alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Team I -- General/Lender Loan Issues 

Federal Negotiator 

U.S. Department 

of Education 

Pamela Moran 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

pamela.moran@ed.gov

202-502-7732 

Non-Federal Negotiators 

Constituency Primary/Nominator Alternate/Nominator 

Students Jonathan S. Sachs 

University of Maryland, Student 

Body President 

jjsachs@umd.edu 

240-472-0311 

Adam Briones 

The Greenlining Institute 

adamb@greenlining.org

510-332-7509 

Legal Aid Deanne Loonin 

National Consumer Law Center 

dloonin@nclc.org 

617-542-8010 

Lauren Saunders 

National Consumer Law Center 

lsaunders@nclcdc.org 

202-452-6252 

2-year Public 

Institutions 

George Chin 

City University of New York

george.chin@mail.cuny.edu

212-290-5693

4-year Public 

Institutions 

Carrie Steere-Salazar 

University of California –San 

Francisco (Health Professions) 

Carrie.Steere-Salazar@ucsf.edu

415-502-8296 

Kris Wright 

University of Minnesota 

Wrigh084@umn.edu 

612-626-0302 

4-year Private, 

Nonprofit 

Institutions 

Heather McDonnell 

Sarah Lawrence College 

hmcdonn@sarahlawrence.edu

914-395-2570 

Bonnie Lee Behm 

Villanova University 

bonnie.behm@villanova.edu

610-519-4024 

 

Private, ForProfit Institutions Thomas A. Babel 

DeVry University 

tbabel@devry.com 

630-706-3140 

William D. Leach 

Lincoln Educational Services 

bleach@lincolnedu.com

973-736-9340 

 
Guaranty 

Agencies 

Mary Mowdy, Executive Director 

Oklahoma Guaranteed Student Loan 

Program 

mmowdy@ogslp.org 

405-234-4310 

Dick George, President & CEO 

Great Lakes Higher Education 

Guaranty Corporation 

rgeorge@glhec.org

608-246-1408 

For-Profit 

Lenders 

Brenda Dillon 

Key Bank 

Brenda_dillon@keybank.com 

216-813-8788 

Tom Levandowski 

Wells Fargo 

tom.levandowski@wachovia.com 

651-454-4152 

Not-for Profit 

Lenders 

Cheryl Hughes 

South Carolina Student Loan 

Corporation (SCSLC) 

chughes@scstudentloan.org 

803-612-5030 

Scott Giles 

Vermont Student Assistance 

Corporation 

giles@vsac.org

802-654-3740 

Credit Unions Michael Kim 

University of Southern California 

Credit Union 

mkim@usccreditunion.org

213-821-7230 

Rhonda Summerbell 

University Federal Credit Union 

rsummerbell@ufcu.org 

512-467-8080 ext. 29060 

Lender Servicers Diane Freundel 

American Education Services/ 

Pennsylvania Higher Education 

Assistance Agency (AES/PHEAA) 

dfreunde@aessuccess.org

717-720-3267 

Wanda Hall 

EdFinancial Services 

whall@edfinancial.com 

865-342-5350 

Facilitators Howard Bellman 

belmediate@aol.com

608-826-4020 

Susan Podziba 

susan@podziba.com

617-738-5320
#### Fair Shake Realty Corporation, Respondent, v Peter A. Mayone, Defendant, and Mayone Amusement Corporation, Appellant.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered September 20, 1977 in Greene County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiff. The record contains ample evidence to support the jury determination that the plaintiff was entitled to a commission of $23,000 from the appellant, and, accordingly, the plaintiff proved its cause of action. The jury could readily find that after the broker had brought the appellant and buyer together, the appellant entered into private negotiations which resulted in a sale on substantially the same terms as originally contemplated. We find no error in the court’s charge as to damages or its use of the word "business”. Judgment affirmed, with costs against the appellant. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr. and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Real Estate Associates Limited III (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
214.404-1 Cancellation of invitations after opening. ( 1 ) The contracting officer shall make the written determinations required by FAR 14.404-1(c) and (e)(1).
( 2 ) If only one offer is received, follow the procedures at 215.371 in lieu of the procedures at FAR 14.404-1(f).
[77 FR 39138, June 29, 2012]
#### 1409.406-1 General.

The Director, PAM, is authorized to make the statement regarding debarment by another agency's debarring official under the conditions in FAR 9.406-1(c).
#### 1436.270-4 Part III—Documents, exhibits and other attachments.

For Section J, List of documents, exhibits, and other attachments, include wage determinations (*See* FAR 22.404), SF-24—Bid Bond (*See* FAR 28.101), and other attachments by listing the title, date and number for each document.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

   We have issued our report dated August 24, 2001, except for Notes 2, 9 and
23 as to which the date is October 9, 2001, accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2001. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19743, effective January 14, 1997, 333-19745, effective
January 14, 1997, 333-19747, effective January 14, 1997, 333-44179, effective
January 13, 1998, 333-82169, effective July 2, 1999, 333-47152, effective
October 2, 2000 and 333-55434, effective February 12, 2001).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Irvine, California
October 9, 2001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2

Eastern Division

Marilyn Starks

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07971

Honorable Charles R. Norgle Sr.

