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

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

Eastern Division

Nick Pearson, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07972

Honorable James B. Zagel

Target Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, January 3, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable James B. Zagel: In accordance with the

Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, judgment on the final settlement is approved

and attorneys' fees for the benefits of injunction and expenses are accepted as follows:

$617,166.50 in fees and $57,398.04 in expenses to BFFB; $325,203.75 in fees to Weltman

LLC; $52,432.50 in fees and $29,091.06 in expenses to LFSB; $938,790 in fees and

$93,187.13 in expenses to D The Court further approves reasonable incentive awards in

the amount of $5,000 for each of the six named Plaintiffs, for a total of $30,000. Enter

Memorandum Opinion and Order. All pending motions are moot. Civil case terminated.

Counsel shall submit a final judgment order in accordance with the Court's Memorandum

Opinion and Order, to the Court's proposed orders inbox. Mailed notice(ep, )

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

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

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

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

refer to it for additional information.

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

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 142 Filed: 01/03/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2861
#### 1602.170-19 Postal Service employee.

*Postal Service employee* has the meaning set forth in 5 U.S.C. 8903c(a)(9).

[88 FR 20408, Apr. 6, 2023]
#### Margaret Eliot, Appellant, v. Robert C. Eliot, Respondent.

In an action for a judicial separation, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, entered January 31, 1964 upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial, as: (1) fixed the defendant husband’s visitation rights, with a direction that such rights be exercised at' the wife’s residence in Brewster, New York;. (2) granted him two weeks’ temporary custody during the Summer; (3) directed him to pay $9,000 per annum for the support of the wife and their two minor children, such payment being conditioned, however, upon her compliance with his visitation-rights; and (4). pre*943scribed other financial items to be paid by him. Judgment modified on the law and the facts as follows: (1) by'increasing'the amount awarded for the support of the wife and the two minor children from $9,000 per annum to $11,000 per annum; and (2) by amending the third- decretal paragraph of the judgment, affording visitation rights to the husband at the wife’s residence in Brewster, New York, so as to provide that, with respect to Jason Eliot (one of said minor children), such visitation rights at Brewster shall not be operative in the event the said Jason- is attending a school elsewhere than in Brewster. As so modified, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with costs to the wife. The findings of fact contained or implicit in the decision-opinion of the Special Term which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The husband is a practicing physician. In view of: (a) his steady increase in income, which amounted to approximately $42,000 in 1962; (b) his conceded willingness in 1961 to pay $13,480 as permanent alimony and support when there were three minor children in the mother’s custody instead of two, as now; and (c) the needs of the wife, particularly with respect to the education of the two minor children presently in her custody, we find that $9,000 per annum is inadequate to the extent of at least $2,000. We believe that the condition imposed.for the payment of such alimony and support, namely, that the wife shall afford the husband visitation rights at her residence in Brewster, New York, is fair, since he is a practicing physician in the Brewster area and cannot travel about easily on a regular basis. A modification of that condition is necessary, however, in order to avoid its breach by reason of the attendance by the child Jason at a school away frdm the wife’s Brewster home. Should such an event occur and should the father’s exercise of his visitation rights in Brewster be thereby prevented or rendered difficult, the wife’s right to receive the full alimony and support payments' should not be forfeited, or impaired. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Barbara Pakula, Formerly Barbara Rodin, Appellant, v Jules Rodin et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 8, 1978, granting defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment entered against Anita Rodin on November 1, 1976, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and the motion to vacate denied. In this action brought under section 273 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, plaintiff seeks damages from her former husband (Jules Rodin) and his present wife (Anita Rodin) on the claim that her former husband, while indebted to her for arrears in alimony and child support, fraudulently conveyed to his present wife assets in excess of the amount owed plaintiff and without fair consideration therefor. On May 10, 1976, plaintiff served interrogatories upon counsel for the defendants, addressed to both defendants and requiring both of them to answer the several questions presented. The interrogatories were answered by the husband, alone, and then only on July 28, 1976, after expiration of the time fixed to respond in a conditional order of preclusion, and after the plaintiff had noticed the settlement of an order directing entry of judgment. Anita Rodin not having answered the interrogatories, plaintiff entered a default judgment against her on November 1, 1976. More than a year later, on November 7, 1977, defendant’s counsel moved to vacate the default judgment entered against the defendant Anita Rodin. Two points were advanced. First, it was alleged there was a meritorious defense in that the funds turned over to his wife *659during Jules Rodin’s period of insolvency were placed in a certain account from which his bills were paid. Second, it was asserted that Jules Rodin, as the more knowledgeable of the defendants, could properly answer the interrogatories on behalf of both. We have concluded that it was an inappropriate exercise of discretion for Special Term to vacate the default in view of the complete failure to explain why one year was permitted to elapse before so moving. There is no showing of merit. Moreover, it is noted that even at that late date no answers to the interrogatories were proffered. Concur&emdash;Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Fein, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
#### Willie Simmons, Jr., Respondent, v Gloria J. Pierce et al., Appellants.

