alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M. P. No. 75-86.

#### Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company *v.*John H. Norberg, *Tax Administrator.*

*Lee A. Worrell,*for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Gregory L. Benik,*Special Asst. Attorney *General,.Perry Shatkin,*Chief Legal Officer (Taxation), for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.

Joslin, J. not participating.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7819

WAYNE DOUGLAS BUTTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. STUBBLEFIELD, Master Jail Officer; MR. CHASE, Sgt./Supervisor Laundry; MR. REEVES, Sgt./Housing Unit Manager; MR. FOX, Sgt./Hearings Officer; D. L. SIMONS, Asst. Superintendent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-873) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Douglas Butts, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Douglas Butts appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Butts v. Stubblefield , No. CA-02-873 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 18, 2002, entered Nov. 19, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
ESSA Public Input Meeting

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

251 Charles E. Young Drive West

Carnesale Commons, Palisades Room

Los Angeles, CA 90095

January 19, 2016 | 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Name Organization

Laurel Ashlock Association of California School Administrators

Candis Bowles Disability Rights California

Heidi Brewington California Parent Teacher Association

Matt Chapman Northwest Evaluation Association 

H. Gary Cook WIDA at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research

Rudy Cuevas YouthBuild Charter School of California

Ruth Cusick Public Counsel

Joan Davidson NA

Loring Davies Whittier Union High School District

Delia De la Vara National Council of La Raza

Pamela Donnelly Gate College System

Elliott Duchon NA

Louis M. Gomez Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Sandra Goodwick NA

Claudia Goytia American Heart Association

Tony Gueringer University of California Los Angeles Black Alumni Association

Lydia Gutierrez NA

Carrie Hahnel The Education Trust - West

Angela Hasan University of Southern California Rossier School of Education

David Hinojosa Intercultural Development Research Association

Paul Hirsch Linked Learning Alliance

Chris Hofmann Teach Plus

Bootsie Battle Holt Teach Plus

Michelle Youngblood Jarman NA

Misti Kemmer NA

Cynthia Lim Los Angeles Unified School District

Christopher Lund Long Beach Unified School District

Roxana Marachi NA

Deborah Marcus Communities in Schools of Los Angeles

Margaret Martin Harmony Project

Judy McKinley Los Angeles Learning Disabilities Association

Colin Miller California Charter Schools Association

Mike Hoa Nguyen National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in 

Education

Eloy Ortiz Oakley Long Beach Community College District

Gary Orfield Civil Rights Project, University of California Los Angeles

Juan Pena Youth Justice Coalition

Page 1 of 2
ESSA Public Input Meeting

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

251 Charles E. Young Drive West

Carnesale Commons, Palisades Room

Los Angeles, CA 90095

January 19, 2016 | 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Marika Pfefferkorn Minnesota Education Equity Partnership

David Rattray Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Marisol Rerucha NA

Patricia Rucker California Teachers Association

Thomas Saenz MALDEF

Araceli Sandoval-Gonzalez Early Edge California

Patty Scripter California State Parent Teacher Association

Ernie Silva School for Integrated Academics and Technologies

Mark Slavkin Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts

Ilene Straus California State Board of Education

Mike Stryer Teach Plus

Rico Tamayo California Federation of Teachers 

Tom Torlakson California Superintendent of Public Instruction

Michelle Traiman National Center for Youth Law

Hario Vasquez A Better Tomorrow Education

Donna Weiss Communities in Schools, Inc

Gina Womack Families and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children

Sylvia Youngblood Learning Disabilities Association of America

Steve Zimmer Los Angeles Unified School District

*NA denotes an individual, such as a parent or teacher, who is not representing an organization. 

Page 2 of 2
§ 989.4 Initial considerations. Air Force personnel will: ( a ) Consider and document environmental effects of proposed Air Force actions through AF Forms 813, EAs, FONSIs, EISs, RODs, and documents prepared according to E.O. 12114.
( b ) Evaluate proposed actions for possible CATEX from environmental impact analysis (appendix B).
( c ) Make environmental documents, comments, and responses, including those of other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments, and the public, part of the record available for review and use at all levels of decisionmaking.
( d ) Review the specific alternatives analyzed in the EIAP when evaluating the proposal prior to decisionmaking.
( e ) Ensure that alternatives to be considered by the decisionmaker are both reasonable and within the range of alternatives analyzed in the environmental documents.
( f ) Pursue the objective of furthering foreign policy and national security interests while at the same time considering important environmental factors.
( g ) Consider the environmental effects of actions that affect the global commons.
( h ) Determine whether any foreign government should be informed of the availability of environmental documents. Formal arrangements with foreign governments concerning environmental matters and communications with foreign governments concerning environmental agreements will be coordinated with the Department of State by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations (SAF/IEI) through the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment). This coordination requirement does not apply to informal working-level communications and arrangements.
[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 37106, July 9, 2007; 79 FR 35286, June 20, 2014]
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LEOPOLD R. BRANDENBURG, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-2259

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in No. 1:22-cv-02120-BAH, Judge 

Beryl A. Howell.

