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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Namon Kent

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01411

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

Chase Bank USA, N.A., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, March 15, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on

3/15/2013. Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to second amended complaint on or

before 4/5/13. Status hearing set for 4/12/2013 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, )

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: 1:12-cv-01411 Document #: 54 Filed: 03/15/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:384
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7293** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SILAS JUNIOR MOBLEY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00189

- RJC

- DCK

- 2 ; 3:13

- cv - 00458

- RJC )

Submitted : January 31, 2017 Decided: February 10, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Silas Junior Mobley , Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte , North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorn ey, Asheville , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Silas Junior Mobley s eeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mobley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of a ppealabil ity and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 84 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 84

  To provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of 
   persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from 
   active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2017

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of 
   persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from 
   active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS AS 
              SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF RELIEF FROM 
              ACTIVE DUTY AS REGULAR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of section 
113(a) of title 10, United States Code, the first person appointed, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as Secretary of Defense 
after the date of the enactment of this Act may be a person who is, on 
the date of appointment, within seven years after relief, but not 
within three years after relief, from active duty as a commissioned 
officer of a regular component of the Armed Forces.
    (b) Limited Exception.--This section applies only to the first 
person appointed as Secretary of Defense as described in subsection (a) 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and to no other person.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

Certification of Trust Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty
Trust (the Trust), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Luke H. Paladino, the Trust Officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of the Trust, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the Trust.



|                                    |  |     |  |                                                                          
|----------------------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated this 28th day of March, 2011. |  | By: |  | /s/ Luke H. Paladino                                                     
|                                    |  |     |  | Luke H. Paladino, Trust OfficerU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
Order entered January 15, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01227-CV

COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant

V.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. F/K/A VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC. AND CERNO 

SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-07683

ORDER

Appellee has filed a notice of bankruptcy indicating that appellant filed bankruptcy on or 

about November 19, 2013 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2, a bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the 

bankruptcy petition was filed until the appellate court reinstates or severs the appeal in 

accordance with federal law. 

Accordingly, for administrative purposes, this cause is ABATED and will be treated as a 

closed case. It may be reinstated on proper motion by any party showing that the stay has been 

lifted and specifying what further action, if any, is required from this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 

8.2, 8.3(a).

/s/ JIM MOSELEY 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Reducing Poverty Through Growth

Fact Sheet

June 9, 2008 www.mcc.gov

Millennium Challenge Corporation Working with Peru to Improve 

Immunization Rates, Combat Corruption

The two-year, $35.6 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) threshold program with Peru seeks 

to improve the country’s performance on MCC’s Control of Corruption and Immunization Rate indicators. 

Specifically, the program will help Peru combat corruption by improving administrative systems and procedures, 

strengthening enforcement and increasing public awareness about corruption. The program will also focus on 

increasing immunization rates by improving administrative and supply chain systems at the Ministry of Health.

Combating corruption by:

•	 Improving internal controls within the judiciary;

•	 Improving internal controls within the police force and transparency of police procedures;

•	 Analyzing and simplifying administrative processes to reduce opportunities for corruption in citizen/

government interactions;

•	 Increasing the public’s awareness about corruption and the government’s anti-corruption efforts; and

•	 Increasing the capacity of citizens to use public information to effectively assess and monitor the government’s transparency and accountability.

Increasing immunization rates by:

•	 Improving immunization coverage for measles and diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT3) in eight 

targeted regions;

•	 Strengthening immunization management and logistics systems; and

•	 Strengthening the information system within the Ministry of Health.

Highlights of the Expected Results of the Peru Threshold Program

•	 Reduce by 20 percent the time the judiciary’s internal affairs office requires to reach a final decision on 

reported corruption.
Millennium Challenge Corporation

Fact Sheet: Peru, June 9, 2008 2

•	 Increase by 30 percent the number of decisions for which a sanction is recommended and executed by 

the National Judicial Council.

•	 Reduce to 7 days the time required to determine and inform a complainant if a corruption report has 

been submitted for investigation.

•	 Reduce by 50 percent the time required by the Office of the Comptroller General to investigate an allegation of corruption.

•	 Increase measles and DPT3 immunization coverage to 95 percent in the following regions: Amazonas, 

Apurimac, Ayacucho, Cusco, Huanacavelica, Huanuco, Ica and Puno. 

•	 Reduce to one week the time required to transmit immunization information from itinerant brigades 

(which provide health care services in hard to reach areas) to regional health centers.

Implementing Partner:

The United States Agency for International Development will be the U.S. government agency responsible for 

administering the program.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 782 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.782

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                                 An Act

 
To reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force 
                    Program, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Resources, Officers, and 
Technology To Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act of 2017'' or 
the ``PROTECT Our Children Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST 
CHILDREN TASK FORCE PROGRAM.
    Title I of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (34 U.S.C. 21101 et 
seq.) is amended in section 107(a)(10) (34 U.S.C. 21117(a)(10)), by 
striking ``fiscal year 2018'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2018 
through 2022''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2745

___________________________

Eleazar Garcia

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

U.S. Marshalls; Sarpy County Jail; David W. Coombs, Special Deputy U.S.

Marshal, in his individual capacity; Jacob P. Betsworth, Special Deputy U.S.

