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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Brenda A. Stewart

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−08973

Honorable James B. Zagel

Illinois Institute of Technology

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 15, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel:Case is hereby dismissed

pursuant to FRCvP 4(m), failure to serve complaint. Civil case terminated. Mailed

notice(drw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Nathan Finkel.

Motion for an order opening default granted insofar as to vacate the order of this court, entered on September 29, 1960, and reinstating the appeal on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 12, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before December 27, 1960. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
1442.202 Assignment of contract administration. ( a ) The decision to withhold normal individual contract administration functions is delegated to one level above the CO.
( b ) The delegation of authority to issue orders under provisioning procedures in existing contracts and under basic ordering agreements for items and services identified in the schedule must be approved at one level above the CO.
§ 865.101 References. ( a ) Title 10 U.S.C., section 1553.
( b ) Title 38 U.S.C., sections 101 and 3103, as amended by Pub. L. 95-126, October 8, 1977.
( c ) DOD Directive 5000.19, “Policies for the Management and Control of Information Requirements,” March 12, 1976.
( d ) DOD Directive 5000.11, “Data Elements and Data Codes Standardization Program,” December 7, 1964.
( e ) DOD Directive 5000.12-M “DOD Manual for Standard Data Elements,” December 1981.
( f ) DOD Directive 1332.14, “Enlisted Administrative Separations,” January 28, 1982.
( g ) DOD Directive 5400.7, “DOD Freedom of Information Act Program,” March 24, 1980; title 5 U.S.C., section 552.
( h ) DOD Directive 5400.11, “Department of Defense Privacy Program,” June 9, 1982; title 5 U.S.C., section 552a.
( i ) Title 10 U.S.C., chapter 47, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
( j ) Wood v. Secretary of Defense, Civ. No. 77-0684 (D.D.C.) (Order, December 3, 1981).
( k ) Urban Law Institute of Antioch College, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, Civ. No. 76-0530, (D.D.C.) (Stipulation of Dismissal, January 31, 1977) (Order and Settlement Agreement, July 30, 1982).
( l ) Air Force Regulation 35-41, Vol III, Separation Procedures for USAFR Members, dated October 30, 1975.
( m ) Air Force Regulation 36-2, Officer Personnel, Administrative Discharge Procedures, August 2, 1976.
( n ) Air Force Regulation 36-3, Officer Personnel, Administrative Discharge Procedures, August 2, 1976.
( o ) Air Force Regulation 36-12, Officer Personnel, Administrative Separation of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers, July 15, 1977.
( p ) Air Force Regulation 39-10, Separation Upon Expiration of Term of Service, for Convenience of Government, Minority, Dependency and Hardship, January 3, 1977.
( q ) Air Force Manual 39-12, Separation for Unsuitability, Misconduct, Resignation, or Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service and Procedures for the Rehabilitation Program, September 1, 1966.
( r ) Air National Guard Regulation 39-10, Enlisted Personnel-Separation, December 30, 1971.
**Exhibit32.1**

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

I, William L. Bridgford,Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)           theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedJanuary 26, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or780(d)); and

(2)           theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 12, 2007
|        | /s/       William L. Bridgford |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | William L.  Bridgford, Chairman                         |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                          |

 

19

----
#### 1403.603 Responsibilities of the contracting officer.

The CO shall prepare a written determination and findings for the signature of the HCA when requesting authorization to allow a contract award to a Government employee or business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Government employees.
#### Peter Reilly, Respondent, v. Otis Elevator Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order, entered September 30, 1963, denying motion of defendant Otis Elevator Company to dismiss the complaint for failure of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The plaintiff failed to show any *768reasonable excuse in justification of the inordinate delay of 30 months in placing this action upon the calendar. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s belated stipulation to transfer the action to Civil Court is not available as a valid excuse for the delay. There was a similar motion to dismiss by a codefendant in this action, and the order of Special Term denying such motion was unanimously reversed by this court and the motion granted. (See *Reilly*v. *Otis Elevator Co.,*20 A D 2d 530; see, also, *Sortino*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
Exhibit
      23(a)


CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-3 (Nos. 333-116478, 333-116478-01, 333-116478-02, 333-85716, 333-85716-01,
        333-85716-02, 333-106200 and 106200-01), the Registration Statements on Form
        S-3D (Nos. 333-128543 and 333-102845), and the Registration Statements on
        Form
        S-8 (Nos. 333-02003, 333-112453, 333-110372, and 333-95967) of PPL Corporation
        of our report dated February 24, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial
        statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the
        effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
        of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
        10-K.
 
