alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000013777
<NAME> BRADLEY REAL ESTATE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,777
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,845
<PP&E>                                         714,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 704,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,798
<BONDS>                                        329,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           237
<OTHER-SE>                                     347,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   704,924
<SALES>                                         28,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,355
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,351
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

CHARLES P. KOCORAS Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1334 DATE October 23, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Derek Sorg (#R-28259) vs. John Doe, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

This case is summarily dismissed as effectively time-barred. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment. As

this suit was timely filed but is barred as a practical matter, no “strike” is assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

The plaintiff, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, officials at the Stateville Correctional Center, violated the

plaintiff’s constitutional rights byacting with deliberate indifference to his safety. More specifically, the plaintiff

alleges that the defendants failed to protect him from an attack by a cellmate even after the plaintiff reported that

the cellmate had manufactured a makeshift knife. 

By Minute Order of September 11, 2012, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint naming the “John Doe” officers in question and ordered him to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed as effectively time-barred. Having considered the plaintiff’s response, the court remains

satisfied that the case must be dismissed.

Amendment at this time to name the John Doe officers in question is futile. As the court advised the

plaintiff in its Minute Order of March 5, 2012, there is a two-year statute of limitations for Section 1983 actions

in Illinois. See, e.g., Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2008); 735 ILCS § 5/13-202. Illinois

law does not toll the statute of limitations for prisoners. Schweihs Burdick, 96 F.3d 917, 919 (7th Cir. 1996);

Turner-El v. Davis, No. 10 C 5188, 2010 WL 3526379, *1, n.1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2010) (Norgle, J.). 

As the court additionally alerted the plaintiff, he cannot avail himself of Rule 15(c)’s provisions allowing

for “relation back” to the original complaint. In this circuit, a plaintiff cannot invoke the relation back principles

(CONTINUED)

mjm

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)

of Rule 15(c) to replace John Doe defendants with named defendants after the statute of limitations has expired. 

See Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230

(7th Cir. 1980); Williams v. Hardy, No. 11 C 4838, 2012 WL 1719181, *3 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2012) (Guzmán, J.). 

Unfortunately, the plaintiff filed suit just one month before the statute of limitations expired. Because the plaintiff

waited until the eleventh hour to commence this action, it is now too late to pursue a civil rights action against the

officers.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed as effectively time-barred. As this suit was initiated in a

timelymanner but is now time-barred as a practical matter, no “strike” will be assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

The case is terminated.

Page 2 of 2
### §8321. Pest and Disease Response Fund

#### (a) Establishment

There is established on the books of the Treasury an account to be known as the "Pest and Disease Response Fund". There shall be deposited into the Fund any proceeds received by the Secretary of Agriculture as reimbursement for services provided by the Secretary using amounts in the Fund.

#### (b) Availability

Amounts in the Fund shall remain available until expended.

#### (c) Use of Fund

In implementing the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.) and the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture shall have complete discretion regarding the use of amounts in the Fund to support emergency eradication and research activities in response to economic and health threats posed by pests and diseases affecting agricultural commodities.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

For each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $1,000,000 for deposit in the Fund.

(Pub. L. 108–465, title IV, §401, Dec. 21, 2004, 118 Stat. 3886.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Animal Health Protection Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is subtitle E (§§10401–10418) of title X of Pub. L. 107–171, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 494, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

The Plant Protection Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, which is classified principally to chapter 104 (§7701 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004, and not as part of the Animal Health Protection Act which comprises this chapter.
§ 776.91 Policy. ( a ) As a general rule, the JAG will not approve requests by covered USG attorneys to practice law in association with attorneys or firms which represent clients with interests adverse to the DoN.
( b ) The JAG's approval of a particular request does not constitute DoN certification of the requesting attorney's qualifications to engage in the proposed practice or DoN endorsement of activities undertaken after such practice begins. Moreover, because any outside law practice is necessarily beyond the scope of a covered USG attorney's official duties, the requesting attorney should consider obtaining personal malpractice insurance coverage.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6199

EMORY ALVIN MICHAU,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLYDE N. DAVIS, JR., Clerk of the Supreme

Court of South Carolina; WARREN A. KOHN, Staff

Attorney, South Carolina Department of Social

Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-407-6-8AK)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emory Alvin Michau, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Michau

v. Davis, No. CA-95-407-6-8AK (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 1996). 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
# April 2022 FOIA Log
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

MEMORANDUM

TO: Donna Harris-Aikens 

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority 

I. DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 

20 U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you the authority to perform all the duties and functions 

of the Secretary, as articulated in 5 U.S.C. § 5584 and/or delegated by the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Determination Order, dated December 17, 1996, with 

respect to the waiver request in the overpayment matter identified as Debt ID: 20111820389. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation. 

