alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11392 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
J. JESUS JAIMES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16

- CR

- 13

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
J. Jesus Jaimes appeals the 36

- month se ntence imposed after his guilty

plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation . He argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. A ssuming he preserved this argument in the district court, we review it for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 26, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11392 Document: 00513969740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017No. 16

- 11392

2 Jaimes argues that the district court fa iled to take into account any 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors other than those involving his prior criminal and deportation history. Additionally, he contends that the distric t court failed to consider a factor that should have received significant weight when it failed to discuss whether his legal residency in the United States for 26 years and his reasons for returning to the United States affected his sentence. He also
cont ends that the degree of the departure from his 15

- to

- 21

- month G uidelines

range was unreasonable. Jaimes has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in varying upwardly from the G uidelines range. The record supports a determinatio n that the district court had an adequate basis for the sentence imposed and was guided by the Section 3553(a) factors in determining that an upward variance was justified. The district court stated that it had considered multiple Section 3553(a) factors

. Jaimes’s criminal history is a factor that a court may consider in deciding whether to im pose a non
- G uidelines sentence. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no requirement that any aspect of a defendant’s personal h istory and circumstances be afforded dispositive weight

. S ee United States v. Lopez

Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Jaimes’s challenge to how the district court chose to weigh specific factors does not show that the district court erred. S ee Gall , 522 U.S. at 51 . Additionally, h is sentence, which was 15 months above the top of the applicable advisory G uidelines range, was not so disproportionate as to overcome the factors that warranted its imposition. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F .3d 347, 348

– 50 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11392 Document: 00513969740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
M. P. No. 74-269.

#### Apex Warwick, Inc. *v.*Rhode Island Workers’ Association *et al.*

*Levy, Goodman, Semonoff & Gorin, Edward F. Burke,*for plaintiff-respondent. *Donald R. Coblentz, Kenneth F. MacIver, Jr., Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc.,*for defendants-petitioners.

Petition for alternate writ of certiorari or mandamus is denied as moot.

Joslin, J. did not participate.
1649.002-70 Applicability of the FAR to FEHB acquisitions. ( a ) Termination of FEHB contracts because of withdrawal of approval is controlled by 5 U.S.C. 8902(e) and 5 CFR 890.204.
( b ) Termination of FEHB contracts because of nonrenewal of the contract at the end of the contract term is controlled by 5 U.S.C. 8902(a) and 5 CFR 890.205.
( c ) The procedures for settlement of contracts after they are terminated shall be those contained in FAR part 49.
[57 FR 19387, May 6, 1992]
### Catalog of worldwide tidal bore occurrences and characteristics

By: S. Bartsch-WinklerDavid K. Lynch

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1022

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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.
#### 207.170 [Reserved]
Case: 1:12-cv-02009 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/10/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:158
Case: 1:12-cv-02009 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/10/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:159
Case: 1:12-cv-02009 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/10/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:160
Case: 1:12-cv-02009 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/10/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:161
206.303-1 Requirements. ( a ) In accordance with section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), no justification and approval is required for a sole-source contract under the 8(a) authority (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) for an amount not exceeding $100 million.
( b ) In lieu of FAR 6.303-1(b), in accordance with section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), contracting officers shall not award a sole source contract under the 8(a) authority (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) for an amount exceeding $100 million unless— ( 1 ) The contracting officer justifies the use of a sole source contract in writing in accordance with FAR 6.303-2;
( 2 ) The justification is approved in accordance with 206.304(a)(S-71); and
( 3 ) The justification and related information are made public after award in accordance with FAR 6.305.
[85 FR 34529, June 5, 2020]
131167299v1 0934792

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TOMMY KASALO,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-CV-02900

Judge: Matthew F. Kennelly

NOTICE OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

Defendant, TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC (“Trident”), by its attorneys, 

David M. Schultz and Corinne C. Heggie, and for its Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment, states:

1. On August 20, 2014, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff for statutory 

damages in the amount of $1,000.00 plus attorney’s fees and costs allowable under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692(k)(a) through August 26, 2014. See Dkt. #156. 

2. On May 17, 2015, pursuant to Plaintiff’s counsel’s Petition for Attorney’s Fees 

and Expenses, Plaintiff’s attorney was awarded $109,574.93 in attorney’s fees and expenses. 

See Dkt. #175. 

3. On May 28, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Stipulation of Payment Plan to 

Satisfy the Judgment which provided, among other deadlines, the day by which the final 

payment was to be made. The final payment was to be made no later than 5:00 p.m. Central 

Standard Time, Monday, November 2, 2015. See Dkt. #176. 

