alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of James Gormley, Petitioner, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding under former article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to annul a determination of the Hew York City Transit Authority, which dismissed petitioner from his position of Maintainer’s Helper B, effective January 21, 1959, upon charges: (1) that at or about 3:00 p.h. on July 2, 1957 he had loafed while on duty; and (2) that thereafter, without proper authority, petitioner absented himself from duty from July 2, 1957 until September 4, 1958. By order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made March 8, 1960 pursuant to statute (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296, now CPLR, § 7804, subd. [g]), the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition. Determination annulled on the law, with costs; order of dismissal vacated; and respondent Authority directed to reinstate petitioner to his former position, effective as of January 22, 1959. Ho questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the holding by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the claimant was unable to work during the period alleged, the respondent Authority failed, as a matter of law, to sustain the burden (imposed upon it by statute — Civil Service Law, § 75, subd. 2) of prov*898ing the claimed misconduct, namely: that petitioner was guilty of loafing or that he unjustifiably absented himself from duty during the said period. Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Ughetta, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to confirm the Authority’s determination on the ground that the proof was sufficient to raise an issue of fact for its determination.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

FirstMerit Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−00572

Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert

2200 North Ashland, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, January 11, 2016:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Due to a scheduling

conflict, the status hearing set for 1/12/16 at 10:30 a.m. is reset to 1/21/16 at 11:00 a.m.

Mailed notice (ber, )

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-00572 Document #: 510 Filed: 01/11/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14000
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NAMON KENT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 12-cv-01411

Judge Ronald A. Guzman

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

NOTICE OF MOTION

To:

Namon Kent, Pro Se

Your Community Law Office & Legal Clinic

8043 South Paulina Street

Chicago, Illinois 60620-4531

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 12, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as

counsel may be heard, the undersigned will appear before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman in

Courtroom 1219 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and present Defendant Chase Bank

USA, N.A.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement or in the Alternative to Dismiss

Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Substitute Counsel, copies of which are enclosed

herewith and hereby served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Gregory Scott Gistenson

Alison C. Conlon

Gregory S. Gistenson

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4400

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Phone: (312) 357-1313

Fax: (312) 759-5646

Email: aconlon@btlaw.com

ggistenson@btlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.

Case: 1:12-cv-01411 Document #: 59 Filed: 04/05/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:538
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 5, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion was filed

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following individuals by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system, and, to those parties not receiving such notice, by U.S. Mail

from One Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois on April 5, 2013. Parties may access this filing

through the Court’s system.

Namon Kent, Pro Se

Your Community Law Office & Legal Clinic

8043 South Paulina Street

Chicago, Illinois 60620-4531

 /s/ Gregory Scott Gistenson

Gregory S. Gistenson

CHDS01 813340v1

Case: 1:12-cv-01411 Document #: 59 Filed: 04/05/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:539
#### REARDON v. WOERNER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Husband and Wife—Separation Agreements—Validity—Statutory Provision.

Domestic Relations Law, Laws 1896, p. 220, c. 272, § 21, providing that a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve the marriage, or to relieve the husband from his liability to support her, does not render illegal a contract whereby the husband agrees to pay a certain sum per week to a trüstee for the support of his wife, and the trustee and the wife agree to save him harmless from any other liability for her support.

Appeal from Municipal Court of New York.

Action by Susan E. Reardon, as trustee of Irene J. Woerner and another, against Charles H. Woerner. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

This was an action in the Municipal Court of the city of New York to recover installments which had become due on a contract by the defendant for the support of his wife.

The contract was made in 1904 after the separation of the husband and wife, and is the usual one through the intervention of a trustee for the wife. The husband agrees to pay $10 a week to the trustee for the support of his wife, and the trustee and the wife agree to save him harmless from any other claim or liability for the support of his wife.

The defendant demurred, first, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, second, that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, and GAYNOR, JJ.

Joab H. Banton, for appellant.

W. Coleman Hughes, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

It is too well known among us that such a contract has long been held to be valid to call for the citation of authority.

It has of late been held, however, in the case of Carling v. Carling, 42 Misc. Rep. 492, 86 N. Y. 46, that the provision at the end of section 21 of the domestic relations law (chapter 272, p. 220, Laws 1896) that “a husband and wife cannot contract to alter or dissolve the marriage, or to relieve the husband from his liability to support his wife,” changes the law and makes such a contract illegal, in that it may secure to a wife less than she might be able to get by going- to law, and relieve the husband of his liability to that extent. I do not see how we can acquiesce in this view. Substantially the same provision is to be found in chapter 594, p. 1139, of the Laws of 1892, which amends the act of 1884 (chapter 381, p. 465, Laws 1884) in- relation to the rights *748and liabilities of married women, and such an effect was never claimed for it. It is qúite manifest that the Legislature had no such intention.

