alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO 

PADILLA, CECILIA LINARES, 

AUGUSTINA BLANCO, ABEL 

GONZALEZ, and RICHARD JENNINGS, 

On Behalf of Themselves and All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and 

REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida 

corporation; and TARGET 

CORPORATION, a Minnesota 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 11 CV 07972

CLASS ACTION

Judge James B. Zagel

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: All Parties and Their Attorneys of Record

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs Augustina Blanco, Abel 

Gonzalez, Cecilia Linares, and Francisco Padilla, by their counsel Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman 

& Balint, P.C. and Boodell & Domanskis, LLC; and Plaintiff Richard Jennings, by his counsel 

Denlea & Carton LLP; respectfully request that the Court preliminarily approve a nationwide 

class settlement, as more fully set forth and described in detail in the accompanying 

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement, and the entry 

of an order: (1) preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and 

adequate; (2) approving the Notice Plan attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement; 
2

(3) setting the date and time of the Fairness Hearing; (4) provisionally certifying the Class under 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement purposes only (“Settlement 

Class”); (5) provisionally appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement Class; and 

(6) provisionally appointing Jeffrey I. Carton and Peter N. Freiberg (Denlea & Carton LLP), 

Elaine A. Ryan (Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.), and Stewart M. Weltman 

(Boodell & Domanskis, LLC) as Class Counsel.

DATED: May14, 2015

By: /s/Stewart M. Weltman

Stewart M. Weltman

BOODELL & DOMAKSKIS, LLC

353 N. Clark Street

Suite 1800

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Telephone: 312-938-4070

By: /s/Elaine A. Ryan

Elaine A. Ryan 

Patricia N. Syverson

Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & 

BALINT, P.C.

2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: 602-274-1100

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Francisco Padilla, Cecilia 

Linares, Augustina Blanco, and Abel Gonzalez 

By: /s/Peter N. Freiberg

Peter N. Freiberg

Jeffrey I. Carton 

DENLEA & CARTON LLP 

2 Westchester Park Drive

Suite 410

White Plains, New York 10604

Telephone: 914-331-0100

Attorneys for Plaintiff Richard Jennings
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 14, 2015, a true and correct copy of the following document was 

electronically filed and served on all counsel of record in this action who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system: Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 

By: /s/Peter N. Freiberg

Peter N. Freiberg

DENLEA & CARTON LLP 

2 Westchester Park Drive

Suite 410

White Plains, New York 10604

Telephone: (914) 331-0100
### §950cc–2. Use of loan proceeds to refinance loans for deployment of broadband service

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the proceeds of any loan made or guaranteed by the Secretary under this chapter may be used by the recipient of the loan for the purpose of refinancing an outstanding obligation of the recipient on another telecommunications loan made under this chapter, or on any other loan if that loan would have been for an eligible telecommunications purpose under this chapter.

(May 20, 1936, ch. 432, title VII, §703, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6209, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4743.)
1615.404-70 Profit analysis factors. ( a ) OPM Contracting Officers will apply a weighted guidelines method in developing the performance based percentage for FEHB Program contracts. For experience-rated plans, the performance based percentage will be applied to projected incurred claims and allowable administrative expenses. For community-rated plans, the performance based percentage will be applied to subscription income and will be used to calculate a performance adjustment to net-to-carrier premiums, as described at 48 CFR 1632.170(a)(2), to be made during the first quarter of the following contract period. In the context of the factors outlined in FAR 15.404- 4(d), OPM will assess performance of FEHB carriers according to four factors. ( 1 ) *Clinical quality.* OPM will consider elements within such domains as preventive care, chronic disease management, medication use, and behavioral health. This factor incorporates elements from the FAR factor “contractor effort.”
( 2 ) *Customer service.* OPM will consider elements within such domains as communication, access, claims, and member experience/engagement. This factor incorporates elements of the FAR factor “contractor effort.”
( 3 ) *Resource use.* OPM will consider elements within such domains as utilization management, administrative, and cost trends. This factor incorporates elements of the FAR factors “contractor effort,” “contract cost risk,” and “cost control and other past accomplishments.”
( 4 ) *Contract oversight.* OPM will consider an assessment of contract performance in specific areas such as audit findings, fraud/waste/abuse, and responsiveness to OPM, benefits/network management, contract compliance, technology management, data security, and Federal socioeconomic programs. This factor could incorporate any of the FAR profit analysis factors listed at 15.404-4(d)(1)(i)-(vi).
( b ) The sum of the maximum scores for the profit analysis factors will be 1 percent.
[80 FR 37180, June 30, 2015]
AFS-10-286-E June 10, 2010 Exemption No. 9758A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0930

Mr. David C. Hoffmeister Director of Training Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 1022 Airport Parkway Cheyenne, WY 82001

Dear Mr. Hoffmeister:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9758. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 19, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes), for an extension of Exemption No. 9758. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Great Lakes to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA training inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Great Lakes.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9758 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9758 to October 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9758 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9758.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
<PAGE>

                                   ADDENDUM TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                               ARNOLD M. ANDERSON
                                       AND
                               SUCCESSORIES, INC.


