.TIF
- 00026.TIF
- 00027.TIF
- 00028.TIF
- 00029.TIF
- 00030.TIF
- 00031.TIF
- 00032.TIF
- 00033.TIF
- 00034.TIF
- 00035.TIF
- 00036.TIF
- 00037.TIF
- 00038.TIF
- 00039.TIF
- 00040.TIF
- 00041.TIF
- 00042.TIF
- 00043.TIF
- 00044.TIF
- 00045.TIF
- 00046.TIF
- 00047.TIF
- 00048.TIF
- 00049.TIF
- 00050.TIF
- 00051.TIF
- 00052.TIF
- 00053.TIF
- 00054.TIF
- 00055.TIF
- 00056.TIF
- 00057.TIF
- 00058.TIF
- 00059.TIF
- 00060.TIF
- 00061.TIF
- 00062.TIF
- 00063.TIF
- 00064.TIF
- 00065.TIF
- 00066.TIF
- 00067.TIF
- 00068.TIF
- 00069.TIF
- 00070.TIF
- 00071.TIF
- 00072.TIF
- 00073.TIF
- 00074.TIF
- 00075.TIF
- 00076.TIF
- 00077.TIF
- 00078.TIF
- 00079.TIF
- 00080.TIF
- 00081.TIF
161 So. 14

#### STATE v. MISTICH.

No. 33375.

April 11, 1935.

Hugh M. Wilkinson, Fred W. Oser, and Neil A. Armstrong, Jr., all of New Orleans, for relator.

LAND, Justice.

Relator has been indicted in the Twenty-Fifth district court for the parish of Plaque-mines on fifteen charges for cattle stealing and on eight charges for altering the mark or brand of cattle. The bail bond in each case was fixed by the district judge at $2,000, or a total of $46,000.

The Constitution of this, state provides that, “Excessive bail shall not be required,” and that, “All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties,” except “persons charged with capital offense where the proof is evident or the presumption great” Const. 1921, art. 1, § 12.

The offense of cattle stealing in this state is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years; and altering the mark or brand of cattle is a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than two years and a fine not exceeding $1,000.

The judge should take into consideration each case by itself in determining the amount of bail; and the determination of what is disproportionate to the offense involved depends on the moral turpitude of the crime, the danger resulting to the public from the commission of such offenses, and the punishment imposed or authorized by law therefor. State v. Hopson, 10 La. Ann. 550; State ex rel. Chandler, 45 La. Ann. 696, 702, 12 So. 884.

Although in the matter of the amount of bond required, the judge of the district court has large discretion, yet, in the present case, the amount of bail is manifestly excessive. State v. Gomilla, 131 La. 286, 59 So. 402.

*45We are of the opinion that a bail bond of $500 in each of the fifteen eases for cattle stealing, and a bail bond of $250 in each of the eight cases for altering the mark or brand of cattle, will be adequate to secure the presence of relator, who is a butcher, at the trial of the indictments returned against him.

For the reasons assigned, the rule nisi herein issued is made absolute, and relator’s application to have the amount of bail reduced is granted to the extent of permitting relator to obtain his liberty, after he shall have furnished bonds in the fifteen indictments for cattle stealing in the sum of $500 each, and bonds in the eight indictments for altering the mark or brand of cattle in the sum of $250 each, to the satisfaction of the trial judge, with all the required conditions, to which amount bonds in the sum of $46,000 heretofore required of relator are reduced.
### §7485. Referenda

#### (a) Initial referendum

#### (1) In general

Within the 60-day period immediately preceding the effective date of an order, as provided in section 7483(b)(3) of this title, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum among processors who, during a representative period as determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in processing, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the order shall go into effect.

#### (2) Approval of order

The order shall become effective, as provided in section 7483(b) of this title, only if the Secretary determines that the order has been approved by not less than a majority of the processors voting in the referendum and if the majority processed more than 50 percent of the popcorn certified as having been processed, during the representative period, by the processors voting.

#### (b) Additional referenda

#### (1) In general

Not earlier than 3 years after the effective date of an order approved under subsection (a), on the request of the Board or a representative group of processors, as described in paragraph (2), the Secretary may conduct additional referenda to determine whether processors favor the suspension or termination of the order.

#### (2) Representative group of processors

An additional referendum on an order shall be conducted if the referendum is requested by 30 percent or more of the number of processors who, during a representative period as determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in processing.

#### (3) Disapproval of order

If the Secretary determines, in a referendum conducted under paragraph (1), that suspension or termination of the order is favored by at least 2/3 of the processors voting in the referendum, the Secretary shall—

(A) suspend or terminate, as appropriate, collection of assessments under the order not later than 180 days after the date of determination; and

(B) suspend or terminate the order, as appropriate, in an orderly manner as soon as practicable after the date of determination.

#### (c) Costs of referendum

The Secretary shall be reimbursed from assessments collected by the Board for any expenses incurred by the Secretary in connection with the conduct of any referendum under this section.

#### (d) Method of conducting referendum

Subject to this section, a referendum conducted under this section shall be conducted in such manner as is determined by the Secretary.