The contention that only a suit in equity, and not an action at law, cqn arise upon the contract, and that thé court below was without jurisdiction inasmuch as it has no .jurisdiction of suits in equity, has no foundation.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99

           WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                DECEMBER 31, 1999

Supplementary Information Required Pursuant to Section 9.4 of the Partnership
Agreement (Unaudited)

   1.  Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Year Ended      Three Months Ended
                                                               December 31, 1999  December 31, 1999
                                                               -----------------  ------------------
<S>                                                            <C>                <C>
       Net Income (loss)                                       $      1,271,000   $         (18,000)

          Add: Depreciation                                             188,000              55,000
               Amortization                                               4,000               1,000
               Equity in loss of local limited partnership               72,000              25,000
               Cash from reserves                                             -             439,000
          Less: Cash to reserves                                       (952,000)                  -
                                                               -----------------  ------------------

          Cash Available for Distribution                      $        583,000   $         502,000
                                                               =================  ==================

          Distributions allocated to General Partners          $          8,000   $           2,000
                                                               =================  ==================

          Distributions allocated to Limited Partners          $        575,000   $         500,000
                                                               =================  ==================
</TABLE>


   2.  Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
       General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended
       December 31, 1999:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        Entity Receiving                             Form of
          Compensation                            Compensation                                  Amount
       --------------------            -------------------------------------------        ------------------
       <S>                             <C>                                                <C>
       General Partners                Interest in Cash Available for Distribution          $          2,000


       WFC Realty Co., Inc.            Interest in Cash Available for Distribution          $              5
       (Initial limited partner)
</TABLE>
#### 204.602 General.

See PGI 204.602 for additional information on the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and procedures for resolving technical or policy issues relating to FPDS.

[74 FR 37644, July 29, 2009]
January 14, 1975.

M. P. No. 74-320.

#### Victor Walka *v.*Frank Bestwick, Jr. Victor Walka *v.*William Collins.

*Letts, Quinn & Licht, Daniel J. Murray, Jerome B. Spunt, Frank Licht,*for respondent-appellee. *Alan H. Pearlman,*for petitioners-appellants.

Order entered on January 9, 1975 is vacated. The order entered on December 11, 1974 staying execution pending decision on the petition for writ of certiorari is reinstated.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2127

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED HASSEN,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A29-694-250)

Submitted: June 26, 2003 Decided: July 10, 2003

Before MOTZ, WIDENER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,

Civil Division, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, David W.

Dauenheimer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ibrahim Mohammed Hassen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”). The order denied his motion to reopen the

Board’s dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s order

denying his applications for asylum and suspension of deportation.

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order

and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Hassen’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a) (2003); INS v.

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re:

Hassen, No. A29-694-250 (B.I.A. Sept. 9, 2002). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
212.371 Inapplicability of certain provisions and clauses to contracts for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items. Commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items are a subset of commercial products. Therefore, the provisions and clauses listed in 212.370 as not applicable to contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products are also not applicable to contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of COTS items. In addition, the following provisions and clauses published after January 1, 2015, not expressly authorized in law, are not applicable to contracts for the acquisition of COTS items: ( a ) FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems.
( b ) [Reserved]
[88 FR 80464, Nov. 17, 2023]
19.705-5 Awards involving subcontracting plans. ( a ) In making an award that requires a subcontracting plan, the contracting officer shall be responsible for the following: ( 1 ) Consider the contractor's compliance with the subcontracting plans submitted on previous contracts as a factor in determining contractor responsibility.
( 2 ) Assure that a subcontracting plan was submitted when required.
( 3 ) Notify the SBA procurement center representative (or, if a procurement center representative is not assigned, see 19.402(a)) of the opportunity to review the proposed contract (including the plan and supporting documentation). The notice shall be issued in sufficient time to provide the representative a reasonable time to review the material and submit advisory recommendations to the contracting officer. Failure of the representative to respond in a reasonable period of time shall not delay contract award.
( 4 ) Determine any fee that may be payable if an incentive is used in conjunction with the subcontracting plan.
( 5 ) Ensure that an acceptable plan is incorporated into and made a material part of the contract.
( b ) Letter contracts and similar undefinitized instruments, which would otherwise meet the requirements of 19.702(a)(1)(i) and (ii), shall contain at least a preliminary basic plan addressing the requirements of 19.704 and in such cases require the negotiation of the final plan within 90 days after award or before definitization, whichever occurs first.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1743, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 71 FR 36926, June 28, 2006; 85 FR 11765, Feb. 27, 2020]
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Michael Holup

*John B. Williams,*special public defender, in support of the motion.