[833 NYS2d 800]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J. Whalen, J.), entered May 18, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motions for leave to amend the answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when the motor vehicle he was driving collided with a vehicle owned by defendant Gloria J. Pierce and operated by defendant Loralyn M. Pierce. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendants for leave to amend their answer to assert as an affirmative defense that the accident was unavoidable due to brake failure. The motion was made after plaintiffs had filed the note of issue and more than two years after they commenced the ac*1253tion, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion (see *Sewkarran v DeBellis,*11 AD3d 445 [2004]; *Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Reliance Ins. Co.,*8 AD3d 1000 [2004]; *Oil Heat Inst. of Long Is. Ins. Trust v RMTS Assoc.,*4 AD3d 290, 293 [2004]; *cf. Blake v Wieczorek,305*AD2d 989, 990 [2003]). In addition, the court properly denied the motion as a spoliation sanction. According to defendants, their automotive repair shop discarded the allegedly defective brake line. Defendants should have ensured that the brake line was preserved, however, because it was a “crucial piece of evidence” with respect to the potential affirmative defense of brake failure *(Amaris v Sharp Elees. Corp.,*304 AD2d 457, 457 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 507 [2004]; *see Cummings v Central Tractor Farm & Country,*281 AD2d 792, 793 [2001], *lv dismissed*96 NY2d 896 [2001]; *see generally Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Federal Pac. Elec. Co.,*14 AD3d 213, 217-220 [2004]). The availability of defendants’ photographs of the brake line and the affidavits of defendants’ expert witnesses “could not adequately substitute for the [plaintiffs] own experts’ inspection of the key piece of evidence in the case” *(Thornhill v A.B. Volvo,*304 AD2d 651, 652 [2003]). Finally, we further conclude that the court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, inasmuch as there are triable issues of fact on the record before us (see *generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Gorski, Smith and Green, JJ.
#### 1910.004-73 Offer evaluation and award, brand name or equal descriptions.

An offer may not be rejected for failure of the offered product to equal a characteristic of a brand name product if it was not specified in the brand name or equal description. However, if it is clearly established that the unspecified characteristic is essential to the intended end use, the solicitation is defective and no award may be made. In such cases, the contracting officer should resolicit the requirements, using a purchase description that sets forth the essential characteristics.
#### McDonnell & Company, Inc., Respondent, v. Jacques Sarlie, Appellant. McDonnell & Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Jacques Sarlie, Respondent.

Appeal from order entered July 12, 1962, denying motion to vacate attachment dismissed as moot. Order, entered on October 22, 1962, vacating warrant of attachment unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and attachment reinstated, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Defendant made successive motions .to dismiss the warrant of attachment issued in this action. Special Term denied the earlier motion; the second motion was granted. Upon this motion there was proof that defendant was engaged in transactions which were designed to dispose of and secrete property from his creditors. This constituted sufficient grounds (CPLR 6201, subd. 4). It is true that on the earlier application this proof was not submitted. This fact did not preclude plaintiff from introducing the proof on the second application (CPLR 6223). It having been shown on the second application that sufficient grounds for issuance of the warrant existed, it becomes academic whether the earlier application was properly denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
#### 1615.170 Applicability.

FAR subpart 15.1 has no practical application to the FEHB Program because prospective contractors (carriers) are considered for inclusion in the FEHB Program according to criteria in 5 U.S.C. chapter 89 and 5 CFR part 890 rather than by competition between prospective carriers.