 
 /s/
          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 Philadelphia,
        Pennsylvania
 March
        3,
        2006
#### Harry Gzanowicz, Appellant, v. City of Little Falls et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. (Appeal from judgment of Herkimer Trial Term dismissing the complaint on motion by defendants at the close of plaintiff’s ease in an action for damages for illegal arrest.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.33 Filing a claim. ( a ) *Elements of a proper claim.* A claim is must be filed on a Standard Form 95 or other written document. It must be signed by the Claimant or authorized agent, be for money damages in a sum certain, and lay out a basic statement as to the nature of the claim that will allow the Air Force to investigate the allegations contained therein.
( b ) *Amending a claim.* A claimant may amend a claim at any time prior to final action. To amend a claim, the claimant or his or her authorized agent must submit a written, signed demand.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83690, Nov. 22, 2016]
### §581. Standards of export; establishment; shipping without certificate forbidden; hearings

It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or offer for shipment or for any carrier, or any steamship company, or any person to transport or receive for transportation to any foreign destination, except as provided in this chapter, any apples in packages which are not accompanied by a certificate issued under authority of the Secretary of Agriculture showing that such apples are of a Federal or State grade which meets the minimum of quality established by the Secretary for shipment in export. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe, by regulations, the requirements, other than those of grade, which the fruit must meet before certificates are issued. The Secretary shall provide opportunity, by public hearing or otherwise, for interested persons to examine and make recommendation with respect to any standard of export proposed to be established or designated, or regulation prescribed, by the Secretary for the purposes of this chapter.

(June 10, 1933, ch. 59, §1, 48 Stat. 123; Pub. L. 106–96, §1(c), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1321.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–96 struck out "and/or pears" after "any apples" and "or pears" after "such apples".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Act June 10, 1933, ch. 59, §11, as added by Pub. L. 106–96, §1(a), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1321, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Export Apple Act'.".
<PAGE>   1


                            THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                           JUNE 30,                     JUNE 30,
                                                  -------------------------    --------------------------
                                                    1999           1998           1999            1998
                                                  ----------     ----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Common shares outstanding beginning of period      7,012,107      7,907,123      7,005,107      7,905,523

Effect of Weighting Shares:
       Employee stock options exercised                1,261          8,487          6,099          5,580
       Issue of treasury stock                         4,024          2,004          4,024          2,004
                                                  ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
Basic                                              7,017,392      7,917,614      7,015,230      7,913,107
                                                  ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
Common shares outstanding beginning of period      7,012,107      7,907,123      7,005,107      7,905,523

Effect of Weighting Shares:
       Employee stock options exercised                1,261          8,487          6,099          5,580
       Employee stock options outstanding             88,470        210,369        104,278        228,200
       Issue of treasury stock                         4,024          2,004          4,024          2,004
                                                  ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
Diluted                                            7,105,862      8,127,983      7,119,508      8,141,307
                                                  ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
Net income                                        $1,040,000     $1,123,000     $  398,000     $2,118,000
                                                  ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE:
Basic                                             $     0.15     $     0.14     $     0.06     $     0.27
                                                  ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
Diluted                                           $     0.15     $     0.14     $     0.06     $     0.26
                                                  ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
### §8000. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1623(b), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1025, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1623(b), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1753

Section, Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1617, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 222, related to renewed availability of market loss assistance and certain emergency assistance to persons that failed to receive assistance under earlier authorities.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 repealed this section. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6898

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

VANNIS L. LIVERMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:95-cr-00151-JBF-FBS-6) 

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 22, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Vannis L. Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Vannis L. Liverman appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c) (2006), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Liverman, No. 2:95-cr-00151-JBF-FBS-6 

(E.D. Va. filed April 9, 2008 and entered April 10, 2008). 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
Fourth Department,

October, 1964

(October 22, 1964)

#### Baldwin-Hall Co., Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 35692.)

Judgment insofar as it awards damages to claimant unanimously reversed on the law and facts and claim dismissed and otherwise judgment affirmed, without costs of these appeals to either party. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new conclusions made. Memorandum: The State appeals from that portion of the judgment which makes an award to claimant in the sum of $57,000 plus interest as damages for diminution in value of claimant’s property caused by the change of grade of Oswego Boulevard in front of claimant’s premises for the purpose of construction of an arterial highway. No part of claimant’s property was appropriated. The damages claimed by claimant were the result of loss of direct access to the new highway, diversion of traffic making vehicular access to the premises more circuitous from two directions, loss of view by boulevard users and impairment of light and air, none of which give rise to compensable damages under the change of grade statute. (See Second Class Cities Law, § 99.) In *Selig*v. *State of New York*(10 N Y 2d 34) the court said at page 39: “ It has long been the rule in this State that consequential damages may not be recovered by an abutting property owner for the diminution in value of his property because the State, in changing the course of a adjoining highway, interferes with the access to his land or diverts traffic therefrom. Damages resulting merely from circuity of access are considered as *damnum absque injuria”.*(See, also, *Nettleton Co.*v. *State of New York,*11 A D 2d 899; *Hall & McChesney*v. *State of New York,*15 Misc 2d 748, affd. 11 A D 2d 899, mot. for lv. to app. den. 8 N Y 2d 710; *National Biscuit Co.*v. *State of New York,*12 A D 2d 998, mod. 14 A D 2d 729, affd. 11 N Y 2d 743, cert. den. 370 U. S. 924.) We conclude that the diminution in value of claimant’s property is considered as *damnum absque injuria.*Accordingly, the judgment awarding damages should be reversed and the claim dismissed; in all other respects the judgment should be affirmed. (Cross appeals from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for damages sustained by reason of change of grade for reconstruction of highway; and appeal by State from an order which reopened the trial of the claim for the introduction of additional testimony on the question of damages.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
#### 1602.170-18 Postal Service annuitant.