Submitted October 22

decided November 1, 1974

The defendant’s motion to expedite consideration of his motion for review in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied and this court continues consideration of the defendant’s motion for review pending receipt of a finding.
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:529
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:530
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:531
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:532
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:533
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:534
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:535
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:536
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:537
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:538
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:539
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:540
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:541
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:542
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:543
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:544
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:545
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:546
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:547
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:548
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:549
Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 73-2 Filed: 05/07/13 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:550
EXHIBIT NO. 11

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |     
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----
|                                          |  | Year Ended December 31, 2006
|                                          |  | Shares                       |  | Earnings Per Share
|                                          |  | (In Thousands)              
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 7,177                        |  | $                  | 1.41
|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |     
|Diluted                                   |  |                              |  |                    |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 7,177                        |  |                    |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 1                            |  |                    |     
|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |     
|                                          |  | 7,178                        |  | $                  | 1.41
|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |     
|                                          | 
|                                          |  | Year Ended December 31, 2005
|Basic Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  | 7,168                        |  | $                  | 1.25
|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |     
|Diluted                                   |  |                              |  |                    |     
|Average Shares Outstanding                |  | 7,168                        |  |                    |     
|Common Stock Equivalents                  |  | 3                            |  |                    |     
|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |     
|                                          |  | 7,171                        |  | $                  | 1.25
|                                          |  |                              |  |                    |
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-4816

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM238AD

SAFRAN MESSIER-BUGATTI-DOWTY A25434-32-3374 --- 6/12/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### 1733.211 Contracting officer's decision.

The written decision required by FAR 33.211(a)(4) shall include, in the paragraph listed under FAR 33.211(a)(4)(v), specific reference to the Interior Board of Contract Appeals, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22203, and its procedures under 43 CFR part 4. The IBCA optional small claims (expedited) procedures and accelerated procedures under 43 CFR 4.113 shall also be referenced as required by the FAR.

[51 FR 44296, Dec. 9, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 44296, Dec. 9, 1986]
#### 1552.211-79 Compliance with EPA policies for information resources management.

As prescribed in 1511.011-79, insert the following clause:

# Compliance With EPA Policies for Information Resources Management (JUL 2016)

(a) *Definition.* Information Resources Management (IRM) is defined as any planning, budgeting, organizing, directing, training, promoting, controlling, and managing activities associated with the burden, collection, creation, use and dissemination of information. IRM includes both information itself and the management of information and related resources such as personnel, equipment, funds, and technology. Examples of these services include but are not limited to the following:

(1) The acquisition, creation, or modification of a computer program or automated data base for delivery to EPA or use by EPA or contractors operating EPA programs.

(2) The analysis of requirements for, study of the feasibility of, evaluation of alternatives for, or design and development of a computer program or automated data base for use by EPA or contractors operating EPA programs.

(3) Services that provide EPA personnel access to or use of computer or word processing equipment, software, or related services.

(4) Services that provide EPA personnel access to or use of: Data communications; electronic messaging services or capabilities; electronic bulletin boards, or other forms of electronic information dissemination; electronic record-keeping; or any other automated information services.

(b) *General.* The Contractor shall perform any IRM-related work under this contract in accordance with the IRM policies, standards, and procedures set forth on the Office of Environmental Information policy Web site. Upon receipt of a work request (*i.e.* delivery order, task order, or work assignment), the Contractor shall check this listing of directives. The applicable directives for performance of the work request are those in effect on the date of issuance of the work request. The 2100 Series (2100-2199) of the Agency's Directive System contains the majority of the Agency's IRM policies, standards, and procedures.

(c) *Section 508 requirements (accessibility).* Contract deliverables are required to be compliant with Section 508 requirements (accessibility for people with disabilities). The Environmental Protection Agency policy for 508 compliance can be found at *www.epa.gov/accessibility.*

(d) *Electronic access.* A complete listing, including full text, of documents included in the 2100 Series of the Agency's Directive System is maintained on the EPA Public Access Server on the Internet at *http://www2.epa.gov/irmpoli8/current-information-directives.*

(End of clause)

[77 FR 429, Jan. 5, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 46291, July 31, 2013; 81 FR 31528, May 19, 2016]
#### 1322.406 Administration and enforcement.