______________________

Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Leopold R. Brandenburg, Sr. brought this action challenging his separation from federal employment and the 

denial of a waiver from his obligation to pay back over 

$100,000 in unearned salary. The United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia dismissed his complaint. 

Mr. Brandenburg has appealed that judgment to this court. 

Having now considered the parties’ responses to this 

court’s show cause order, we transfer the case to the United 

Case: 23-2259 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023
2 BRANDENBURG v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

This appeal does not fall within the limited authority 

that Congress granted this court to review decisions of federal district courts. That jurisdiction generally extends to 

cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court 

from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see

§1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the 

United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 

U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(c)(1); Bragg v. Keohane, 820 F.2d 402, 403–04 (Fed. 

Cir. 1987). And Mr. Brandenburg’s case does not fit into 

any of those categories. Accordingly, we transfer to the

D.C. Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1294(1); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

December 14, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 23-2259 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023
#### Maranatha Montas, Appellant, v Joseph V. Tuelia, Jr., et al., Respondents.

[832 NYS2d 815]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered February 10, 2006, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350-351 [2002]). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury *829by submitting competent medical evidence in admissible form *(see Fisher v Williams,*289 AD2d 288, 289 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Co vello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NEW ENGLAND CARPENTERS ) 

HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, ) 

 ) No. 1:12-cv-01662 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

 v. ) 

 ) 

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

AGREED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

 Defendant Abbott Laboratories, by its attorneys, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), 

respectfully requests that the Court grant Defendant an extension to and including June 4, 2012, 

to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint. In support of its Motion, Defendant 

states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint on March 7, 2012. 

2. Defendant presently has until April 4, 2012 to move, answer, or otherwise 

respond to the Complaint. 

3. Defendant Abbott Laboratories is continuing its investigation of the claims 

alleged in the Complaint, and therefore requests an extension of the deadline for it to move, 

answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint. This is the first request for an extension of this 

deadline. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. 

4. This request is being made in good faith and will not cause undue delay or 

prejudice to any party. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01662 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/02/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:81
 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant Abbott Laboratories respectfully 

requests that the Court enter an Order granting Defendant an extension of time, to and including 

June 4, 2012, to move, answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 ABBOTT LABORATORIES 

By: /s/ Samantha L. Maxfield 

 

Samantha L. Maxfield #6228825 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

35 W. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601-5600 

Tel: (312) 558-5600 

Fax: (312) 558-5700 

 Email: smaxfield@winston.com 

William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. 

PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & 

TYLER LLP 

1133 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Tel: (212) 336-2000 

Fax: (212) 336-2222 

E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com 

 

 Attorneys for Defendant Abbott 

Laboratories 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01662 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/02/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:82
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on April 2, 2012 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following 

persons at the given e-mail addresses: 

Kenneth A. Wexler 

Bethany R. Turke 

Amy E. Keller 

Dawn M. Goulet 

WEXLER WALLACE LLP 

55 West Monroe Street 

Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Tel: (312) 346-2222 

Fax: (312) 346-0022 

kaw@wexlerwallace.com 

brt@wexlerwallace.com 

aek@wexlerwallace.com 

dmg@wexlerwallace.com 

 On the same date, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion to be 

sent to the following individuals via U.S. Mail: 

Steve W. Berman 

Barabara A. Mahoney 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Thomas M. Sobol 

Lauren Guth Barnes 

Kristen Johnson Parker 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

 /s/ Samantha L. Maxfield 

Case: 1:12-cv-01662 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/02/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:83
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

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

| | 1. |  | the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 18, 2008
      (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d));
      and
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   
| | 2. |  | the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                          
| |   

|Dated: June 2,
      2008 | /s/ William L. Bridgford             | 
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | 
|                          | William L. Bridgford,
      Chairman
|                          | (Principal Executive
      Officer) 

26

---
# Table-76-A

# Table-76-B

# Table-76-C

# Table-76-D

# Table-76-E
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1039. MARK C. BLOOMFIELD v. SUSAN BLOOMFIELD.

Plaintiff Susan Bloomfield and defendant Mark Bloomfield (“Husband”) were

divorced in 2006. In December 2020, the trial court issued: (i) an order finding

Husband in contempt of various provisions in the parties’ divorce decree; and (ii) an

order regarding the sale of certain real property contemplated by the divorce decree.