4. As of October 9, 2015, Defendant has satisfied all the payments for the judgment. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, by virtue for the 

foregoing payments described herein, has fully satisfied the judgment entered August 20, 2015. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02900 Document #: 177 Filed: 10/14/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4745
2

131167299v1 0934792

Respectfully submitted,

TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

Defendant

/s/ Corinne C. Heggie

Corinne C. Heggie

David M. Schultz

Corinne C. Heggie

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60601-1081

Telephone: 312-704-3000

E-mail: cheggie@hinshawlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 14, 2015, I electronically filed with the Clerk of the U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, the foregoing Notice of 

Satisfaction of Judgment by using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such 

filing(s) to:

Mario Kris Kasalo

The Law Office of M. Kris Kasalo, Ltd.

20 North Clark Street, Suite 310

Chicago, IL 60602

E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com

/s/Corinne C. Heggie

Case: 1:12-cv-02900 Document #: 177 Filed: 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4746
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHARON ALICIA BURKE ANZALDI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2987

)

RACHEL MARIE CANNON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Sharon Alicia Burke Anzaldi ("Anzaldi") has continued to demonstrate

throughout her filings in this action that she occupies a fantasy legal world of her own creation. 

This Court might well have terminated this action before now on grounds of its legal and factual

frivolousness (see, e.g., Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989)), but it harbored a

slim hope -- perhaps unrealistically on its own part -- that an identification for Anzaldi of the

potential consequences that she risked by persisting in her bizarre misperceptions might perhaps

shock her back into the real world of the law.1

On August 3 Anzaldi filed a purported "Answer and Response to Memorandum Order"

that is just as bizarre as her earlier submissions, simply advancing her otherworldly views. This

Court is not qualified to engage in the amateur practice of psychiatry, so it will not embark on

 Hence it issued a July 19, 2012 Memorandum Order ("Order") that called for a 1

response by Anzaldi as to "(1) why her filing of the original Complaint and of her current

response have assertedly not violated Rule 11(b) and (2) why any such violations should not

result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions" -- and the Order concluded by setting out a

number of such possible sanctions.

Case: 1:12-cv-02987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:191
that path. Instead it finds that Anzaldi has demonstrated once again that she is beyond the efforts

of this Court to jolt her out of her fantasies. It orders the following, as forecast by the Order:

1. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Anzaldi is ordered to file a thorough financial statement on or

before September 7, 2012 to enable this Court to determine what

(if any) monetary sanctions may fairly be imposed on her as

permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(5)(B).

3. All of this Court's memorandum orders in this case are referred to

this Court's colleague Honorable Harry Leinenweber for his

consideration, if Anzaldi is convicted in the criminal case before

him, of whether she may be found for Sentencing Guideline

purposes to have attempted to obstruct justice by her actions in this

case.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: August 7, 2012

- 2 -

Case: 1:12-cv-02987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:192
**Exhibit      32.0**

**Written      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial      Officer**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. **
**§**
**1350**

|                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Fred              R.              Adams, Jr.                                             |   |   |   |
| Fred                R. Adams, Jr.Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |        |
|                                                                                              |   |   |   |

|                                                                                                                            |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Timothy              A. Dawson                                                                                         |   |   |   |
| Timothy                A. Dawson Vice                President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and                Secretary |   |   |        |
|                                                                                                                            |   |   |   |

| Date: |   | April              21, 2006 |   |
|-------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|

----
#### In the Matter of Shirley Robinson, Respondent, v. Andrew Bender, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

The appellant admits a meretricious relationship with the respondent and the only issue is the time of occurrence. The Judge of the Family Court did not write a decision but he participated actively in the interrogation of the respondent and it is implicit in the order appealed from that he found the evidence met the standard required in filiation proceedings. We see no reason to disturb the determination. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                        383,531
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,877
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8,335,010
<PP&E>                        12,257,139
<DEPRECIATION>                (6,341,461)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                15,759,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         262,971
<BONDS>                       4,018,893
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    11,021,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  15,759,410
<SALES>                       3,390,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3,813,394
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,706,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,425,464
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            426,578
<INCOME-PRETAX>               259,629
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           259,629
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  259,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 4.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                 4.57
        

</TABLE>
IN THE LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTI{ERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ARCHITECTURAL IRON WORKERS' LOCAL

NO. 63 WELFARE FUND, et.al. Case No: 12 CY 2506

Judge: Shadur

Plaintiffs, Magistrate Judge: Keys

v.

lr$ (s= AMERICAN STEELWORKS, INC., ) ffi A

)e% Defendant. L' ) Er,, c.) ) H;-' $

€r..l

Turnover order 2R &

Eqr

This cause coming to be heard on the Motion of the Architectural Iron Workers'ff-pcal {ou

Welfare Fund, et al. for a Turnover Order against F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielson &T'Asoffit.r,

LLC. due notice having been given and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielson & Associates, LLC. is ordered to pay $8,693.72 to the

Plaintiffs for amounts they owe American Steelworks, Inc. pursuant to the PLA and work

performed on the LINO Natchez project by Architectural Iron Workers Local 63.