Marshal, in his individual capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Jeff Davis, Sarpy County Sheriff, in his individual capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

 ____________

 Submitted: December 20, 2021

Filed: December 28, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Eleazar Garcia appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

on his claim against Sheriff Jeff Davis brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon de

novo review, see Marsh v. Phelps Cnty., 902 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard

of review), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Davis could not be held

liable under a respondeat superior theory, see id. at 753-54 (as § 1983 claims based

on vicarious liability are not cognizable, plaintiff could not hold county sheriff liable

for deputy’s misconduct at county jail); and Garcia’s unsupported argument on appeal

that Davis was personally involved in his medical treatment because Davis’s office

would have approved treatment costs is speculative, see ACT, Inc. v. Sylvan Learning

Sys., Inc., 296 F.3d 657, 666 (8th Cir. 2002) (on review of grant of summary

judgment, non-movant is not entitled to benefit of unreasonable inferences that

amount to mere conjecture). As Garcia’s notice of appeal did not indicate that he

sought review of the district court’s earlier order dismissing his claims against the

federal marshals, we lack jurisdiction to consider those claims. See Berdella v. Delo,

972 F.2d 204, 207-08 (8th Cir. 1992) (notice of appeal was insufficient to confer

appellate jurisdiction over district court’s earlier order dismissing claim against

separate defendant on distinct grounds, as it did not include defendant in caption,

specified only later order, and did not evince intent to appeal earlier order).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF
                              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Lasertechnics, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report dated February 20, 1998, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, included in
the Form 10-KSB. The financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this
financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos.
33-42214 and 33-98160 on Form S-8 and No. 333-10665 on Form S-3 of
Lasertechnics, Inc. of our reports dated February 20, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Lasertechnics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related schedule, which reports
appear in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-KSB.



                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1998
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, )

ARCHITECTURAL METAL )

AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL )

UNION NO. 27 WELFARE AND )

PENSION FUNDS, ) No. 11 C 7777

)

Plaintiffs, ) Judge Gettleman

)

v. ) Magistrate Judge Cole

)

MGM GLASS, INC., )

an Illinois Corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL 

METAL AND GLASS WORKERS LCOAL UNION NO. 27 WELFARE AND PENSION 

FUNDS, by and through counsel, and, in their Motion For Judgment, state as follows:

1. This Court awarded Plaintiffs a $57,584.38 judgment against Defendant, MGM

GLASS, INC., on September 25, 2012.

2. Defendant continues to owe Plaintiffs $54,205.74 on the judgment. 

3. On November 29, 2012 , in an attempt to collect on that judgment, Plaintiffs

served a citation to discover assets on HEIGHTS GLASS & MIRROR, INC.’s registered agent. 

See Ex. A.

4. As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and Illinois Code of Civil

Procedure section 2-1402 (735 ILCS 5/2-1402 (West 2012)), the citation served on HEIGHTS 

GLASS & MIRROR contained the following admonition: 
2

YOU ARE PROHIBITED from making or allowing any transfer

or other disposition of, or interfering with, any property not exempt 

from execution or garnishment belonging to the Defendant or to 

which they may be entitled or which may be acquired by or 

become due to them and from paying over or otherwise disposing 

of any money not so exempt, which is due or becomes due to them, 

until the further Order of this Court or termination of these 

proceedings. ***.

YOUR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS CITATION 

MAY SUBJECT YOU TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT 

OF THIS COURT OR TO A JUDGMENT FOR THE 

AMOUNT UNPAID.

5. After receiving service of the citation, HEIGHTS GLASS & MIRROR tendered four 

payments to Judgment Debtor MGM GLASS, INC. totaling $8,617.80. See Ex. B.

6. Plaintiffs advised Citation Respondent HEIGHTS GLASS & MIRROR that it would,

therefore, require it to compensate the Funds for the amounts that should have been withheld 

pursuant to the citation, but HEIGHTS GLASS & MIRROR did not respond. See Ex. C.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask this Court to award them judgment against Citation 

Respondent HEIGHTS GLASS & MIRROR, INC. in the amount of $8,617.80 and any other 

relief this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS,

ARCHIECTURAL METAL AND

GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION

NO. 27 WELFARE AND 

PENSION FUNDS

By: s/Andrew S. Pigott

One of their Attorneys

Donald D. Schwartz

Andrew S. Pigott

ARNOLD AND KADJAN

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1650

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 236-0415
217.7401 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Contract action* means an action which results in a contract. ( 1 ) It includes contract modifications for additional supplies or services.
( 2 ) It includes task orders and delivery orders.
( 3 ) It does not include change orders, administrative changes, funding modifications, or any other contract modifications that are within the scope and under the terms of the contract, *e.g.,* engineering change proposals, value engineering change proposals, and over and above work requests as described in subpart 217.77. For policy relating to definitization of change orders, see 243.204-70.
*Definitization* means the agreement on, or determination of, contract terms, specifications, and price, which converts the undefinitized contract action to a definitive contract.
*Qualifying proposal* means a proposal that contains sufficient information to enable DoD to conduct meaningful analyses and audits of the information contained in the proposal.
*Undefinitized contract action* means any contract action for which the contract terms, specifications, or price are not agreed upon before performance is begun under the action. Examples are letter contracts, orders under basic ordering agreements, and provisioned item orders, for which the price has not been agreed upon before performance has begun. For policy relating to definitization of change orders, see 243.204-70.
[56 FR 36345, July 31, 1991, as amended at 75 FR 10191, Mar. 5, 2010; 75 FR 48277, Aug. 10, 2010; 77 FR 76940, Dec. 31, 2012; 84 FR 39206, Aug. 9, 2019]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0151 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2009-NM-205-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same 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 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 

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

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date