[70 FR 31379, June 1, 2005]
1209.405 Effect of listing. ( a ) The SDO is authorized to make a written determination of compelling reasons to solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontract with contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment and that has an active exclusion record in the System for Award Management (SAM) in accordance with FAR 9.405.
( e ) ( 2 ) The SDO is authorized to make a written determination of compelling reasons to consider a bid or offer from a contractor whose name or company is included on the listing.
( 3 ) The SDO is authorized to make a written determination of compelling reasons for a contracting officer to consider proposals, quotations, or offers received from any listed contractor that have an active exclusion record in SAM, and that such proposals, quotations, or offers may be evaluated for award or included in the competitive range, and, if applicable, discussions conducted with a listed offeror as set forth in FAR 9.405(e)(3).
EXHIBIT 10.5

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
GE Healthcare Financial Services                   Financial Covenants Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Financial Covenants Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into among The
Sagemark Companies LTD., ("Lessee") and General Electric Capital Corporation
("Lessor") with offices at 20225 Watertower Boulevard, Suite 300, Brookfield,
Wisconsin 53045. Lessee and Lessor have entered into, or are about to enter into
a lease or security agreement (the "Financing Agreement") whereby Lessor has
acquired or will acquire an ownership or security interest in certain equipment
or other property (the "Collateral") as further described in the Financing
Agreement or in schedules thereto. To induce Lessor to enter into the Financing
Agreement and extend a loan, lease, or other financial accommodation to Lessee
against such ownership or security interest in the Collateral and for other
valuable consideration, Lessee hereby agrees with Lessor as follows:


Maximum Debt to Tangible Net Worth
----------------------------------

Lessee, at all times, will not permit the ratio of Debt to Tangible Net Worth
exceed those ratios set forth in the table below:

3.0:1.0 for months 1 to 12
3.0:1.0 for months 13 to 24
3:0:1.0 thereafter

          "Debt" shall mean, at any date, Lessee's total liabilities
          as determined in accordance with generally accepted
          accounting principles in the United States of America, in
          effect from time to time, consistently applied and
          maintained ("GAAP")

          "Tangible Net Worth" shall mean, with respect to Lessee at
          any date, owner's equity less goodwill, non-compete
          agreements, organization costs, and any other assets of
          Lessee that would be treated as intangible assets on
          Lessee's consolidated balance sheet prepared in accordance
          with GAAP.


Minimum Cash Balance
--------------------

Lessee, at all times, will maintain a minimum cash balance of no less than Five
Hundred Thousand and 00/100 US Dollars ($500,000) on Lessee's balance sheet.

This agreement is executed in connection with the Financing Agreement. A failure
by Lessee to comply with the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall, at
Lessor's option, constitute a default under the Financing Agreement, and upon
the occurrence of such default, Lessor may exercise any and all remedies
available to Lessor under the Financing Agreement or otherwise.

Dated this 6th day of March, 2006


Lessor:                                     Lessee:

General Electric Capital Corporation        The Sagemark Companies LTD.

By: ________________________________        By: /s/ THEODORE B. SHAPIRO

Name: ______________________________        Name: Theodore B. Shapiro

Title:  Duly Authorized Signatory           Title: President and Chief Executive
                                                   Officer

                                                                  (Rev. 5/20/05)
Attachment to August 9, 2013 Electronic Announcement
#### Sewell *vs.*Conkle.

The writ of error must contain an assignment of tlie errors complained of ; otherwise, it will he dismissed. (R.)

Practice in the Supreme Court. September Term, 1S79.

The bill of exceptions in this case recited the proceedings had in the court below and the judgment rendered thereon. It then concluded thus: “Plaintiff, Sewell, tenders this his bill of exceptions, and prays that the same may be certified as true.” Counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ for want of any assignment of error. The court granted the motion, announcing the principle stated in the head-note.

J. T. Spence, for plaintiff in error.

L. S. Roan, for defendant.
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:49
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:50
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:51
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 12 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:52
#### 1552.217-74 Option for increased quantity—cost-plus-award-fee contract.

