alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LD. 06184818 File No. 3900-303
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Eastern Division

J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2011-cv-7816

wwe

BELINDA E. LOYOLA, indy. and d/b/a QUEEN,
ALBERT’S DINER & LOUNGE, INC, d/b/a
QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER AND LOUNGE,
and QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER & LOUNGE,
INC. d/b/a QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER AND
LOUNGE,

oS

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE AND ENTER AN ORDER OF
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS

NOW COME the Plaintiff, J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., and respectfully
requests that this Court Reinstate this matter against Defendants, BELINDA E. LOYOLA, indv.
and d/b/a QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER & LOUNGE, INC. d/b/a QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER.
AND LOUNGE, and QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER & LOUNGE, INC. d/b/a QUEEN ALBERT’S
DINER AND LOUNGE, and in support thereof, states as follows:

1. That on October 25, 2012, this matter was dismissed without prejudice by this
Honorable Court.
2. That a Settlement Agreement was entered into by both parties wherein which the

Defendant would pay a total of $5,000.00 to the Plaintiff. Payments in the amount of $333.33
were to be made on or before the 15" of each month beginning on May 15, 2013 and continuing
through July 15, 2014. See attached Exhibit A.

3. As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has failed to make a single payment
towards the agreed settlement.

5. That pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendant currently owes Plaintiff a
total amount of $5,000.00 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of Six Hundred and 00/100 ($600.00).
See attached Affidavit Exhibit B.


6. Additionally, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay a
$3,000.00 penalty fee should they default in payment. See attached Settlement Agreement.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., prays this Honorable
Court enter an order to Reinstate this case against Defendants, BELINDA E. LOYOLA, indv. and
d/o/a QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER & LOUNGE, INC. d/b/a QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER AND
LOUNGE, and QUEEN ALBERT’S DINER & LOUNGE, INC. d/b/a QUEEN ALBERT’S
DINER AND LOUNGE, and enter an Order for Judgment in the amount of Five Thousand and
00/100 ($5,000.00) plus attorney’s fees in the amount of Six Hundred and 00/100 ($600.00) and
Three Thousand and 00/100 ($3,000.00) in penalty fees for a total Judgment in the amount of Eight
Thousand Six Hundred and 00/100 ($8,600.00) and for any additional relief for Plaintiff this

Honorable Court deems just.

s/Andre Ordeanu
Andre Ordeanu

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andre Ordeanu, on oath state that a true and correct copy of the Notice of Filing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 30, 2013, using the CM/ECF system
which will send notification of such filing(s) to all attorneys of record. Under the penalties of
perjury, I certify that the above statements set forth herein are true and correct.

s/ Andre Ordeanu
Andre Ordeanu

Zane D. Smith

ZANE D. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
415 North LaSalle Street - Suite 501
Chicago, Illinois 60654

(312) 245-0031

(312) 245-0022 - Fax
### Nevada mineral-resource data: Information available through the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resource Data System

By: Maureen G. SherlockJoseph V. Tingley

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir966

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chester L. DeBiaso, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[832 NYS2d 838]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered June 13, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of possessing a sexual performance by a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be *1257and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
#### Annette H. Slaff v. Jacob Friedman.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing denied.
1432.102 Description of contract financing methods. Use of progress payments based on a percentage or stage of completion are authorized for construction contracts. Progress payments for other than construction, alteration, and repair contracts require the CO to write a determination that: ( a ) Payments based on costs would be impracticable; and
( b ) Adequate measures exist for determining quality standards and the percentage of work accomplished.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

 

I, Craig D. Crisman, certify that: 

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BancTec, Inc; 

 

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

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4.          The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation, and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.          The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions).

 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data; and

 

b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  April 2, 2004 | /s/ Craig D. Crisman                    |   |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | *Craig D. Crisman*                      |
|                           | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 60

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ``Fred D. Thompson 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 9, 2017

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ``Fred D. Thompson 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FRED D. THOMPSON FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) Fred D. Thompson was first elected to the United States 
        Senate in 1994 and served as a Senator from the State of 
        Tennessee until 2003;
            (2) Fred D. Thompson graduated from Memphis State 
        University in 1964 and Vanderbilt University School of Law in 
        1967, and served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the 
        State of Tennessee;
            (3) Fred D. Thompson was appointed by Senator Howard Baker, 
        Jr., to serve as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate 
        Committee in 1973;
            (4) following his service as a United States Senator, Fred 
        D. Thompson continued to pursue his acting career, which began 
        in 1985 with the movie ``Marie'' in which he played himself;
            (5) Fred D. Thompson was known for his integrity, humility, 
        and dedication to public service; and
            (6) the naming of the Federal building and United States 
        courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, 
        Tennessee, after Senator Fred D. Thompson would honor his name 
        and the legacy he left to all citizens of the State of 
        Tennessee.
    (b) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
    (c) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (b) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### 19.602 Procedures.
#### 1852.217-70 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter Garrett, Appellant.

