alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JKB/690888 2246-650

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DANYA DAVIS, SHANNON WEBB and 

BERNESSA WILSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACKER ENGINEERING, INC. and 

PACKER GROUP, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-07923

Honorable Judge Andrea R. Wood

DEFENDANT PACKER ENGINEERING, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A 

MATTER OF LAW AS TO PLAINTIFF BERNESSA WILSON

Defendant, Packer Engineering, Inc. (“Packer Engineering”), pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 50(a), submits this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law for the judgment 

entered by the Court on August 2, 2017. For the reasons outlined in the accompanying 

memorandum of law, there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to

find in favor of Plaintiff Bernessa Wilson. Accordingly, Packer Engineering respectfully 

requests that this Court grant its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Judgment should be 

entered in favor of Packer Engineering and against Bernessa Wilson, and the Court should grant 

Packer Engineering such other and further relief as it deems just and proper. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Packer Engineering, Inc. respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court grant its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as to Plaintiff Bernessa 

Wilson.

PACKER ENGINEERING, INC. 

By: /s/ James K. Borcia

One of Its Attorneys

James K. Borcia (jborcia@tresslerllp.com)

TRESSLER LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606-6399

(312) 627-4000
### §1762. Review of institutions and other entities authorized to enroll or sponsor certain nonimmigrants

#### (a) Periodic review of compliance

Not later than two years after May 14, 2002, and every two years thereafter, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, shall conduct a review of the institutions certified to receive nonimmigrants under section 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J) of this title. Each review shall determine whether the institutions are in compliance with—

(1) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive nonimmigrants under section 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J) of this title; and

(2) recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section 1372 of this title.

#### (b) Periodic review of sponsors of exchange visitors

#### (1) Requirement for reviews

Not later than two years after May 14, 2002, and every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State shall conduct a review of the entities designated to sponsor exchange visitor program participants under section 1101(a)(15)(J) of this title.

#### (2) Determinations

On the basis of reviews of entities under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether the entities are in compliance with—

(A) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive nonimmigrant exchange visitor program participants under section 1101(a)(15)(J) of this title; and

(B) recordkeeping and reporting requirements under section 1372 of this title.

#### (c) Effect of material failure to comply

Material failure of an institution or other entity to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to receive nonimmigrant students or exchange visitor program participants under section 1101(a)(15)(F), (M), or (J) of this title, or section 1372 of this title, shall result in the suspension for at least one year or termination, at the election of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, of the institution's approval to receive such students, or result in the suspension for at least one year or termination, at the election of the Secretary of State, of the other entity's designation to sponsor exchange visitor program participants, as the case may be.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title V, §502, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 563.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
#### 2052.242-70 Resolving differing professional views.

As prescribed in 2042.570-1, the contracting officer shall insert the following clause in the body of cost reimbursement solicitations and contracts for professional services, as appropriate. This clause may not be altered by the contracting officer.

# Resolving NRC Contractor Differing Professional Views (DPVs) (Date)

(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) policy is to support the contractor's expression of professional health and safety related concerns associated with the contractor's work for NRC that may differ from a prevailing NRC staff view, disagree with an NRC decision or policy position, or take issue with proposed or established agency practices. An occasion may arise when an NRC contractor, contractor's personnel, or subcontractor personnel believes that a conscientious expression of a competent judgement is required to document such concerns on matters directly associated with its performance of the contract. The NRC's policy is to support these instances as Differing Professional Views (DPVs).

(b) The procedure that will be used provides for the expression and resolution of differing professional views (DPVs) of health and safety related concerns associated with the mission of the agency by NRC contractors, contractor personnel or subcontractor personnel on matters directly associated with its performance of the contract. This procedure may be found in Attachments to this document. The contractor shall provide a copy of the NRC DPV procedure to all of its employees performing under this contract and to all subcontractors who shall, in turn, provide a copy of the procedure to its employees. The prime contractor or subcontractor shall submit all DPV's received but need not endorse them.

(End of clause)
- in-indianaubloomington-1-comp
- 'Notification Letter' of '05-24-2157'
#### Philip Handelman, Appellant, v. Industrial Development, Inc., Respondent.