Allstate Check Services, LLC

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, November 30, 2011:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Initial status hearing set for

12/19/11 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom # 1342. Parties to review the Court's web page under

the heading Rule 26(f) Planning Conference. A Report of Conference of Parties to be filed

on or before 12/14/11. Mailed notice(vkd, )

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-07971 Document #: 13 Filed: 11/30/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:104
162 So. 576

#### Succession of ESTEVES.

No. 33478.

June 19, 1935.

See, also, 182 La. 604, 162 So. 194.

John C. O’Connor, of New Orleans, for relator.

Charles V. Macaluso, of New Orleans, for respondents.

LAND, Justice.

Relator, Joseph A. Esteves, is the duly qualified administrator of the succession of Charles Flores Esteves. Respondents are the judge of the Twenty-Fifth district court for the parish of St. Bernard, and the widow and. heirs of decedent.

*719On May 21, 1935, the widow and heirs of Charles Flores Esteves, deceased, filed a rule in the lower court to remove the administrator, on the ground that he had withdrawn funds from bank, without order of court, to pay certain creditors of the succession, whose claims had been opposed on the account filed by the administrator, and while opposition to these claims was still pending and undisposed of by respondent judge.

Relator excepted to the rule on the ground that it was not a proper proceeding to remove relator as administrator, and on the further ground that the rule failed to disclose any right or cause of action.

These exceptions were overruled by respondent judge, and application was then made to this court for writs of certiorari and prohibition.

It is well settled that an action to remove an administrator is not a summary proceeding, but must be brought by ordinary suit. Code Prac. arts. 1013, 1017, 1018; Succession of Boyd, 12 La. Ann. 611; Succession of Guilbeau, 25 La. Ann. 474; Succession of Calhoun, 28 La. Ann. 323; Succession of Feray, 31 La. Ann. 727; Succession of Bertrand, 127 La. 857, 54 So. 127; State v. Tebault, 147 La. 889, 86 So. 320.

An action to remove an administrator must be commenced by petition and citation, and be conducted in the form of an ordinary suit, notwithstanding the answers in this case of respondents to the rule nisi that, if the relief prayed for by relator be granted, it will lie within the power of the administrator to dispose of and squander the remaining assets of decedent’s estate.

It is not within the power of this court to change an ordinary suit to a summary proceeding, in direct violation of the articles of the Code of Practice and of the repeated decisions of this court maintaining procedure under these articles. Relator is entitled to the full protection of the law, although his fairness and faithfulness as administrator are at issue.

■ It is therefore ordered that the rule nisi herein issued be made absolute. It is further ordered that the judgment herein rendered, overruling the exceptions to the proceeding by rule to remove the relator as administrator of the succession of Charles Flores Esteves, be set aside; that a writ of prohibition issue herein directed to respondent judge, the Hon. J. C. Meraux, judge of the Twenty-Fifth district court, prohibiting him from taking further proceedings under the rule to remove relator as administrator of said succession; that the rights of respondents, the widow and heirs of Charles Flores Esteves, if any they have, to remove relator as administrator by ordinary suit be and are hereby reserved; and that the succession of "Charles Flores Esteves pay the costs of this proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                       427
<INVENTORY>                                     20,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,133
<PP&E>                                          69,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,440
<BONDS>                                         22,283
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        442
<COMMON>                                         1,028
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,017
<SALES>                                         59,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,391
<CGS>                                           45,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (26)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,984
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,766
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.20
        

</TABLE>
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:see attached comment
#### In the Matter of George J. Conway, Appellant, v. Evelyn Taylor et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on February 18, 1963, granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Section 145 of the Civil Court Act provides that “ the stenographer’s original transcript of minutes must be furnished to the clerk”. Rule XXIX of the Rules of the New York Civil Court requires that “ Within ten days after the fees of the court reporter 6 0 0 have been paid, the court reporter shall file a certified copy of such transcript with the clerk”. Accordingly, the petitioner may neither compel the reporter to deliver the transcript to him nor compel delivery prior to payment. It should be noted, however, that section 177 of the New York Civil Court Act expressly provides that “ the stenographer’s fees for making up such transcript shall be 30 cents for every one hundred words actual count”. The language is clear and it means that such is the permissible charge and no more. A charge made per page or per folio is not in accordance with the statute. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
201.404 Class deviations. ( b ) ( i ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(ii) of this section, OUSD(A&S)DPCAP is the approval authority within DoD for any class deviation.
( ii ) The senior procurement executives for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Directors of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the Defense Logistics Agency, may approve any class deviation, other than those described in 201.402(1), that does not— ( A ) Have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the department or agency;
( B ) Have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors;
( C ) Diminish any preference given small business concerns by the FAR or DFARS; or
( D ) Extend to requirements imposed by statute or by regulations of other agencies such as the Small Business Administration and the Department of Labor.
[65 FR 6552, Feb. 10, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 52951, Aug. 31, 2000; 68 FR 7439, Feb. 14, 2003; 88 FR 73235, Oct. 25, 2023; 89 FR 60831, July 29, 2024]
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA-23-0643

SEBASTIAN ALEXANDER KEITEL,

Respondent and Appellant,

v.

