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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DANIEL MEDINA and NIKITA GROSS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., a Maryland Real 

Estate Investment Trust, WILLIS INSURANCE 

SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 

California Corporation, and PS ILLINOIS 

TRUST, 

Defendants. 

 

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00170 

Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD 

Defendants Public Storage (incorrectly sued as Public Storage, Inc.) and PS Illinois Trust, 

by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move the Court for an additional fourteen days 

to file their answer or otherwise plead. In support of their motion, Defendants state as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on 

November 18, 2011. 

2. Defendants were served with a Summons and Complaint on December 11, 2011. 

Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 10, 2012, making their responsive pleading 

due on or before January 17, 2012. 

3. Due to business circumstances beyond Defendants’ control, the case was not 

assigned out to counsel until roughly two weeks ago. 

4. In addition, lead counsel for Defendants has been engaged in trial in the matter of 

Alexander Johnson v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., California Superior Court, Los Angeles 

County, Case No. BC456861, before the Honorable Michelle R. Rosenblatt from January 9, 2012 

through yesterday, January 18, 2012. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00170 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:57
- 2 -

5. In order to ensure time for adequate investigation, Defendants require an 

additional two weeks, or until January 31, 2012, to file their answer or otherwise plead. 

6. Defendants have not received any prior extensions of time to answer or otherwise 

plead. 

7. On January 19, 2012, counsel for Defendants telephoned Plaintiffs’ counsel, Carla 

Aikens, to confer regarding the request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel initially agreed to the extension. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently reneged on 

the agreement, now stating that Plaintiffs only agree to a 14-day extension of time to file an 

answer, but not any other responsive pleading. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the time for answering or otherwise 

plead be extended to January 31, 2012. 

Dated: January 19, 2012 s/ Dean A. Dickie 

 Dean A. Dickie 

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 

225 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Phone: (312) 460-4227 

Fax: (312) 460-4288 

Counsel for Defendants Public Storage and 

PS Illinois Trust 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-00170 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:58
#### REED & CARNRICK, Respondents, v. WHITE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Action by Reed & Carnrick against Fred White and others.

No opinion. Judgment modified, by inserting provision that plaintiffs first tender to defendants the sum of $500. for a conveyance of said premises, and, in case said conveyance shall not be made, plaintiffs shall have the relief provided by said judgment, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs to either party. If order is not agreed upon, to be settled by HOUGHTON, J.
#### Esther Glikman et al., Appellants, v Albert Horowitz, Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 7, 1977, which denied their motion to dismiss the first defense of defendant’s answer, i.e., that the plaintiffs failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant because of improper service of process, and sustained the said defense. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the plaintiffs obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd 2), i.e., by service of process upon a person of "suitable age and discretion” at the defendant’s actual business address, plus mailing a second copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant’s last known *residence.*It is undisputed that the process server mailed the second copy of the process to the defendant’s *business*address, which address was plainly listed in the telephone directory as an "office”. Process was never mailed to the defendant’s residence as mandated by the statute. This court has previously held that, absent the intervention of equity, such a defect cannot be disregarded as a mere procedural "irregularity” inasmuch as the statute must be strictly complied with to confer personal jurisdiction (see *Chalk v Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn & Queens,*58 AD2d 822). We have examined the record and find that there exist no grounds for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel (see *Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442, 448-449). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
1501.105-2 Arrangement of regulations. ( a ) *References and citations.* This regulation may be referred to as the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation or the EPAAR. References to EPAAR materials shall be made in a manner similar to that prescribed by FAR 1.105-2(c).
[49 FR 8835, Mar. 8, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 33572, June 20, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

    <ARTICLE>                         5
           
    <S>                               <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
    <PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
    <PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
    <CASH>                                            0
    <SECURITIES>                                      0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                     0
    <ALLOWANCES>                                      0
    <INVENTORY>                                       0
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
    <PP&E>                                            0
    <DEPRECIATION>                                    0
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
    <BONDS>                                           0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
    <PREFERRED>                                       0
    <COMMON>                                          0
    <OTHER-SE>                                  2384819
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
    <SALES>                                           0
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
    <CGS>                                             0
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
    <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
    <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
    <CHANGES>                                         0
    <NET-INCOME>                                      0
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0

    
</TABLE>
NUMBER 13

- 16

- 00 425

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PAMELA MANNING

, A ppellant

,

v.

CHARLES RANDALL COTH ES,

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B /A

MCDONALD'S OF BEEVIL LE,

MCDONALD'S #6798, MC DONALDS

CORP. 042/0323

, Appellee s

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 36th District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

________________________________________________ ____________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant’ s brief in the above cause was due on September 19, 2016 . On

October 3 , 2016 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely

filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas2

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of

this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not

significantly injured by the appellant’ s failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response

has been received from appellant.

Appellant ha s failed to either reasonably e xplain the failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file the brief, or file the brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b) (c)

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

1 0 th day of November , 20 16

.
§ 705.5 Taking of photos on board naval ships, aircraft and installations by members of the general public. ( a ) Visitors will not be allowed to take photographic equipment on board a naval ship or aircraft or into a naval activity or to take photographs within a naval jurisdiction unless specially authorized by the officer in command or higher authority.
( b ) Guests of the Navy who wish to take photos within naval jurisdictions will be advised of areas where photography is permitted. An escort will be assigned to assure that security is maintained, unless photography is permitted throughout the ship, aircraft or installation, or the areas in which it is not permitted are appropriately guarded or secured.
( c ) If there is reason to believe that film exposed by a visitor or media photographer contains classified information, the film will be processed under Navy jurisdiction. ( 1 ) Classified photos, if any, will be retained. All unclassified film will be returned to the owner.
( 2 ) When film exposed by civilian visitors or media representatives in sensitive areas is beyond the capability of the local command to process, it may be forwarded to the Commanding Officer, Naval Photographic Center, for processing. Any special processing instructions should be sent with the film.
### §3315a. Availability of competitive grant funds