Order, entered on July 15, 1963, granting the motion by defendant, Industrial Development, Inc., to dismiss the second and third causes of action of an amended complaint for insufficiency pursuant to former subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously modified only to the extent of providing for the dismissal of the third cause of action under former rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent, with leave to plaintiff to serve a further amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon. The second cause of action is predicated on a retainer agreement and the third cause on promissory notes given pursuant to that agreement. The original complaint contained two causes of action: one against both defendants to recover on the retainer agreement and the other against the corporation on the notes. In *Handelman*v. *Olen*(11 A D 2d 987, affd. 11 N Y 2d 896) on motion of the individual defendant, the first cause of action of the original complaint was dismissed for legal insufficiency with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint grounded on *quantum meruit.*Obviously, the second cause of action of the amended complaint suffers from the same infirmity as the cause of action based on the retainer agreement in the original complaint, and would, therefore, have to be dismissed for the same reason. The cause of action on the notes must suffer the same fate since the notes were given pursuant to the retainer agreement. However, on the face of the pleading, in the cause of action on the notes, sufficient was alleged to withstand a motion under former subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, under which only the pleading could be considered. Nevertheless, respondent had coupled with its motion under subdivision 4 of rule 106 a motion under rule 113 for summary judgment based upon affidavits. The motion for summary judgment was denied on the ground that triable issues were presented. However, the affidavits on that branch of the motion supplied the basis for demonstrating that the cause of action on the notes was inextricably tied in with the cause of action on the retainer agreement. Hence, the third cause of action should have been dismissed under rule 113 as well as under rule 106. In any event, it is now the law of the case in view of the decision in *Handelman*v. *Olen (supra)*that plaintiff is relegated to causes of action based on *quantum meruit*rather than on the retainer agreement or notes given pursuant to that agreement. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
Case: 1:12-cv-03105 Document #: 124 Filed: 11/11/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:531
Case: 1:12-cv-03105 Document #: 124 Filed: 11/11/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:532
1910.004-71 Limits on the use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions. ( a ) *General.* The use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions in solicitations is intended to promote competition by encouraging the offering of products that are equal in all material respects to brand name products cited in such descriptions. Identification by brand name does not indicate a preference for the products mentioned but indicates the quality and characteristics of products that will meet the Government's needs. Where a component of an item is described in the solicitation by a brand name or equal purchase description and the contracting officer determines that application of the provision of 1952.210-70 would be impracticable, the requirement to include the entry described in 1910.004-72(a) shall not apply. If the provision is included in the solicitation for other reasons, there also shall be included in the solicitation a statement to identify either the component parts (described by brand name or equal descriptions) to which the provision applies or those to which it does not apply. This also applies to accessories related to an end item where a brand name or equal purchase description of the accessories is a part of the description of an end item. Brand name or equal descriptions shall not be used to acquire a particular product under the guise of competitive acquisition to the exclusion of other products that would meet the actual needs.
( b ) In small purchases within the open market limitations, brand name policies and procedures shall be applicable to the extent practicable.
( c ) *Approval required.* A brand name or equal purchase description shall not be used unless it has been approved at one level above the contracting officer.
Case: 1:11-cv-07782 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:44
Case: 1:11-cv-07782 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:45
Case: 1:11-cv-07782 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:46
Case: 1:11-cv-07782 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:47
Case: 1:11-cv-07782 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/27/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:48
Exhibit
32(d)








CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO




18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light Company (the “Company”) for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




(1)           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/ Peter M. Scott
III


Peter M.
Scott III


Executive
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


May 9,
2008








This
certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 16, 2016

v No. 328740
Mackinac Circuit Court
RICHARD ALLAN M C KENZIE, JR., LC No. 15-003602

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: M ARKEY
, P.J., and O WENS and B OONSTRA , JJ.

B OONSTRA ( concurring ).

I fully concur in the majority opinion, and additionally incor porate the reasoning set forth in my concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion in People v Henry (After Remand) , 305 Mich App 127, 163-191; 854 NW2d 114 (2014) (B OONSTRA , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Nick Pearson, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07972

Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

Target Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, December 16, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Objector/Intervenor

Theodore H. Frank's motion to administer the constructive trust [438] is granted. Enter

Order. Mailed notice. (mgh, )

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

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

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

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

refer to it for additional information.

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

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 443 Filed: 12/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:6597
#### 217.7103 Master agreements and job orders.
Exhibit
23.1




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




To The
Board of Directors


Fushi
Copperweld, Inc and Subsidiaries




We
consent to the use of our reports dated March 9, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009 and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Fushi
Copperweld, Inc.  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statement on Form S-3/A (No. 333-160449) appearing in this annual
report on Form 10-K of Fushi Copperweld, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2009.




/S/
Frazer Frost, LLP (Successor Entity of Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet,
LLP, see Form 8-K filed on January 7, 2010)




Brea,
California


March 16,
2010
#### George Savlas, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Simos Savlas, et al., Appellants, v Willowbrook Management Company, Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 24, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 2). Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. The respondent has consented to a reversal of the order appealed from. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                               1,849,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        21,850,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (585,941)
<INVENTORY>                                          1,206,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     30,838,743
<PP&E>                                               13,501,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                       6,828,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       39,389,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                23,403,814
<BONDS>                                              4,184,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6,190
<OTHER-SE>                                           3,649,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         39,389,265
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                70,215,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        12,176,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     185,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,554,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,015,221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (171,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (844,221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       (2,004,755)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (2,848,976)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.31)
        

</TABLE>
206.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency. ( b ) *Application.* For guidance on circumstances under which use of this authority may be appropriate, see PGI 206.302-2(b).
[69 FR 74991, Dec. 15, 2004]
ATTORNE GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner 

V. 

NANCY A. COHEN 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

" OF MARYLAND 

' Misc. Docket AG No. 22 

* September Term, 2015 

* 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

This matier came before the Court on the Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent filed 

by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent, Nancy A. Cohen. The 

Court, having considered the Petition and the record herein, it is this 18thday of November, 

2015, 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Nancy A. Cohen, be and she is hereby REPRIMANDED 

for violating Rule 1.9(a) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. 

/s/ Lynne A. Battaglia 

Senior Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                             20135
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                        4464
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   26562
<CASH>                                             365
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 135
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   40161
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  13405
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                               1957
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     523
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                        7275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     40161
<PREMIUMS>                                        6678
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                               1205
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 104
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     309
<BENEFITS>                                        4773
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                       1478
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1297
<INCOME-TAX>                                       323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                894
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   11737
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                               4023
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                 (39)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                1061
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                  2052
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  13405
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                           (39)
        



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Breezy Point Surf Club, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v State Tax Commission, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Tax Commission, which sustained a sales and use tax assessment against the petitioners under articles 28 and 29 of the Tax Law. The petitioners are a beach club and two of the club’s officers. The beach club has various athletic and social facilities which are available for use by its members. Membership dues did not entitle a member to use of the "cabanas”, which were separately rented to members on a seasonal basis. These cabanas, which members were not required to rent, were permanent wooden structures and were divided into separate rooms, including kitchen, bath and sleeping facilities. Members renting a cabana were given exclusive possession for the entire summer season and locked it with their own lock. The beach club did not pay sales and use taxes on the moneys received from the rental of the cabanas from 1971 to 1974, and the respondent held that these receipts were taxable since they constituted dues within the meaning of the Tax Law (Tax Law, § 1101, subd [d], par [6]). Petitioners then brought this article 78 proceeding to set aside that determination. New York State does not impose a sales tax on receipts from the rental of real estate (see Tax Law, § 1105). Petitioners contend that the moneys received from the cabana rentals are not "dues paid to any social or athletic club” (Tax Law, § 1105, subd [f], par [2]) but are instead receipts from the rental of real estate and thus not subject to the sales tax. We agree. The record discloses that there is a valid landlord and tenant relationship between the beach club and its members who elect to rent cabanas. Accordingly, the moneys from these rentals are not dues subject to the sales tax. This decision is consistent with the position taken by the Department of Taxation and Finance which has stated that the rental of a "bungalow or apartment, having a private bathroom and kitchen in addition to sleeping rooms,” is not subject to the sales tax (Opns of Counsel of Dept of Taxation & Fin, NYS Tax Bulletin No. 1966-1, p 78). Thus, where the facilities rented were for all practical purposes bungalows or apartments, the petitioners should not be required to pay a sales tax merely because they chose to call them "cabanas.” Determination annulled, with costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.