ENTERED: .,47zrl g, Zot4

uk,ru". I"Q,^*",,-

Honorable Milton I. Shadur

Gregorio & Associates

Two North LaSalle, Suite 1650

Chicago, lL 60602

312/263-2343

Case: 1:12-cv-02506 Document #: 55 Filed: 04/08/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:426
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 4 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318508
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 4
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      646
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          26,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         19,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,090)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,821
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,712
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.10<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
C. A. No. 1964.

#### State *v.*Vito N. Russo.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *Donald P. Ryan,*Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff. *Vito N. Russo,*defendant, pro se.

Defendant, Vito N. Russo, is ordered to file his brief in the above-entitled matter within forty (40) days of this order.
Appeal No. 74-256.

#### Howard Kaufman *v.*Luther A. Ray.

*Levy, Goodman, Semonoff & Gorin, Anthony F. Muri,*for appellee. *Quentin J. Geary,*for appellant.

Motion of appellant, Luther A. Ray, for enlargement of time for filing brief, and the motion of appellee, Howard Kaufman, to dismiss for failure to file brief are denied as being moot. Motion of appellee to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court under Rule 16(g), as amended, is denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 3, 2016 

# Order

June 3 , 2016

150643 ( 9 6 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

BOBAN TEMELKOSKI

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 150643

COA: 313670

Wayne CC: 94

- 000424

- FH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time

for filing its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if

submitted on or before July 22 , 2016.
#### 14.202-8 Electronic bids.

In accordance with subpart 4.5, contracting officers may authorize use of electronic commerce for submission of bids. If electronic bids are authorized, the solicitation shall specify the electronic commerce method(s) that bidders may use.

[60 FR 34737, July 3, 1995]
1846.673 Distribution of DD Forms 250 and 250c. ( a ) DD Forms 250 and 250c shall be distributed in accordance with installation procedures.
( b ) The contractor is responsible for distributing DD Forms 250 and 250c in accordance with the provisions of the contract or instructions of the contracting officer.
#### McGILL (two cases) v. CENTRAL CROSSTOWN R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Street Railways—Injury to Passenger Boarding Car—Negligence— Evidence.

A judgment for plaintiff is supported by evidence that she attempted to board defendant’s street car while it was at a standstill, immediately on the alighting of a passenger, and that it started while she was stepping on it, though plaintiff approached the car after the signal to start had been given by the conductor, who was inside the car.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Actions for negligence by Bridget McGill and Bernard McGill against the Central Crosstown Railroad Company. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

*478Edward D. O’Brien, for appellant.

G. A. C. Barnett, for respondents.

BISCHOFF, J.

Conceding all the value which the defendant claims for the testimony of the disinterested witness Robbins, the recovery below is still supported by sufficient proof, and is not opposed to the weight of evidence. The plaintiff’s story is that she attempted to board the car when it was at a standstill, her attempt being made immediately upon the alighting of a passenger, and that the injury sued for resulted from the car’s starting while she was stepping upon it. Mr. Robbins, called for the defendant, testified that this plaintiff approached the car after the signal to go ahead had been given by the conductor, wlm was inside the car, collecting fares; but, according to his testimony, the car was not moving at the very moment when she actually tried to board, nor does it appear that the conductor’s signal was given after the alighting passenger had stepped away from the car. The conductor assumed to give the proper signals from a place where it was evident that he could not see the position of arriving or departing passengers in relation to the platform step. In fact, this woman was dragged for half a block before the conductor became apprised of the fact by the cries of his passengers. The giving of the signal to start, therefore, was not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s testimony that she tried to board just as a passenger left the car, and while it was standing still—an account not in conflict with the evidence of Mr. Robbins, which measured the attempt solely by its relation to the conductor’s signal. There was an implied invitation to take passage, and the accident may well have been deemed to have resulted from the sole negligence of the defendant’s servant.

Judgments affirmed, with costs. All concur.