WHEREAS, Arnold M. Anderson (the "Employee") and Successories, Inc. (the
"Company") previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated March 1, 1996,
and an Amendment to the Employment Agreement dated January 14, 1997
(collectively the "Employment Agreement").

WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company have agreed to an addendum to the
Employment Agreement as set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth below, the
parties hereby agree as follows:

         Effective October 18, 1999, the Company elected and the Employee
         accepted the office of Founder and Chairman Emeritus, at which time the
         Company modified the Employee's duties and responsibilities consistent
         with the change in the Employee's title. The Employee hereby expressly
         consents to his employment as Founder and Chairman Emeritus and agrees
         that such employment and corresponding change in duties and
         responsibilities did not and shall not constitute "good reason" to
         support termination of the Employment Agreement under Paragraph 10.8
         thereof. The Employee and the Company further agree that the Employee's
         employment as Founder and Chairman Emeritus did not and shall not
         constitute a breach of any provision of the Employment Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum to the Employment
Agreements as of this 16th day of February, 2000.


SUCCESSORIES, INC.                                  ARNOLD M. ANDERSON



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

By:  Gary J. Rovansek

Its:  Chief Executive Officer and President
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KELLY ETIENNE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 2097

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Brevard County

, James H. Earp , Judge.

Kelly Etienne, Carrabelle, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

Affirmed, without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to file a Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.800(a) motion in the lower court alleging that the sentencing judge erred in

imposing a life sentence without parole eligibility after twenty

- five years as required by

section 775.082(1), F lorida Statutes (1991).

SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.(a).1

                                     CONSENT
                                   BY AUDITOR



        The undersigned hereby consent to: (i) the inclusion and use of our
opinions with respect to Yarc Systems Corporation, Inc., in the Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Yarc Systems
Corporation, Inc., and (ii) the references to us in the Registration Statement.


                                            Barry Glasser & Company


Date: April 26, 2000                        By: /s/ BARRY GLASSER
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Barry Glasser
Fiscal Year 2019 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - RHODE ISLAND

No data No data No data

LEA ID District FY 2019 Title I Allocation

4400030 Barrington School District 106,846

4400065 Bristol-Warren Regional School District 647,939

4400090 Burrillville School District 544,208

4400120 Central Falls School District 2,965,639

4400150 Chariho Regional School District 429,955

4400210 Coventry School District 835,856

4400240 Cranston School District 3,172,676

4400270 Cumberland School District 855,400

4400300 East Greenwich School District 86,968

4400330 East Providence School District 1,814,462

4400360 Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District 189,421

4400390 Foster Elementary School District 64,638

4400420 Foster-Glocester Regional School District 123,274

4400450 Glocester Elementary School District 199,215

4400510 Jamestown School District 124,181

4400540 Johnston School District 849,252

4400570 Lincoln School District 702,059

4400600 Little Compton School District 43,902

4400630 Middletown School District 351,781

4400660 Narragansett School District 251,058

4400690 New Shoreham School District 16,659

4400720 Newport School District 1,064,843

4400750 North Kingstown School District 614,865

4400780 North Providence School District 994,642

4400810 North Smithfield School District 252,561

4400840 Pawtucket School District 5,603,845

4400870 Portsmouth School District 324,721

4400900 Providence School District 21,930,060

4400960 Scituate School District 284,131

4400990 Smithfield School District 275,111

4401020 South Kingstown School District 482,572

4401050 Tiverton School District 260,078

4401110 Warwick School District 2,005,267

4401140 West Warwick School District 1,279,376

4401170 Westerly School District 741,248

4401200 Woonsocket School District 4,273,424

4499999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

No data No data No data

* 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.

X0AT
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Wayne J. Conner, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Elgin National Industries, Inc., certify that:



| | 3. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    WAYNE J. CONNERWayne J. ConnerVice President, Treasurer andChief Financial Officer


Date: November 14, 2006
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TRAYONE MAURICE BURTON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Joseph F. Anderson , Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr
- 00773

- JFA

- 1 )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Trayone Maurice Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are no t binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Trayone Maurice Burton appeals the district court’ s orders granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines
Amendment 782 , and denying his motion for re consideration. We review for abuse of
discretion a district court ’ s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) , and
review de novo a district court’ s conclusion as to the scope of its legal authority under that provision. See United States v. Muldrow , 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See United States v. Burton , No. 3:07

-

cr
- 00773

- JFA

- 1 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2017; June 3 0, 2017). 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.
AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

T IMOTHY FONSECA

,

Appellant

,

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Stat e. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00 227

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20180D02567 )

O R D E R

The Court received and filed the first supplemental reporter’s record as requested in its

order issued November 11 , 2020

. The appeal is therefore reinstated, and the Appellant’s motion

for extension of time to file the brief has been GRANTED. The Appellant’s brief is now due