#### (e) Confidentiality of ballots and other information

#### (1) In general

The ballots and other information or reports that reveal or tend to reveal the vote of any processor, or any business operation of a processor, shall be considered to be strictly confidential and shall not be disclosed.

#### (2) Penalty for violations

An officer or employee of the Department who knowingly violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to the penalties described in section 7484(i)(3)(C)(ii) of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §576, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1081.)
#### POUGHKEEPSIE TRUST CO. v. LANE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April Term, 1903.)

Action by the Poughkeepsie Trust Company against Charles E. Lane and others, constituting the board of review of assessments made by *1142the assessor of the city of Poughkeepsie for the year 1902.

No opinion. The court desires to see the counsel in this case.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2189

RANDELL E. BUCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN K. GREENLEE, Individually and in his official capacity 

as Justice of the Superior Court of Gaston County; PAULA 

BRINKLEY, Individually and in her official capacity as 

Social Worker for Gaston County Department of Social 

Services; MELANIE J. RICHARDS, Individually and in her 

official capacity as MSW, Program Supervisor, Office of the 

Guardian Ad Litem, Judicial District 27A; PAMELA DAVIS, 

Individually and in her official capacity as Guardian Ad 

Litem, Judicial District 27A; KEITH MOON, Individually and 

in his official capacity as Director, Gaston County 

Department of Social Services; ROBERT BECKER, Individually 

and in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board, 

Gaston County Department of Social Services; SHERRY S. 

BRADSHER, Individually and in her official capacity as 

Director NC Department of Health and Human Services, 

Division of Social Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00540-RJC-DSC)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randell E. Buck, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., 

Gerald Kevin Robbins, Special Deputy Attorneys General, Raleigh, 

North Carolina; Martha Raymond Thompson, STOTT, HOLLOWELL, 

PALMER & WINDHAM, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Randell E. Buck appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Buck v. Greenlee, No. 3:10-cv00540-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2011). We 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.

AFFIRMED
Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:104

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:105

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:106

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:107

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:108

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:109

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:110

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:111

Case: 1:12-cv-01612 Document #: 39 Filed: 09/07/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:112
#### In the Matter of Robert Silverlieb, an Infant.

Judgment of the Children’s Court of Albany County which found appellant to be a delinquent child and placed him on probation, unanimously affirmed. The court correctly found that the acts proven were not such as would, if committed by an adult, constitute either unlawful entry or attempted rape. These acts would, however, warrant the conviction of an adult of assault in the third degree and they alone were sufficient basis for the finding.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 11311]

                    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the person known as Sultan Yusuf Hasan al-`Arif, also known as Qital al-`Abdali, also                           ( print page 3228)                        known as Qattal al-`Abdali, also known as Qital al-Najdi, also known as Abu Musab al-Saudi, is a foreign person who is a leader of al-Qa'ida, a group whose property and interests in property are concurrently blocked pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.                

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: January 6, 2021.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00632 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
#### Rose L. Steinberg et al., Respondents, and Harry Lewis et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v. Richard W. Altschuler et al., Appellants, and Republic Pictures Corporation, Defendant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Order, entered on May 1, 1964, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants and the motion granted, with $10 costs. This stockholders’ derivative action was begun in 1954. The last step taken was the completion of an examination before trial of the plaintiffs in January, 1961. The affidavit of merits, the correspondence between the attorneys, and the history of the course of the lawsuit present the picture of an action brought in the hope of obtaining a settlement. When this was not forthcoming, there was extreme reluctance to proceed with the action. This, plus the long period of inactivity, are the indicia of abandonment which mandate dismissal *(Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25). While actions of this character usually, and to a degree necessarily, move more slowly than most others, they are still, making allowance for their difficulties, subject to the same rules as regards dismissal for failure to prosecute *(Lurie*v. *Abelove,*20 A D 2d 631). Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1535** 

I n R e: MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 5:04

- CR

- 00371

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Befor e MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to correct an alleged clerical error in an order. We conclude Abdullah is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Abdullah is not available by way of ma ndamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 4(a)-5

                                AMENDMENT NO. 4

                                      TO

                                     PP&L

                         EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

    WHEREAS, PP&L, Inc. ("PP&L") has adopted the PP&L Employee Stock Ownership
Plan ("Plan") effective January 1, 1975; and

    WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective January 1, 1998, and
subsequently amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and

    WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Plan;

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

I.  Effective January 1, 1999 the following section of Article II is amended to
    read:

    2.14  "Employee" shall mean any person classified by a Participating Company
as an employee of such Participating Company, including officers, shareholders,
or directors who are employees, but excluding:

   (d)    persons classified by the Participating Company as cooperative
associates or college interns, as those terms are defined under Participating
Company policy.

    II.  Except as provided for in this Amendment No. 4, all other provisions of
         the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 4 is executed this _____ day of
________________, 1999.
                                      PP&L, INC.

                                      By:_______________________________________
                                        John M. Chappelear
                                        Vice President-Investments & Pensions