*Postal Service annuitant* has the meaning set forth in 5 U.S.C. 8903c(a)(8).

[88 FR 20408, Apr. 6, 2023]
(January 12, 1979)

#### In the Matter of Ada Messina, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, Admitted under the Name Ada Sposato, Respondent. Joint Bar Associa*671tion Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

— Application by petitioner, pursuant to statute (Judiciary Law, §90, subd 4) to have respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law upon the ground that she has ceased to be an attorney by virtue of having been convicted of a felony. On November 17, 1978 Ada Messina (who was admitted to practice in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department on March 20, 1950 under the name Ada Sposato) was convicted, after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of preparing and submitting and aiding in the preparation and submission of fraudulent claims for payment to the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the New York State Department of Labor, Unemployment Division (US Code, tit 18, §§ 286, 287, 1341, 1342), all felonies. Accordingly, by virtue of subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, Ada Messina has ceased to be an attorney and counselor at law or competent to practice law as such. Application granted, an order will be entered directing that the respondent’s name be forthwith struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Titone and Margett, JJ., concur.
### §1775. Retention of nonimmigrant visa applications by the Department of State

The Department of State shall retain, for a period of seven years from the date of application, every application for a nonimmigrant visa under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) in a form that will be admissible in the courts of the United States or in administrative proceedings, including removal proceedings under such Act [8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.], without regard to whether the application was approved or denied.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title VI, §606, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 565.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Immigration and Nationality Act, referred to in text, is act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, which is classified principally to chapter 12 (§1101 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of this title and Tables.
1028.307-1 Group insurance plans. ( a ) Plans shall be submitted to the CO.
#### 1614.000 Applicability.

FAR part 14 has no practical application to FEHBP contracts in view of the statutory exemption provided by 5 U.S.C. 8902.

[52 FR 16039, May 1, 1987]
#### 1319.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting assistance program.
1352.208-70 Restrictions on printing and duplicating. As prescribed in 48 CFR 1308.802-70, insert the following clause: Restrictions on Printing and Duplicating (APR 2010) (a) The contractor is authorized to duplicate or copy production units provided the requirement does not exceed 5,000 production units of any one page or 25,000 production units in the aggregate of multiple pages. Such pages may not exceed a maximum image size of 103 ⁄ 4 by 141 ⁄ 4 inches. A “production unit” is one sheet, size 81 ⁄ 2 × 11 inches (215 × 280 mm), one side only, and one color ink. Production unit requirements are outlined in the Government Printing and Binding Regulations. (b) This clause does not preclude writing, editing, preparation of manuscript copy, or preparation of related illustrative material as a part of this contract, or administrative duplicating/copying (for example, necessary forms and instructional materials used by the contractor to respond to the terms of the contract). (c) Costs associated with printing, duplicating, or copying in excess of the limits in paragraph (a) of this clause are unallowable without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. If the contractor has reason to believe that any activity required in fulfillment of the contract will necessitate any printing or substantial duplicating or copying, it shall immediately provide written notice to the Contracting Officer and request approval prior to proceeding with the activity. Requests will be processed by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 8.802. (d) The contractor shall include in each subcontract which may involve a requirement for any printing, duplicating, and copying in excess of the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this clause, a provision substantially the same as this clause, including this paragraph (d).
(End of clause) [75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 14, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 130194(59)(60)(61) Maura D. Corrigan
 13096(47) Robert P. Young, Jr.
 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

THE GREATER BIBLE WAY TEMPLE OF 

JACKSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 130194 

v COA: 250863 

Jackson CC: 01-003614-AS 

CITY OF JACKSON, JACKSON PLANNING 

COMMISSION, and JACKSON CITY COUNCIL, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion under State Bar Rule 15, 

sec 2 for temporary permission for David Shelton Parkhurst to appeal for amicus 

National League of Cities is GRANTED. The motion by the National League of Cities 

for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED. The motions by 

defendants-appellants for extension to July 10, 2006 of the time for filing their briefs on 

appeal are GRANTED. 

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

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

August 14, 2006 

 Clerk