AVANLEE CHRISTINE OKRAGLY,

Petitioner and Appellee.

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLATE REPLY BRIEF

The Respondent/Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Appellate Reply Brief having been reviewed, and good cause appearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Respondent/Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Appellate Reply Brief is GRANTED. Respondent/Appellant’s reply brief shall be 

filed by Monday, April 22, 2024.

No further extensions will be granted.

Cc: Caitlin Pabst, Joseph Raffiani

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 9 2024

04/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0643
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OSHALAMIBI I.A. ZANNU EL, )

ex rel. TRACEY A. REDMOND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1746

)

CATERPILLAR, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Following the issuance of this Court’s brief March 13

memorandum order, pro se plaintiff Oshalamibi Zannu EL (“Zannu

EL”) has obtained a right-to-sue letter from EEOC and has filed

an Amended Complaint (“AC”) to supplant his originally-filed

Complaint of Employment Discrimination that had employed the

printed form provided by this District Court’s Clerk’s Office for

use by plaintiffs without legal representation. This Court

grants Zannu EL’s In Forma Pauperis Application, so that this

action may go forward against Caterpillar, Inc. (“Caterpillar”).1

Zannu EL has provided a great deal of evidentiary detail as

to the nature of his asserted employment discrimination claim in

AC Count I ¶¶4 through 8, Count II ¶¶2 and 3, Count III ¶¶2 and 3

and Count IV ¶¶2 and 3, all of which Caterpillar must answer. 

But the same cannot be said as to Zannu EL’s extended statements

 Zannu EL has named only Caterpillar itself in the case 1

caption, though the Amended Complaint’s text purports to add a

number of its key people to make up a roster of defendants. This

Court will leave it to Caterpillar to address that effort.
as to the law and legal authorities in the rest of the AC,

assertions that need not be responded to by Caterpillar.

This Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary

initial scheduling order, which sets a status hearing date that

should allow time for the service of process on Caterpillar and

for its filing of a responsive pleading. At that date this Court

will expect Zannu EL (if he has not previously obtained counsel

to represent him) and Caterpillar’s counsel to appear.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 3, 2012

2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1059** 

MANUEL ALVALLEROS

- AREVALO, a/k/a Manuel Dejesus Alvarado, a/k/a Manuel Dejesus Alvayero Arevalo, a/k/a Manuel Alvallero , Petitioner ,

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH , Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : August 17, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, Se nior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Manuel Alvalleros

- Arevalo ( Arevalo ), a nat ive and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention A gainst Torture. We deny the petition for review.
Arevalo disputes the conclusion that he failed to qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. “ Withholding of

remova l is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) [(2012)] if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that [his] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion .” Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d
353 , 359 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted);

see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arevalo failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Because the evidence does not compel us to conclude to the contrary, we uphold the denial of relief. See Gomis , 571 F.3d at 359

- 6 0

. We also uphold as supported by substantial evidence the finding below that Arevalo did not demons trate that it is more3 likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to
El Salvador so as to qualify for protection under the Conventi on Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2014). We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 10.9.1


Schedule of Omitted Documents in the Form of Exhibit 10.9, Including Material
Detail in Which Such Documents Differ From Exhibit 10.9

1.       Stock Option Agreement, dated as of December 28, 2000, between the
Company and John F. McCarthy, III.

2.       Stock Option Agreement, dated as of December 28, 2000, between the
Company and Robert H. Donehew.

         The form of the documents listed above does not differ in material
detail from the form of exhibit 10.9 except with respect to the identity of the
director and the number of shares of common stock underlying the options. The
Stock Option Agreement for Mr. McCarthy relates to 20,000 shares of common
stock. The Stock Option Agreement for Mr. Donehew relates to 45,000 shares of
common stock.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSE GUADALUPE M URR ILLO LOPEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10002

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-01190-DJH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na D ia ne J. Hum e te wa , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Jose Gua da lupe M urrillo Lope za ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt and c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 14-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry of a re m ove d a l ie n, in viola

t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).386 U.S. 738 (1967), M urrillo Lope z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d

M urrillo Lope z the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. M urrillo Lope z wa ive d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to P e n son v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble issue a s to the va lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss the a ppe a l. Se eid. at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 5 - 1 0 0 0 2 2
#### In the Matter of Harold E. Sundberg, Petitioner, v. Joseph H. Murphy et al., Constituting State Tax Commission, Respondents.

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Tax Commission which held petitioner subject to imincorporated business tax, as against his contention that as a sales engineer, manufacturers’ agent or manufacturers’ representative in the employ of business corporations he was engaged in the practice of a profession. (See Tax Law, art. 16-A; also, *Matter of Sundberg*v. *Bragalini,*7 A D 2d 15, mot. for lv. to app. den, 6 N Y 2d 705.) Determination confirmed, with 50 costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur. [39 Misc 2d 967.]