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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 265 )

WELFARE FUND, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

vs. ) NO. 12 C 0139

)

ENGEL HEATING, LLC, an Illinois limited ) JUDGE GARY FEINERMAN

liability company, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT, PARTIAL JUDGMENT

AND FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO TURN

OVER MONTHLY FRINGE BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION REPORTS

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, and move for entryofjudgment bydefault against

Defendant, ENGEL HEATING, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, in the total amount of

$36,939.83, plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $939.25. 

Further, Plaintiffs move for entry of an order directing ENGEL HEATING, LLC, an Illinois

limited liability company, Defendant herein, to turn over monthly fringe benefit contribution reports

due for the months of September 2011 through the present date, pursuant to the Agreements and

Declarations of Trust to which Defendant is bound, said Defendant having failed to answer or otherwise plead to the Complaint and the monthly contribution reports being required in order to fully

liquidate Plaintiffs' claims.

On January 16, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Registered Agent (by

tendering a copy of said documents to his receptionist, Amanda Orlandini, who was authorized to

accept service) at his place of business (a copy of the Summons and Affidavit of Service is attached
hereto). Therefore, Defendant’s answer was due on February 6, 2012. As Defendant has failed to

timely answer the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request entry of default, partial judgment and

an order directing Defendant to turn over monthly fringe benefit contribution reports.

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6237001

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: junitz.geiringer@baumsigman.com

I:\265J\Engel Heating\#23746\motion.jdg.df.wpd

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and further

certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United States Mail to the following

non-CM/ECF participant on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 16th day of February 2012:

Mr. Terrence J. McKenna, Registered Agent

Engel Heating, LLC

Franks Gerkin & McKenna, PC

19333 E. Grant Highway

PO Box 5

Marengo, IL 60152

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geirnger 

Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6237001

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: jdunitz.geiringer@baumsigman.com

I:\265J\Engel Heating\#23746\motion.jdg.df.wpd
EXHIBIT J

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-11 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1678
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-11 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1679
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 113-11 Filed: 09/04/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1680
From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 9:56 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon <Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov>

Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>; Sroka, Kristin <ksroka@rti.org>; 

Holloway, Thomas C. (Tom) <tcholloway@rti.org>; Paul Regina 

<pregina@bia.org>; Schimmel, Terry (Bricks - Phenix City) 

<Terry.Schimmel@boral.com>; Garth Tayler <gtayler@brick.com>

Subject: Green brick mercury data

Ok- Permission from almost everyone has been received and those data are attached. You will 

see from the attached that a few are still blank- as we are still accepting samples and the results 

were not yet available. In fact, there may be a few new ones coming in the past week or so. If I 

receive permission, I will also include the last few companies (that I did not yet receive 

permission from) in the next round --I will also be asking them about a CBI route. 

We will be completing our review as well and would love to talk to you about where we are in 

the next week or so.

Thanks

susan

Susan Miller

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may 

learn something new. 

-Dalai Lama

<< Green Brick Testing Results- 032515BIA- to EPA May 4 2015.xlsx >>

-----Original Message-----

From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:30 AM

To: Susan Miller

Cc: Gabrielle; Kristin Sroka; Tom Holloway 

Subject: RE: data

Ok Thanks Susan - I am off Friday so please send the data also as a cc, to Kristin Sroka and 

her team, of RTI. I have cc'd them on this email.

S
Sharon Nizich

US EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division/SPPD RTP 

NC 27711

(919) 541 2825

-----Original Message-----

From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:55 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: data

From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:55 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: data

Sharon- sorry this is taking longer than I hoped. We are closing in on approval from everyonebut I have been waylaid... First by the birth or my grandson at the end of last week (!).... And 

now by our annual meeting. I will be trying to pull all approvals together between meetings 

today and will try to get you the raw data tonight... If not tonight, it will likely be Friday. I 

apologize for this in advance. We are trying to get you everything we have since we continue to 

believe that the floor should be based in more than 3 kilns, plus we want to show you overall 

variability... We will send you our thoughts on the data later- I do not want to hold up the 

submittal by my need for approval of our thoughts.