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the Secretary’s duties and 

functions articulated in 5 U.S.C. § 5584 and/or delegated by OMB’s Determination Order, 

dated December 17, 1996, pertaining to any other overpayment waiver request are not hereby 

delegated.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations 

Control Officer. 

 ___________________/s_________ 

 Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D. 

OGC Concurrence and Date: Michael Taylor; 4/4/2022_ 

Date Certified: 4/5/2022

Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Delegation Control Number: EA/EA/190
#### In the Matter of Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff, Respondent, v American East India Corporation, Defendant and Eugene W. Connelly, Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 1, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Williams, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
#### 1830.7001-1--1830.7001-3 [Reserved]
#### 1519.202-5 [Reserved]
#### 18.103 Synopses of proposed contract actions.

Contracting officers need not submit a synopsis notice when there is an unusual and compelling urgency and the Government would be seriously injured if the agency complied with the notice time periods. (See 5.202(a)(2).)
### **CHAPTER 4—ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT**

Sec.
401.
Definitions.
402.
No validity or enforceability.
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 Kocoras

) Magistrate Judge Denlow

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, )

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; )

ALEGIS GROUP, LLC; )

and TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, Scott McMahon, respectfully requests an extension of time until May

18, 2012 to file his response brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

In support of his motion, Plaintiff states:

1. On April 17, 2012 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. On April 19, 2012 the Court entered a briefing schedule on Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, whereby Plaintiff’s response brief is due on May 10, 2012.

3. Plaintiff requests that the Court reset the briefing schedule and extend his

deadline to file his response brief until May 18, 2012. Plaintiff is unable to complete his

response brief by the May 10th deadline.

4. Granting Plaintiff’s motion for a brief extension of time will not prejudice

1

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:139
Defendants or cause undue delay in the proceedings. 

5. Plaintiff’s counsel has discussed the relief sought in this motion with

Defendants’ counsel. Defendants’ counsel represents that Defendants do not object to Plaintiff’s

request for an extension.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reset the briefing

schedule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, whereby Plaintiff’s response brief will be due no

later than May 18, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Tiffany N. Hardy

Tiffany N. Hardy

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

Tiffany N. Hardy

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:140
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Tiffany N. Hardy, hereby certify that on May 7, 2012, a true and accurate copy of the

foregoing document was filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such

filing was sent to the following parties:

David M. Schultz

dschultz@hinshawlaw.com

Nabil G. Foster

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com

s/Tiffany N. Hardy

Tiffany N. Hardy

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:141
#### Fourth Avenue Management Corporation, Appellant, v. Cornelius Mallon et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover rent, in which the defendants in effect asserted as a defense their constructive eviction in consequence of the plaintiff’s breach of the terms of the lease, and in which the defendants counterclaimed for the return of their security of $290, the plaintiff, by permission of this court, appeals from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, dated October 30, 1962, which affirmed: (1) a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, entered June 19, 1961 after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint and awarding judgment to the defendants on their counterclaim; and (2) an order of said court, dated April 25, 1961, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Order of the Appellate Term and judgment of the Municipal Court reversed on the law and the facts, without costs but with disbursements of the appeal to the plaintiff, and judgment directed in plaintiff’s favor for $1,305, the claimed unpaid rent, with appropriate interest thereon and the costs of the action in the Municipal Court and the disbursements of the appeal in this court. Findings of facts implicit in the said order and judgment which are inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion the finding, implicit in the judgment of the Municipal Court and in the order of the Appellate Term, that the defendants established their defense of constructive eviction, is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. On the basis of all the proof adduced, we find that the plaintiff’s breach of the terms of the lease was not so material or extensive as to constitute the constructive eviction of the defendants (cf. *Herstein Co.*v. *Columbia Pictures Corp.,*4 N Y 2d 117; *Seaboard Realty Co.*v. *Fuller,*33 Misc. 109; *Bromberger*v. *Empire Flashlight Co.,*138 Misc. 754). Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to the coneededly unpaid rent under the lease. In view of this disposition, the plaintiff’s original appeal from the order of the Municipal Court denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is academic. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6938
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES HENRY EDWARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR93-269-S) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Henry Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bal timore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Edwards , No. CR-93-269-S (D. Md. June 27, 1997). We dispense withoral 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
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judg Judge Norgle Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge Arlander Keys 

