alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
130624055

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARION J. TUCKER and STEPHANIE

TUCKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARLES SCHWAB BANK, f/k/a Charles

Schwab Bank, N.A., and MORGAN

STANLEY CAPITAL I, INC., f/k/a Morgan

Stanley Dean Witter Credit Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 12-cv-03399

Judge Tharp

MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL¶S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Defendant, MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL I, INC., (3Morgan Stanley Capital ́), by its

attorney, Todd P. Stelter, requests this Court enter judgment in its favor and against plaintiffs,

stating as follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Morgan Stanley Capital on July

10, 2013. [Doc#51].

2. The Notice specifically indicates that Morgan Stanley Capital was to be dismissed

from this case with prejudice. [Doc#51; PageID#1238].

WHEREFORE, Morgan Stanley Capital respectfully requests this Court enter judgment

in its favor and against plaintiffs and for such other relief as the Court may deem just, proper and

equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Case: 1:12-cv-03399 Document #: 64 Filed: 07/31/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1356
2

130624055

By: ______s/ Todd P. Stelter__________________

One of Defendant, Morgan Stanley Capital¶s

Attorneys

Todd Stelter

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

222 N. LaSalle Street

Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60601-1081

312-704-3000

Case: 1:12-cv-03399 Document #: 64 Filed: 07/31/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1357
3

130624055

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARION J. TUCKER and STEPHANIE

TUCKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARLES SCHWAB BANK, f/k/a Charles

Schwab Bank, N.A., and MORGAN

STANLEY CAPITAL I, INC., f/k/a Morgan

Stanley Dean Witter Credit Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 12-cv-03399

Judge Tharp

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on July 31, 2013, I electronically filed MORGAN STANLEY¶S

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following:

Robert Lee Stone

Email: rlstone@propertyrightslawgrp.com

 Respectfully submitted,

 By:____s/Todd P. Stelter______

Todd P. Stelter

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

222 N. LaSalle Street, Ste 300

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 704-3000

Case: 1:12-cv-03399 Document #: 64 Filed: 07/31/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1358
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40776

Summary Calendar

 

JESSE WARE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; RAYMOND THOMPSON,

Warden, Powledge Unit; T. L. WOMACK, Warden, Powledge

Unit; J. D. WHITTEN, Major, Powledge Unit; J. TESLAR,

Lieutenant, Powledge Unit; K. KUYKENDALL, DR.; JAMES

W. BRANCH, M.D.; MERIENE MOSER, Nurse, University of 

Texas Medical Branch, Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, Institutional Division; R. DUJAY, Nurse, 

University of Texas Medical Branch, Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; D. YONTS,

Correctional Officer, Powledge Unit; JEREMY CRUTCHER,

Correctional Officer, Powledge Unit,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CV-757

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Ware, a Texas prisoner (# 395442), appeals from the

dismissal of his in forma pauperis civil rights complaint as 
No. 98-40776

- 2 -

frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), following a

hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.

1985). Ware asserted that after he fell in the medical ward in

October 1996 and January 1997, correctional employees, including

two nurses, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by

failing to provide him proper treatment. 

Although the district court may have improperly discredited

some of Ware’s allegations and Spears-hearing testimony by

relying on Ware’s extensive medical records, see Williams v.

Luna, 909 F.2d 121, 124 (5th Cir. 1990), any such error was

harmless. See FED. R. CIV. P. 61; Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d

286, 293. Ware’s assertions about the aggravation of preexisting injuries caused by the falls have been and remain too

speculative to support his claims that defendants were

deliberately indifferent, and the records generally show that

Ware has received frequent and intensive medical treatment since

his parole was revoked in 1995. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 105-06 (1976). Neither the medical records nor Ware’s own

allegations support a conclusion that any defendant knew that

Ware “face[d] a substantial risk of serious harm and

disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to

abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The

district court’s dismissal of the complaint was not an abuse of

discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1992). 

All pending motions are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & GuidanceGENERAL

About FOIA | About the Privacy Act | **FOIA Reading Rooms**Making a Request | FAQs | Contacts | Links
**Contracts for the Department of Education**
The contracts posted in the E-FOIA Reading Room are provided as a courtesy. Because the documents have been produced by entities outside of the U.S. Department of Education who are not subject to the Department's standards for the accessibility of documents posted on the Internet, this material may not be accessible to individuals with disabilities.