Susan

Susan J Miller

Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org<mailto:smiller@bia.org>

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may 

learn something new.

-Dalai Lama
U.S, Department

of lronsportotion

Federal Aviation

Administration

November 19, 20]0

Mr. Jeff Cooke

Vice President, Maintenance and Engineering

Voyageur Airways

1500 Airport Road

North Bay, Ontario, PIB 8G2

Canada

Dear Mr. Cooke:

Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue. SOW.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356
#### BYRD v. CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BD. OF EDUC.

No. 443P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 208

Petition by respondent (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
#### 1452.237-71 Utilization of Woody Biomass.

As prescribed in 1437.7202, insert the following clause:

# Utilization of Woody Biomass (MAY 2005)

(a) The contractor may remove and utilize woody biomass, if:

(1) Project work is progressing as scheduled; and

(2) Removal is completed before contract expiration.

(b) To execute this option, the contractor must submit a written request to the Government.

(c) Following receipt of the written request, and if appropriate, the Government and the contractor will negotiate and execute a separate timber/vegetative sales contract. Payment under the timber/vegetative sales contract must be at a price equal to or greater than the appraised value of the woody biomass. The contractor must make any appropriate payment specified in the related timber/vegetative sales contract before removal may be authorized.

(d) If required by law, regulation or Bureau policy, the Government will prepare a timber/vegetative sales notice and/or prospectus, including volume estimates, appraised value and any appropriate special provisions.

(e) The contractor must treat any woody biomass not removed in accordance with the specifications in the service contract.

(f) The sales contract and service contract are severable; default or termination under either contract does not remove the contractor from payment or performance obligations under the other contract.

(g) Definitions:

*Timber/vegetative sales contract and/or notice* means the agency-specific authorized contract instrument for the sale, barter, exchange, billing or other compensation for the payment, removal, and/or transportation of woody biomass material.

*Woody biomass* means the trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by-products of management, restoration and/or hazardous fuel reduction treatment.
1850.103-670 Implementation of the Contract Adjustment Board's decision. ( a ) The contracting officer shall take action authorized in the CAB's decision.
( b ) Immediately upon execution, including any required Headquarters approval, of a contract or contract modification or amendment implementing the CAB decision, the contracting officer shall forward a copy of the contractual document to the Associate General Counsel for Contracts and Procurement Law.
[76 FR 72328, Nov. 23, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
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: 11309]

                    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                           ( print page 3227)                        13284 of January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the person known as Isma'il Fu'ad Rasul Ahmed, also known as Abdallah Kurdi, is a foreign person who is a leader of al-Qa'ida Kurdish Battalions, 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. 2021-00628 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                        284,583
<SECURITIES>                  755,000
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,627,168
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,627,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         107,261
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      608,293
<OTHER-SE>                    911,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,627,168
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              226,429
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 103,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               123,077
<INCOME-TAX>                  55,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  68,077
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
<FN>
<F1>
United States Treasury Obligations
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for Penn Station South Slum Clearance Project Within the Area Bounded by 9th Avenue and Other Streets in the Borough of Manhattan. Opera Theatre Company, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Final decree unanimously modified on the law and the facts by reducing the award for damage parcel 147 to $76,500 and for damage parcel 153 to $61,000, and as so modified otherwise affirmed, with costs to the City of Hew York as against these respondents and, with costs to the other respondents against the City of Hew York. In determining the net income of damage *806parcel 147 so as to compute its capitalized value, it appears that proper consideration was not. given to the fact that the ■ apartments were- furnished. Giving appropriate consideration to such factor we conclude that the award should be reduced to $76,500. The claimant’s expert, in evaluating damage parcel 153, treated the apartment buildings as rooming houses and estimated the rental value thereof based on a lease to a single operator. Such a method was unwarranted hy the facts. In our opinion capitalizing the buildings on a proper basis would render the award of $72,000 excessive and an award of $61,000 an appropriate one. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Investment Corporation of Philadelphia, Respondent, v. Joel Spector, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order, entered on August 10, 1960,