December 30, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 th day of November , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
18.000 Scope of part. ( a ) This part identifies acquisition flexibilities that are available for emergency acquisitions. These flexibilities are specific techniques or procedures that may be used to streamline the standard acquisition process. This part includes— ( 1 ) Generally available flexibilities; and
( 2 ) Emergency acquisition flexibilities that are available only under prescribed circumstances.
( b ) The acquisition flexibilities in this part are not exempt from the requirements and limitations set forth in FAR Part 3, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest.
( c ) Additional flexibilities may be authorized in an executive agency supplement to the FAR.
[71 FR 38248, July 5, 2006, as amended at 72 FR 46344, Aug. 17, 2007]
## --' 

# RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2013 tLS; DEPARTMENT OF 

### TRANSPORTATION



### FBO:ERA.LAVIATIQN ADMINISTRATlON WASHINGTON, DC 

## HEARING DOCKET

In**th~** Matter 9f:



### TGIFREIGHT 1 

# I I 

# I FAA I)oclcet No. CP 1 ONMQO 12 

### OMS 

### No. FAA-2010-1079 Judge RICHARD C. GOODWIN


### PARTIES STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ,· ...• 1,,·.:) l,.
......J :· ····.'), ... · ..

_,.., \)

The parties hereby stipulate and submit the following. post-hearing briefing schedule in the 

### above matter: Post-Hearing Brief ofCo1nplainant, FAA Post-Hearing Brief ofRespondent, 

### TGI Freight Rebuttal BriefofComplainant, FAA

# ~**~** DATED this

### -~___::______(lay of. Fel;)nlat;¥ 2013.
. 

### HOWARD L. 

### MARTIN, JR. Regional Counsel 4/1113 5/6/13 5/24113

# By:~~ Senior Attorney**M~.-z:;l..** 

### DATED this
_ 

### __,}_'J-4
____ day off'elmtary 2013.

## ~AW OFFICE OF HOZUBIN 

### & MOBERLY Attorneys for TGI Freight

## .. ORDER The parties'**Briefing$~h~dul,e** is GRANTED. 

### DATED this------ day o£
_____ _____,,2013;

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

### U.S
.. Administrative 

### Law Judge

## .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: TGI Freight FAADocket No. CPIONM0012 DMS NO.**FAA~2010~1079** I certify that on this date Ihave served. a copy ofthe 

### PARTIES STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE email or facsimile transmission if indicated, and mailed by 

### placing it 

### in the United 

### States Mail, 

### .postage-prepaid, certifi,ed mail, 

### vetum receipt requested, addressed as follows: Original and l Cony Federal Aviation Administration· 800 Independence Avenue; SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk,**AGC~430** Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 One Copy Rebecca J. Hozubin, Esq. Wilkerson Hozubin 310 K Street, Suite 405 Anchorage; 

### AK 99501 Fax:**907~276-5291** The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-300 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax:**202-366~7536**



# . Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West 7th Avenue #14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

3 (via facsimile)

# ~£j} 2013 Date I
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143272 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143272 

 COA: 299095 

Wayne CC: 02-002648 

SHERMAN WAGNER, a/k/a BOBBY WAGNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

ADAM GRAY #B-77079, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1743

)

JOSEPH YURKOVICH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Nearly 15 years after Adam Gray (“Gray”) was convicted of

aggravated arson and two counts of first degree murder on which

he is serving a sentence of natural life in prison, the

“Exoneration Project” of the University of Chicago Law School,

with two lawyers from Jenner & Block teaming up with law

students, has filed a 28 U.S.C. §2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (“Petition”). This Court’s threshold review of that

filing, as called for by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, unsurprisingly

suggests that part or all of the Petition may be barred by

limitations under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)--indeed, was perhaps

time-barred even before any tolling kicked in under 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(2) by reason of Gray’s filing of his first state postconviction petition.1

 Gray has most recently filed a third such state petition, 1

which has not yet been ruled upon. In that respect his counsel

have filed a motion to stay and abey the Petition to allow him to

exhaust his state court remedies.

Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 8 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:38
Accordingly this Court orders an initial status hearing for

9:15 a.m. March 20, 2012 to discuss the timeliness issue. It 2

should then be in a better position to determine what further

proceedings are appropriate.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 12, 2012

 Although Gray’s counsel have previously designated a 2

March 28 presentment date, it seems to make good sense to address

the limitations question at the earliest possible date.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 8 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:39
1824.102 General. ( 1 ) For NASA rules and regulations implementing the Privacy Act, see Privacy—NASA Regulations, (14 CFR 1212). The Act applies to any contractor maintaining a system of records to accomplish a NASA mission.
( 2 ) Systems of records to which the Privacy Act does not apply include— ( i ) Records maintained by a contractor on individuals employed by the contractor on its own behalf for the purpose of providing supplies and services to the Federal Government; and
( ii ) Records that— ( A ) Are maintained under contracts with educational institutions to provide training;
( B ) Are generated on students working under the contract relative to their attendance (admission forms, grade reports, etc.);
( C ) Are similar to those maintained on other students; and
( D ) Are commingled with their records on other students.