Husband then filed this pro se direct appeal, seeking review of the December 2020

orders. We lack jurisdiction.

“Appeals from judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic

relations cases” must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review.

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). Because this is a domestic relations case, Husband was required to

comply with the discretionary appeal procedure to obtain review of the December

March 03, 2021
2020 orders.

1

 His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Given our ruling in this regard, we express no opinion on whether the

December 2020 orders were non-final, in which case compliance with the

interlocutory appeal procedures also would be required to seek appellate review. See

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a), (b); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587,

588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991).

03/03/2021
#### Frederick W. Brooks, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Rosemary Smit, et al., Respondents, v. Bernard Tiernan et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 28, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, striking out the answer and ordering an assessment of damages (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, issues are presented which should be resolved upon a trial. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

T.L., the father

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

and GUARDIAN AD LITEM

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 801

[ August 2, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Shari Africk

- Olefson , Judge; L.T. Case No.

062013DP005342AXXXCE

.

Bernard R. Appleman of the Law Office of Bernard R. Appleman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Mood y, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of

Children and Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals , and Rebecca L. Bartlett, Senior Attorney, Statewide G uardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem o/b/o S.L

. .

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, L EVINE and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### 15.204-4 Part III—List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments.

*Section J, List of attachments.* The contracting officer shall list the title, date, and number of pages for each attached document, exhibit, and other attachment. Cross-references to material in other sections may be inserted, as appropriate.
# December 2023 FOIA Log
140 FY 2021 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Summary of Financial Statement Audit 

and Management Assurances

The following tables provide a summarized report on the Department’s financial statement audit and its management 

assurances. For more details, the auditors’ report can be found beginning on page 98 and the Department’s management 

assurances on page 23.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Audit Opinion: Unmodified 

Restatement: No

Material Weaknesses Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance

Total Material Weaknesses 1 0 0 0 1

SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES

Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting—Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) 2

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses

Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

The Department had no material weaknesses in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting.

Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Operations—FMFIA 2 

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses

Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conformance With Financial Management System Requirements—FMFIA 4

Statement of Assurance: The Department systems conform to financial management system requirements.

Nonconformances Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total 

Nonconformances

0 0 0 0 0 0

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA)

Agency Auditor

1. System Requirements No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

2. Federal Accounting Standards No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

3. U.S. Standard General Ledger at Transaction Level No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted
#### GRAY LITHOGRAPH CO. v. SCHULMAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Consolidation of Actions—Removal Bonds.

Where the consolidation of actions at the instance of defendants affects the condition of. bonds given upon removal from the Municipal to the City Court, and will prejudice the plaintiff in an attempt to enforce the obligation of those bonds, consolidation should not be ordered.

*504Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by the Gray Lithograph Company against Lewis Schulman and others. From an order consolidating actions removed from the Municipal to the City Court, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

R. L. Weaver, for appellant.

Oppenheim & Severance, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The consolidation of these actions at the instance of the defendants affects the condition of the bonds given upon removal, and cannot but result in prejudice to the plaintiff should it attempt to enforce the obligation assumed. The fact that the sureties were the same on each bond, as is suggested, does not touch this question of the condition upon which the bonds were given, and the court’s discretion should not be exercised in favor of the application to consolidate the causes, under the circumstances.

Order reversed, with $io costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SCOTT MCMAHON, )

on behalf of plaintiff and the classes defined )

herein, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 12-cv-1410

)

vs. ) Judge Alonso

) Magistrate Judge Martin

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, )

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; )

ALEGIS GROUP, LLC; )

and TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

The parties hereby inform the Court that the parties have reached a settlement on a class 

basis in this case. The parties anticipate filing a motion for preliminary approval of the class 

action settlement within 45 days. The parties request that the Court strike all future deadlines 

and due dates.

Respectfully Submitted, 

s/Tiffany N. Hardy

Tiffany N. Hardy

Tiffany N. Hardy

EDELMAN, COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

20 S. Clark St. Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX) 

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 207 Filed: 07/18/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1730
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Tiffany N. Hardy, hereby certify that on July 18, 2016, a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing document was filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system and notification of such filing 

was sent to the following parties:

Nabil G. Foster

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com

David M. Schultz

dschultz@hinshawlaw.com

Joel David Bertocchi 

jbertocchi@hinshawlaw.com

s/ Tiffany N. Hardy

Tiffany N. Hardy

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

Tiffany N. Hardy

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

& GOODWIN, L.L.C.

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX) (may use for service of pleadings)

Email address for service: courtecl@edcombs.com

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 207 Filed: 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1731