denying defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him on April 21, 1960 for the sum of $10,216.53, unanimously affirmed on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. While there is a showing by defendant-appellant tending to indicate that his default was not deliberate, his papers do not establish that he does in fact have a meritorious defense to the action. The rule is that the opening of a default “ should be withheld when it is not shown that there is a meritorious controversy, for the courts should not be burdened with unfounded claims to relief nor should a just cause be delayed by the interposition of an unwarranted defense. Insistence on the observance of the rule makes for the orderly administration of justice, and is not the enforcement of a mere technical rule of practice.” *(Rothschild*v. *Haviland,*172 App. Div. 562, 563; see, also, *Benadon*v. *Antonio,*10 A D 2d 40.) A defendant in default does not establish a right to relief merely by presenting a proposed answer, containing denials and affirmatory defenses alleged principally in eonelusory form. In addition, he must show that there is support in fact for his denials and defenses. (See *Fitzgerald Mfg. Co.*v. *Alexander,*200 App. Div. 164, appeal dismissed 234 N. Y. 608.) The affidavits submitted by the defendant upon the motion here do not show that he has in fact any defense to the action, and, therefore, the motion to open his default was properly denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Leroy Mitchell, Appellant, v. A. A. Truck Renting Corp., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his briefs: (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 1, 1963, as denied his motion to renew a prior application to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore it to the Trial Calendar; and (2) from an order of said court, dated March 29, 1963, which denied his motion to open his default and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order of March 1, 1963, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appeal from order of March 29, 1963 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, under the circumstances presented, such order is in fact one denying reargument. As such, it is not appealable *(Smith*v. *Hoffman,*8 A D 2d 958, 959). [For prior related appeal, see *Mitchell*v. *A. A. Truck Renting Corp.,*9 A D 2d 682.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Michael J. Minot, an Infant, by Herbert S. Minot, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 6 et al., Defendants, and Hugh Shea & Sons, Respondent.

In a negligence action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries, and by his father to recover damages for medical expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 14,1961, which granted the motion of the defendant Hugh Shea *&*Sons, a copartnership engaged in the operation of buses for the defendant school district, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them (the bus operators), pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice; and (2) from the judgment of said court, dated June 26, 1961, entered upon said order. Order and judgment affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT B

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 246-2 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8917
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

 DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES BRAND, BARRY FARMER, 

MARK GRAHAM, KEVIN JACKSON, 

MICHAEL JACKSON, JOSE VIGIL, and 

CHRISTOPHER WOODARD, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COMCAST CORPORATION and 

COMCAST CABLE 

COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 12-cv-1122 

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim 

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement, it is 

hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED as follows: 

(1) the Parties’ proposed Settlement is approved, including the releases of 

claims, the payments to Plaintiffs, and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs as set 

forth therein; 

(2) the action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice, which will convert to 

with prejudice once the settlement is funded by Defendants; and 

(3) this Court retains jurisdiction until 31 days after the date this Order is entered 

to enforce the terms of the Settlement, including the release of claims. 

Date: _________________________ ________________________________ 

 The Hon. Young B. Kim 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:12-cv-01122 Document #: 246-2 Filed: 06/21/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8918
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the applicable SEC Form and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,250
<PP&E>                                          24,658
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,284
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,308
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,884
<SALES>                                         32,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,794
<CGS>                                           16,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,729
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85
<FN>
<F1>Shares and earnings per share have been adjusted in the financial
statements and in this Financial Data Schedule to reflect a
two-for-one stock split effected in the form of a dividend which
was effective as of September 22, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

955 

CAF 10-01944 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. CICCOTTI, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

STEPHANIE A. THOMPSON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

BOSMAN LAW FIRM, LLC, ROME (A.J. BOSMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

SCOTT GODKIN, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

GREGORY J. AMOROSO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, UTICA, FOR ANTHONY C. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Brian M.

Miga, J.H.O.), entered August 26, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for

custody. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on April 27 and May 7, 2011

and by the Attorney for the Child on May 9, 2011, 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs upon stipulation. 

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court