In addition, the process of redaction and image scanning may further hamper the accessibility of these documents.

If you need assistance with these documents, please contact the FOIA Service Center by email atED.FOIA.Manager@ed.gov or call 202-401-8365.

EDUCATE PDF (13.3 MB)

Further information on OCFO programs.

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable viewShare this page |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANNA HANEY, as Personal Representative 

of the Estate of JEFFREY HANEY, 

deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation; 

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; 

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, Inc., a 

corporation; and PRATT & WHITNEY, a 

division of UNITED TECHNOLOGIES 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02729

 

 

 Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Joint Unopposed Motion to Delete Sealed Documents 

from the Court’s ECF System, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendants’ Joint Motion is 

GRANTED. The Clerk of the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 

Division, is HEREBY ORDERED and directed to delete from the Court’s ECF System 

Document Nos. 48 and 49, which were electronically filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s 

Order of May 30, 2012, and which contain sealed Exhibits A, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, 

and Q to the Supplemental Declaration of John E. Paquet in Support of Defendants’ 

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

By the Court this ______ day of November, 2012.

Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RAUL CASTOR, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Judge Kocoras

)

-vs- ) Case No.: 12-cv-02579

)

CIGPF I CORP. et al., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION 

To: David J. Philipps

Mary E. Philipps

PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.

9760 South Roberts Road, Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE than at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22, 2012, we shall 

appear before the Honorable Judge Charles P. Kocoras in Room 1719 of the District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division located at 219 South 

Dearborn Street in Chicago, Illinois, and then and there present DEFENDANTS CIGPF 

I CORP. AND AMERICAN CORADIUS INTERNATIONAL, LLC’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT, a copy of which was served upon you by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Nicole Barrett 

Attorney for Defendants CIGPF I and ACI

Case: 1:12-cv-02579 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:68
- 2 -

Nicole M. Barrett

SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.C.

55 West Monroe, Suite 1120

Chicago, IL 60603

Telephone: (312) 578-0992

Facsimile: (312) 578-0991

nbarrett@sessions-law.biz

Attorney for Defendants CIGPF I Corp. and American Coradius International, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 15th day of May, 2012, a copy of the foregoing 

NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION was filed electronically. Notice of this filing 

will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. 

Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

David J. Philipps

Mary E. Philipps

PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.

9760 South Roberts Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

/s/ Nicole Barrett

Attorney for Defendants CIGPF I and ACI

Case: 1:12-cv-02579 Document #: 17 Filed: 05/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:69
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated December 8, 2000, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Alpha
Technologies Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended October 29, 2000.  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No.
33-11627, effective January 29, 1987, File No. 33-17359, effective September 28,
1987, File No. 33-20706, effective March 17, 1988, File No. 33-29636, effective
June 30, 1989, File No. 33-48663, effective June 23, 1992 and File No. 333-
03001, effective April 30, 1996) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-10311,
effective August 16, 1996).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
-------------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP
Houston, Texas
January 29, 2001
#### Williams *v.*The State.

April 16, 1913.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Parker. Charlton superior court. December 28, 1912.

*W. B. Gibbs*and *Wilson, Bennett & Lambdin,*for plaintiff in error. *T. 8. Felder,*attorney-general, and *M. D. Dicherson, solicitor-general,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. The evidence did not warrant an instruction on the law of voluntary manslaughter.

2. Where the legal principles embodied in the Penal Code, § 70, relating to the law of self-defense, were contained in an instruction concretely applying these principles to the facts of the case, a new trial is not required because the court failed to give further instructions on the law of self-defense, in the statutory language.

3. Where testimony relating to a dying declaration of the decedent is ■received in evidence, and no objection' is made thereto, it is not error for the court to give in charge to the jury the legal principles applicable to dving declarations.

4. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneur.*
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 1, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert D. George,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)     The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                  
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 4, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. George                                                             
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Robert D. George Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 20, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 20, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0162. DIGIRAD IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC. v. DONNA SHAHEEN KEIFER et 

al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

18C02928
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. II 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711642
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          36,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         17,999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,656)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,217
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,563
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        60
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     110,484,000
<SECURITIES>                                19,951,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              137,683,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 8,360,000
<INVENTORY>                                 95,741,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           399,972,000
<PP&E>                                     340,519,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             189,217,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             786,949,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      171,863,000
<BONDS>                                     56,512,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 361,448,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               786,949,000
<SALES>                                    406,942,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           413,919,000
<CGS>                                      144,326,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              363,965,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,241,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             49,954,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                19,482,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         30,472,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                30,472,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65


</TABLE>
#### Evelyn M. Gravino, Respondent, v Robert M. Gravino, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 272]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced in October 1980 the defendant appeals from (1) an amended order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated March 6, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiffs motion for arrears in spousal support pursuant to a separation agreement in the sum of $94,721.61, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 10, 2006, which granted the plaintiffs motion for an attorney’s fee in the sum of $11,373.

Ordered that the amended order and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in finding that the plaintiff satisfied the condition precedent set forth in the separation agreement. At a hearing, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant was provided with written notice that the plaintiffs employment had been terminated. The defendant did not testify and presented no evidence to contradict the plaintiffs testimony. The failure of the defendant to testify allowed the court to draw the strongest inference against him that the opposing evidence permitted *(see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G.,*59 NY2d 137, 141 [1983]; *Matter of Cantina B.,*26 AD3d 327, 328 [2006]).

The court did not err in granting the plaintiffs motion for an attorney’s fee *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 238).

*593The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

 1ST AMENDMENT TO LEASE BY AND BETWEEN TYPECRAFT, INC. AND IDEALAB!
                                 AUGUST 7, 1997

Whereas Typecraft Inc. (Lessor) and idealab! (Lessee) entered into a lease on
3/3/97 (Lease) for the real property at 130 and 132 W. Union Street in Pasadena
and.

Whereas that lease granted an option(s) to Lessee to take additional space.

Lessee hereby exercises its option to Lease 136 W. Union Street. The lease is
now modified to incorporate the following terms:

          As specified in paragraph 51(c) of lease, base rental for 136 W. Union
          Street shall be $3,850 per month. Base rental for the entire
          Premises consisting now of 130, 132 and 136 W. Union Street shall be
          $15,350 per month.

          As specified in paragraph 51(d) of Lease, the $10,000 paid for the
          Option shall be credited to rent. This equates to 2 months and
          eighteen days of prepaid rent for 136 W. Union.

          As specified in paragraph 51(e) Lessee shall be granted 31.8 months
          (31 months and 24 days) of rent abatement in exchange for completing
          the work outlined in Lease addendum 9.

          For purpose of clarification, accounting for rent abatement and
          prepaid rent for 130, 132 and 136 W. Union, the first rent payment due
          on 130 and 132 W. Union shall be $11,500 on September 1st, 1999. In
          June of 2,000, idealab! will pay $12,783.33 (11,500 + 10 days rent for
          136 W. Union.) Commencing July, 2000 rent payments for 130, 132 and
          136 W. Union shall then be $15,350 due on the first of each month
          throughout the initial term.

          Lease commencement shall be November 8th, 1997 and termination of
          initial term shall be February 28th, 2002.

          As specified in paragraph 5 of Lease, Lessee hereby increases its
          security deposit by an additional $3,850. Lessee's total deposit now
          equals $15,350.

Exercised by Lessee                         Acknowledged by Lessor

IDEALAB!                                    TYPECRAFT, INC.
130 W. Union Street                         2040 E. Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA  91103                         Pasadena, CA  91107


/s/ WILLIAM GROSS            8/12/97        /s/ D. HARRY MONTGOMERY     8/14/97
--------------------------------------      ------------------------------------
    By William Gross         Date               D. Harry Montgomery     Date



                                            /s/ LEON JASMIN            8/14/97
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                Leon Jasmin            Date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clarence Tyler, Appellant.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may he prosecuted upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Carmen A. Miller, Esq., attorney at law, of Watkins Glen, New York is assigned to prosecute the appeal.