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1446 DATE 12/5/2012

CASE

TITLE John Wiley & Sons V McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Motion hearing held on Defendant’s motion for a protective order. The motion is entered and continued to

12/14/2012. The parties to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve this matter by 12/10/12. Plaintiffs to

advise defendants as to why non-party subsidiaries and other individuals need access to Defendant’s

confidential information as discussed on the record. Defendant is granted leave to file a supplement to the

motion to compel by the end of the business day today. Plaintiff to file their reply to Defendant’s motion to

compel by 12/12/12 [47]. Status hearing set for 12/14/2012 at 9:00 a.m for ruling on both motions [47,63].

Docketing to mail notices.

00:15;oah 

 Courtroom Deputy AC

12C1446 Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-01446 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:696
### CONCLUSION As setforth herein, 

### TERRESTAERIAL seeks anexemption pursuant 

### to 14 C.F.R. 11.61 and Section 333 of the 

### FAA Modernization and 

### Reform

### Actof 2012 

### (FMRA), which

### will permit safeoperation of the DJI Phantom

# 3 UASs commercially, 

### without an airworthiness certificate, forthe United States. 

### By granting the Petition, the 

### FAA Administrator 

### will be 

### fulfilling the Congressional mandateof the 

### FAA Modernization and 

### Reform Act 

### of 2012, 

### while also advancing the interests ofthe public, by allowing 

### TERRESTAERIAL to safely, 

### efficiently, and economically operate the DJI Phantom 3 UASs commercially 

### within the NAS. 

### WHEREFORE, in accordance 

### with the Federal

### Aviation Regulations andthe 

### FAA Modernization and 

### Reform Act

### of 2012, Section 333,

### TERRESTAERIAL respectfully requests that theAdministrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements 

### of 14 C.F.R. Sections 61.113(a) 

### & (b), 91.7(a),91.121,91,151(b0, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) 

### & (a)(2),

### and9t.4l7(a) 

### & (b), and permit 

### TERRESTAERIAL to operate the DJI Phantom 3 UASs commercially for the purpose

### of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United States.


### Dated: August 

### 7,2015 Respectfully submitted,



### PATRICK J.

### VON TSCHARNER GENEVA S1X4, 

### LLC, 

### DBA TERRE 

### STAERIAL 

### IMAGING SERVICES PRESIDENT 5211 South Race Street Greenwood 

### Village, CO 80121 303.859.7232 Appendices: 

### DII Phantom 3 Professional Manual DJI Phantom 3 Safety Guidelines

28
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aaron Yarborough, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[833 NYS2d 421]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered September 16, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present— Martoche, J.E, Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 24, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: EPA Region 1

SUBJECT: November 21, 2014, Presentation at Meeting of Rhode Island Bar Association 

Environmental and Energy Law Committee Including Proposed Clean Power Plan 

for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

On November 21, 2014, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding provided a presentation 

for a Rhode Island Bar Association Environmental and Energy Law Committee meeting. Curt 

Spalding’s presentation included an overview of the Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. 

ATTENDEES

Curt Spalding, EPA

Approximately 20 people attended this committee meeting. Attendance was not taken by EPA. 

Slides attached.
# March 2021 FOIA Log
### **CHAPTER 3—INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION**

Sec.
301.
Enforcement of Convention.
302.
Incorporation by reference.
303.
Order to compel arbitration; appointment of arbitrators; locale.
304.
Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral decisions and awards; reciprocity.
305.
Relationship between the Inter-American Convention and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958.
306.
Applicable rules of Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission.
307.
Application.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2022**—Pub. L. 117–90, §2(b)(2)(B), Mar. 3, 2022, 136 Stat. 27, substituted "Application" for "Chapter 1; residual application" in item 307.