As prescribed in 1517.208(e), insert this contract clause in cost-plus-award-fee term contracts when applicable. If only one option period is used, enter “NA” in the proper places of the clause. If more than two option periods apply, the clause may be modified accordingly.

# Option for Increased Quantity—Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contract (JUN 1997)

(a) By issuing a contract modification, the Government may increase the estimated level of effort by \_\_\_\_ direct labor hours during the base period, \_\_\_\_ during the first option period, and \_\_\_\_ during the second option period. The Government may issue a maximum of \_\_\_\_ orders to increase the level of effort in blocks of \_\_\_\_ hours during any given period. The estimated cost, base fee, and award fee pool of each block of hours is as follows:

| | Base period | Option 1 | Option 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Estimated cost | | | |
| Base fee | | | |
| Award fee pool | | | |
| Total | | | |

(b) When these options are exercised, paragraph (a) of the “Level of Effort” clause and the “Estimated Cost, Base Fee, and Award Fee” clause will be modified accordingly.

(c) If this contract contains “not to exceed amounts” for elements of other direct costs (ODCs), those amounts will be increased as follows:

| Other direct cost item | Option 1 | Option 2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | | |

(End of clause)

[[49 FR 8867](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/49-FR-8867), Mar. 8, 1984, as amended at [62 FR 37149](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-37149), July 11, 1997; [62 FR 60667](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-60667), Nov. 12, 1997]
#### 1436.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms.

Approval to award a contract for construction to a firm or its subsidiaries that designed the project shall be made by the HCA only after discussion with Director, PAM, and with legal concurrence. The request for approval prepared by the CO shall include the reason(s) why award to the design firm is required; an analysis of the facts involving potential or actual organizational conflicts of interest, including benefits and detriments to the Government and the prospective contractor; and the measures which are to be taken to avoid, neutralize or mitigate conflicts of interest. A copy of the documentation shall be forwarded to PAM at the time of consultation.
#### 1425.003 Definitions.

*Impracticable,* as used in this subpart, includes reasons other than cost, and availability.

*Manufacture,* as used in this subpart, means completion of an end product in the form required to meet specifications. It includes only direct incorporation of components into the end products to alter the original material and establish the identity/character of the end product, and excludes other supplies, materials, and requirements such as testing, manuals, related equipment, etc.
Fiscal Year 2017 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - MARYLAND

FY 2017 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

2400030 Allegany County Public Schools 3,434,277

2400060 Anne Arundel County Public Schools 11,784,052

2400090 Baltimore City Public Schools 61,926,137

2400120 Baltimore County Public Schools 28,753,150

2400150 Calvert County Public Schools 1,566,160

2400180 Caroline County Public Schools 1,785,791

2400210 Carroll County Public Schools 2,505,469

2400240 Cecil County Public Schools 3,291,587

2400270 Charles County Public Schools 4,007,074

2400300 Dorchester County Public Schools 2,369,125

2400330 Frederick County Public Schools 5,495,968

2400360 Garrett County Public Schools 1,152,210

2400390 Harford County Public Schools 6,056,433

2400420 Howard County Public Schools 4,787,295

2400450 Kent County Public Schools 648,640

2400480 Montgomery County Public Schools 33,256,395

2400510 Prince George's County Public Schools 36,304,518

2400540 Queen Annes County Public Schools 947,270

2400570 Somerset County Public Schools 1,776,609

2400600 St. Marys County Public Schools 3,412,538

2400630 Talbot County Public Schools 1,087,680

2400660 Washington County Public Schools 6,574,027

2400690 Wicomico County Public Schools 5,364,719

2400720 Worcester County Public Schools 1,962,942

2499999 PART D SUBPART 2 531,552

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77105-77106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30301]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed addition to the Procurement List.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement 
List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 1/20/2014.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 
22202-4149.

For Further Information or To Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of 
the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
provide the service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement 
List for provision by the nonprofit agencies listed:

[[Page 77106]]

Service

Service Type/Location: Base Operations Support Service, National 
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NGA Campus West, 3200 S 2nd Street, 
St. Louis, MO
NPAs:
    ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA (Prime)
    CW Resources, Inc., New Britain, CT (Subcontractor)
Contracting Activity: Dept Of Defense, National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, Arnold, MO

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-30301 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```