Except as otherwise provided by law, funds made available to the Secretary to carry out a competitive agricultural research, education, or extension grant program under this or any other Act shall be available for obligation for a 2-year period beginning on October 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds are made available.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1469A, as added Pub. L. 107–171, title VII, §7217, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 449.)
#### George Cook, Appellant, v. Thomas R. Strong, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgl ment of Oswego Trial Term dismissing the complaint on a verdict of no cause of *1031action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
15.403-2 Other circumstances where certified cost or pricing data are not required. ( a ) The exercise of an option at the price established at contract award or initial negotiation does not require submission of certified cost or pricing data.
( b ) Certified cost or pricing data are not required for proposals used solely for overrun funding or interim billing price adjustments.
[75 FR 53143, Aug. 30, 2010]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Donald C. Wood, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has
executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report). The undersigned hereby
certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                 |  |                                               
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|November 4, 2009 |  | /s/    Donald C. Wood                         
|                 |  | Donald C. Wood,                               
|                 |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee
|                 |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                 



40
# 2012 GE Informational Rates
#### 1519.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting plan.

In determining the acceptability of a proposed subcontracting plan, the contracting officer shall obtain advice and recommendations from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, which shall in turn coordinate review by the Small Business Administration Procurement Center Representative (if any).
SECTION 302 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION

I, David Duquette, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of New Century Companies,
Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Omitted;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


April 15, 2005                      /s/ David Duquette
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name:  David Duquette
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 4.2

                                  ARTICLE FOUR

         The total number of shares of stock which the corporation has authority
to issue is Seventy-Five Million (75,000,000) shares, of which Fifty Million
(50,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the
"Common Stock) and Twenty-Five Million (25,000,000) shares shall be Preferred
Stock, par value $.0001 per share (the "Preferred Stock"). The corporation shall
be entitled to treat the person in whose name any share of its stock is
registered as the owner thereof for all purposes and shall not be bound to
recognize any equitable or other claim to, or interest in, such share on the
part of any other person, whether or not the corporation shall have notice
thereof, except as expressly provided by applicable law. The shares of the
Preferred Stock and Common Stock, respectively, shall have the following express
terms:

         SECTION 2. COMMON STOCK.

         2.1 Issuance, Consideration and Terms. Any unissued or treasury shares
of the Common Stock may be issued from time to time for such consideration (not
less than the par value thereof) as may be fixed from time to time by the Board
of Directors. The Common Stock shall be subject to the express terms of the
Preferred Stock and any series thereof. Each share of Common Stock shall be of
equal rank and shall be identical to every other share of Common Stock. Holders
of Common stock shall have such rights as are provided herein and by law.

         2.2 Voting Rights. Except as expressly required by law or as provided
in or fixed and determined pursuant to Section 1 of this Article Four, the
entire voting power and all voting rights shall be vested exclusively in the
Common Stock. Each holder of shares of Common Stock shall be entitled to one (1)
vote for each share standing in such holder's name on the books of the
corporation.

         2.3 Dividends. Subject to Section 1 of this Article Four, the holders
of Common Stock shall be entitled to receive, and shall share equally share for
share, when and as declared by the Board of Directors, out of the assets of the
corporation which are by law available therefor, dividends or distributions
payable in cash, in property or in securities of the corporation.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ TAIZHOU UNITED IMP. & EXP. CO. LTD., Plaintiff

GUANGZHOU JANGHO CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM

ENGINEERING CO., LTD., SHANGHAI JANGHO

CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM ENGINEERING CO., LTD., BEIJING JANGHO CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM ENGINEERING CO., LTD., BEIJING JIANGHEYUAN HOLDING CO., LTD., JANGHO

GROUP CO., LTD., JANGHO CURTAIN WALL HONG KONG LTD., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES , ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR TRADE COMMITTEE,

Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2022

- 2000

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No s . 1:16

- cv

- 00009

- LMG, 1:16

- cv

- 00012

- LMG, Senior Judge Leo M. Gordon.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________ Case: 22-2000 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2023J AMES K EVIN H ORGAN , DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented by G REGORY S. M ENEGAZ , A LEXANDRA H. S ALZMAN

.

D OUGLAS G LENN E DELSCHICK , Commercial LitigationBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant -appellee United States. Also represented by R EGINALD T HOMAS B LADES , J R ., B RIAN M. B OYNTON , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY ; J ESUS N IEVES S AENZ , Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of Commerce , Washington, DC

.

D ERICK H OLT , Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee Aluminum Extrusions F air Trade Committee. Also represented by R OBERT E. D E F RANCESCO , III, E LIZABETH S. L EE , A LAN H. P RICE , J OHN A LLEN R IGGINS , E NBAR T OLEDANO

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE , Chief Judge

, L OURIE and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 1 1 , 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 22-2000 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2023
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of American Building Control, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bryan C.W. Tate, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(a)  This Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ BRYAN C.W. TATE
-----------------------
Bryan C.W. Tate
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Current Report on Form 10-Q of Claires Stores,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Marla Schaefer, Acting Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Marla SchaeferMarla SchaeferJune 10, 2004
    Co-Chief Executive Officer
### §1912. Submission of legislative proposals

If the Secretary of Agriculture, after such consultation and receipt of such advice as provided in section 1911 of this title, determines that additional legislative authority is necessary to develop agricultural programs involving supply adjustments or marketing regulations through the use of marketing orders, marketing quotas or price-support programs, he shall formulate specific recommendations in the form of proposed legislation which shall be submitted to the Congress together with a statement setting forth the purpose and need for such proposed legislation.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title I, §103, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 295.)