Order dated June 28, 1957, denying defendant’s motion *670in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis,*unanimously affirmed, without costs. The record in the principal proceeding does not establish a violation of the right to counsel. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing an adjournment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         4,730,770
<SECURITIES>                                      17,180
<RECEIVABLES>                                     85,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,937,672
<PP&E>                                         2,345,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                    67,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,829,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,560,538
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         233,283
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,035,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,829,210
<SALES>                                           29,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  29,660
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,399,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               440,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,755,403)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,755,403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,755,403)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Burrell, Defendant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of conviction rendered by the County Court, Queens County, in May, 1938, after a jury trial, and for assignment of counsel, dismissed. It appears that no appeal was ever taken to this court from said judgment. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 975 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 975

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
                   Indian coal production tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2017

 Mr. Daines (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Tester) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
                   Indian coal production tax credit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INDIAN COAL PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 45(e)(10)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``per ton of Indian coal--'' and all 
that follows and inserting the following: ``per ton of Indian coal--
                            ``(i) produced by the taxpayer at an Indian 
                        coal production facility, and
                            ``(ii) sold (either directly by the 
                        taxpayer or after sale or transfer to one or 
                        more related persons) to an unrelated 
                        person.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to coal produced and sold after January 1, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York v. Roosevelt Willette.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court filed herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
#### Arline Woznicki, Also Known as Arline Warner, Appellant, v. Lynn Terrace Apartments, Section 1, Inc., Respondent.

Order entered October 8, 1964 granting defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to submit *884to an examination before trial is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion is denied. Defendant first applied for the relief ultimately granted in the order appealed from several months after plaintiff filed her statement of readiness, and not within the 20-day period specified in the applicable court rule (New York County Supreme Court Rules, part 1, rule IV, subd. 4, par. [e]). Defendant made three unsuccessful applications before obtaining the order under review herein. Such failure to move within the 20-day period will ordinarily constitute a waiver of the right to take the deposition of the plaintiff *(Price*v. *Brody,*7 A D 2d 204). The fact that the trial court, upon the eve of trial, granted plaintiff’s request for a long adjournment does not present the unusual and anticipated conditions which would warrant a relaxation of the rule (New York County Supreme Court Rules, part 1, rule IV, subd. 4, par. [g]). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Docket No. OPPT-2004-0113 November3,20] 1 EPA-DuPont MOU Index 

### Quarterly MOU Status Report#3 Phase III- FutureWorkPlan Document/Report Title-PaperCopy No. ofPages* 1 paper copy ofthe Quarterly MOU Status Report #3 Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program) 206 pages 

### Document/Report Title-Electronic Copy No. ofPages CD 1 of 1 containing the Quarterly MOU Status Report #3, 204 pages Phase III - Future Work Plan, DuPont Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0 113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program) as one PDF file titled, Quarterly MOU Status Report#3 Phase III Future Work Plan 11 0311.PDF 

### * Page count does not include blank pages caused by double-sided printing ofthe tables.



## 188 ON SN/\ilN08

Page 2 of2 OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of Reliability Incorporated (the Issuer) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Periodic Report):



| | 1. | 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Larry Edwards       |  | /s/ Carl V. Schmidt    
|Larry Edwards           |  | Carl V. Schmidt        
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer
|November 11, 2004       |  | November 11, 2004
<PAGE>
 
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports dated February 20, 1997, included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statement Form S-3 (No. 33-28942);
Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 33-28939); Registration Statement Form S-
8 (No. 29163); Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 33-32824); Registration
Statement Form S-3 (No. 33-35988); Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 33-
37377), Registration Statement Form S-3 (No. 33-49918); Registration Statement
Form S-8 (No. 33-71114) and Registration Statement Form S-8 (33-58335).
 
                                          Arthur Andersen LLP
 
Dallas, Texas,
March 26, 1997
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company and its
subsidiaries.
 /s/ Michael H. GoldbergMichael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)August 2, 2007/s/ Lawrence A. BoikLawrence A. BoikVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)August 2, 2007
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Irving Bass, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Motion to withdraw and discontinue appeal. Motion granted. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2316

JAMES MERCADO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary of Department of

Defense (Defense Mapping Agency aka National

Imagery and Mapping Agency),

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-521-A)

Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Mercado, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Mercado appeals the district court’s order dismissing

without prejudice his complaint alleging employment discrimination.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). Because Mercado may be able to save this

action by amending his complaint, the district court’s order is not

an appealable final order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers

Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993) (a dismissal without

prejudice is not reviewable unless the reasons stated for the

dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could

cure its defects). We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED