alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CARPENTERS FRINGE BENEFIT )

FUNDS OF ILLINOIS, et al., )

) CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs, )

) NO. 12 C 3063

vs. )

) JUDGE JOHN J. THARP, JR.

ASHLAUR CONSTRUCTION )

COMPANY, INC., an Illinois corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, and move for entryof judgment by default against

Defendant, ASHLAUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., an Illinois corporation, in the total

amount of $3,818.43, plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of

$940.00. 

On June 4, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Registered Agent (by

tendering a copy of said documents to the Illinois Secretary of State because the corporation’s

registered agent could not, with reasonable diligence, be found at the registered office of record in

Illinois) (a copy of the Affidavit of Compliance for Service on Secretary of State is attached hereto).

Therefore, Defendant’s answer was due on June 25, 2012. As Defendant hasfailed to timely answer

the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion for Entry of Default and Judgment) with the Clerk of Court using the

CM/ECF system, and further certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United

States Mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 18th

day of July 2012:

Jesse White

Secretary of State

Department of Business Services

Attn: File #6121-069-5

Springfield, IL 62756

Ashlaur Construction Company, Inc.

509 E. 75th Street

Chicago, IL 60619

Mr. Zollie R. Carradine, President/Secretary

Ashlaur Construction Company, Inc.

2095 Parkview Drive

South Holland, IL 60473-3785

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6237001

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: jdunitz.geiringer@baumsigman.com

I:\CarpsJ\Ashlaur Construction\motion.jdg.df.wpd
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 789 

To exempt from the Lacey Act and the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 

certain water transfers between any of the States of Texas, Arkansas, 

and Louisiana. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To exempt from the Lacey Act and the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers between any of 

the States of Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Water Supply 

5 Invasive Species Compliance Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 789 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN WATER TRANSFERS FROM 

2 THE LACEY ACT AND THE LACEY ACT AMEND3 MENTS OF 1981. 

4 (a) EXEMPTION.—Section 42 of title 18, United 

5 States Code (popularly known as the Lacey Act), and the 

6 Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) 

7 shall not apply with respect to any covered water transfer, 

8 if— 

9 (1)(A) all prohibited species in the water trans10 ferred are located in both of the public water sup11 plies between which the water is transferred; and 

12 (B) the water is transferred directly between 

13 such public water supplies; or 

14 (2) the water is transferred in a closed convey15 ance system directly to treatment facilities where all 

16 prohibited species contained in the water transferred 

17 will be extirpated. 

18 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

19 (1) COVERED WATER TRANSFER.—The term 

20 ‘‘covered water transfer’’ means a transfer between 

21 public water supplies located on, along, or across the 

22 State boundaries between any of Texas, Arkansas, 

23 and Louisiana, of water containing a prohibited spe24 cies. 

25 (2) PROHIBITED SPECIES.—The term ‘‘prohib26 ited species’’ means any species— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 789 IS

1 (A) the shipment of which is otherwise 

2 prohibited by section 42 of title 18, United 

3 States Code; or 

4 (B) the transfer of which is otherwise pro5 hibited by the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 

6 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). 

7 (3) PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.—The term ‘‘public 

8 water supply’’ means any body of water, including 

9 any river, lake, or stream, the water of which is 

10 available or made available to the public. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 1 - 1212 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 1 - CE - 0 34 - AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

– If this box is checked, no s ignatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the fol lowing changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:
**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
#### Industrial & Commercial Realty Associates Company, Respondent, v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 22, 1978, granting plaintiff-respondent’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent that leave to include the proposed third cause of action therein is denied and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The proposed third cause of action does not allege an express, special contract to act solely as a finder, but rather seeks recovery on an implied promise, a theory this court heretofore rejected as insufficient to sustain a real estate broker’s claim to recover a finder’s fee. *(Industrial & Commercial Realty Assoc. Co. v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*60 AD2d 527.) Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Yesawich and Bloom, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

STEVEN BITNER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30170

D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00143-RFC-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 2, 2010** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Steven Bitner appeals the denial of his Motion for

Change of Venue filed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) (“Rule 21

motion”). Bitner was indicted in the District of Montana and charged with

FILED

MAR 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

advertisement of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. Bitner,

a resident of Oregon, filed the Rule 21 motion requesting the matter be transferred

to the District of Oregon. After the district court denied that motion, he entered

into a conditional plea agreement which allowed him to appeal the denial of the

motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bitner’s Rule 21

motion. It properly identified and applied the factors listed in Platt v. Minnesota

Mining & Manufacturing Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243–44 (1964), to determine whether

Bitner’s case should have been transferred. It is not our function to reweigh the

factors once we are satisfied that the district court applied the appropriate criteria. 

Id. at 244–45.

AFFIRMED.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 730 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 

hydroelectric projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2017 

Mr. KAINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of certain hydroelectric projects. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CERTAIN HY4 DROELECTRIC PROJECTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

6 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

7 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En8 ergy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section 

9 as the ‘‘Commission’’) projects numbered 12737 and 

10 12740, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 730 IS

1 for the applicable project, and after reasonable notice, in 

2 accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public 

3 interest requirements of that section and the procedures 

4 of the Commission under that section, extend the time pe5 riod during which the licensee is required to commence 

6 the construction of the applicable project for up to 3 con7 secutive 2-year periods from the date of the expiration of 

8 the extension originally issued by the Commission. 

9 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the 

10 period required for commencement of construction of a 

11 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the 

12 date of enactment of this Act— 

13 (1) the Commission may reinstate the license 

14 for the applicable project effective as of the date of 

15 the expiration of the license; and 

16 (2) the first extension authorized under sub17 section (a) shall take effect on that expiration. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
328 A.2d 106.

#### State *vs.*Arthur H. Parmentier.

NOVEMBER 21, 1974.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleber and Doris, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The state has appealed the grant of the defendant’s suppression motion. The defendant was indicted for his alleged participation in a series of housebreaks that occurred in the Narragansett and South Kingstown sections of Washington County. The record indicates that he was arrested in a university parking lot while seated in a Chevrolet convertible vehicle which was owned by another individual who was arrested at the same time and also charged with complicity in the breaks. The police had been informed that a similar vehicle had been parked in the driveway of a South Kingstown home just prior to the discovery of a break at that location. The arresting officer informed the trial justice that, after taking the defendant to the South Kingstown police station, the defendant was given the Miranda warnings and then signed a waiver of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. A series *42of signed statements setting forth, the defendant’s participation in the crimes charged are part of the record. The defendant denied that he had been informed of his rights to remain silent and have the assistance of counsel. He also testified that the waiver was not presented to him until “several hours” after the interrogation had begun.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *Donald P. Ryan,*Asst. Attorney General, *R. Raymond Greco,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff.

*Frank S. Cappuccio,*for defendant.

The trial justice ruled that the police had no probable cause to arrest defendant; he therefore barred the subsequent use of “any confession taken from him.” The state argues that any taint caused by the illegal arrest was eradicated by the waiver signed by defendant. This contention finds support in our recent holding in *State*v. *LaRosa,*112 R. I. 571, 313 A.2d 375 (1974), where we ruled that a confession voluntarily given by an accused in custody is not rendered inadmissible ipso facto by the illegality of his arrest.

Here, the suppression of the evidence was based solely on the lack of probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Accordingly, the ends of justice will best be served by a remand to the trial court where the necessary findings can be made as to whether the defendant’s statements may be used at trial.

The state’s appeal is sustained.
#### 213.303 Blanket purchase agreements (BPAs).
# Head Start FACES (1997): Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance, Third Progress Report

Listen

Publication Date:

Current as of:April 29, 2019

##       Introduction  

Expand

As the nation’s premier early childhood education program, Head Start is leading the way in accountability for program out-comes and services to more than 800,000 young children and their families each year. New findings from a study of 3,200 children and families show that Head Start narrows the gap between disadvantaged students and all other children in key components of school readiness. Students in the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), who entered Head Start in Fall 1997 in a national random sample of Head Start programs, began the year at a great disadvantage compared to other children. This was shown by their own scores on standard tests of cognitive skills, family poverty, and low levels of parental education.

##       Files  

                      - PDF     Head Start FACES (1997): Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance, Third Progress Report  (1,149.55 KB)

Types:

Report

OPRE Research Topics:

Head Start & Early Head Start

Projects:

Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)

Topics:

Early ChildhoodHead Start

Tags:

EducationEvidence-based ApproachesGrantsResearch

##       Directly Related Research  

                        -  Beginning Head Start: Study Design and Data Tables for FACES 2006, Baseline Report                  December 15, 2008     
                        -  FACES 2006: Study Design                  March 15, 2007     
                        -  "Friendly FACES" - FACES Findings: New Research on Head Start Outcomes and Program Quality                  December 15, 2006     
                        -  FACES 2003 Research Brief: Children's Outcomes and Program Quality in Head Start                  December 15, 2006     
                        -  Head Start Performance Measures Center, Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES 2000): Technical Report                  February 15, 2006     
                        -  Executive Summary for Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance                  April 15, 2003     
                        -  Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance, Fourth Progress Report                  May 15, 2003     
                        -  A Descriptive Study of Head Start Families: FACES Technical Report I                  January 15, 2002     
                        -  Head Start FACES: Reaching Out to Families: Head Start Recruitment and Enrollment Practices                  January 15, 2001
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00131-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.S.,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-02761

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights, the 

reporter’s record was due to be filed with this court on February 17, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P.

35.1(b). 

On March 5, 2014, after no reporter’s record was filed, we notified court reporter David 

R. Zarate that the record was late, and ordered him to file a notification of late record not later 

than March 10, 2014, or to file the record by March 17, 2014. After no response was received, 

on March 21, 2014, we ordered David R. Zarate to file the record by March 31, 2014, or we 

would order him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the 

record. 

On March 26, 2014, David R. Zarate filed the reporter’s record in this appeal. Our March 

21, 2014 order is satisfied. Appellant’s brief is due on April 15, 2014. See id. R. 38.6(a).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### 1322.805 Procedures.

The designee authorized to approve award without pre-award clearance is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 285 Filed: 03/19/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:4283
Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 285 Filed: 03/19/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:4284
Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 285 Filed: 03/19/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:4285
Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 285 Filed: 03/19/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4286
Case: 1:11-cv-07956 Document #: 285 Filed: 03/19/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:4287
203.1003 Requirements. ( b ) Notification of possible contractor violation. Upon notification of a possible contractor violation of the type described in FAR 3.1003(b), coordinate the matter with the following office: Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Administrative Investigations Contractor Disclosure Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 14L25, Arlington, VA 22350-1500. Toll-Free Telephone: 866-429-8011. Website: *https://www.dodig.mil/Programs/Contractor-Disclosure-Program/ .*
( c ) *Fraud hotline poster.* For contracts performed outside the United States, when security concerns can be appropriately demonstrated, the contracting officer may provide the contractor the option to publicize the program to contractor personnel in a manner other than public display of the poster required by 203.1004(b)(2)(ii), such as private employee written instructions and briefings.
[77 FR 76937, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 73005, Oct. 21, 2016; 84 FR 39202, Aug. 9, 2019]
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 838 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to include retrofit loans such as property 

assessed clean energy loans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5 (legislative day, APRIL 4), 2017 

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to include retrofit 

loans such as property assessed clean energy loans, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Americans 

5 from Credit Entanglements Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘PACE 

6 Act of 2017’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REAL PROPERTY RETROFIT LOANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 103 of the Truth in Lend9 ing Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 838 IS

1 (1) in subsection (g), in the last sentence, by in2 serting ‘‘and a person who lends money to con3 sumers for real property retrofit loans’’ before ‘‘for 

4 purposes’’; 

5 (2) by redesignating subsection (cc) (relating to 

6 definitions relating to mortgage origination and resi7 dential mortgage loans) and (dd) as subsections (dd) 

8 and (ee), respectively; 

9 (3) in subsection (dd)(5), as redesignated, by 

10 inserting ‘‘, including a real property retrofit loan,’’ 

11 before ‘‘other than’’; and 

12 (4) adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(ff) The term ‘consumer credit transaction’ includes 

14 a real property retrofit loan extended to a consumer. 

15 ‘‘(gg) The term ‘real property retrofit loan’ means a 

16 financing instrument— 

17 ‘‘(1) secured by an interest in real property; 

18 ‘‘(2) that is repayable in installments through 

19 payments made concurrently with the payment of 

20 property taxes on the real property; and 

21 ‘‘(3) that is used to finance real property im22 provements or retrofits, including property assessed 

23 clean energy loans or other loans repaid through the 

24 property tax system for the purposes of energy effi25 ciency upgrades, renewable energy installations, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 838 IS

1 windproofing or seismic retrofits, water conservation 

2 upgrades, septic tanks, or other real property im3 provements or retrofits to a particular parcel of real 

4 property.’’. 

5 (b) REAL PROPERTY RETROFIT LOAN DISCLO6 SURE.—Section 128 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 

7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(g) REAL PROPERTY RETROFIT LOAN DISCLO10 SURE.—Before extending a real property retrofit loan, the 

11 creditor shall provide a disclosure statement explaining 

12 that the real property retrofit loan will result in a lien 

13 on the real property securing the loan.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:18 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj
Cc: Elman, Barry; Conner, Lisa; Vasu, Amy Subject: Request for Supporting Documents

Hi Bob,

I hope all is well!

Can you send the following supporting documents referenced in the preamble? If you can’t send them over immediately, can you give me a sense of when you’ll be sending them? - Greenhouse Gas Abatement Measures TSD (p. 101 and forward) - Goal Computation TSD (p. 145 and forward) - Existing State Actions TSD (p. 152 footnote) - Legal Issues Memo (p. 184 and forward) - State Plan Considerations TSD (p. 222 and forward) - Projecting Emission Performance: Mass-Based Goals and Plan Performance TSD (p. 222 and forward)

Please give me a call if you have any questions.

Regards, Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins, PhD Policy Analyst OMB/OIRA/NRE 202.395.7856 chiggins@omb.eop.gov