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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VENTAS REALTY, LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

ALC CVMA, LLC, ALC GGMG, LLC, 

ALC HTIF, LLC, ALC PEDG, LLC, ALC 

TPCG, LLC, ALC WRWG, LLC, and 

ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC., 

Defendants. 

No.: 12-cv-3107 

Judge Ronald A. Guzman 

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier 

DECLARATION OF JOHN A. ROTHSTEIN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF 

DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC. FOR A PROTECTWE ORDER 

PURSUANT TO RULE 26 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

JOHN A. ROTHSTEIN, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares under penalty of 

perjury as follows: 

1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of Wisconsin. I 

am a member of the General Bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois and have appeared in this action. I am a partner at the law finn of Quarles & Brady LLP, 

counsel to defendants in this action. 

2. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and conect copy of Ventas Realty, 

Limited Partnership's Motion for Expedited Discovery, filed on May 15, 2012, which attaches 

Plaintiff's First Set of Intenogatories to Defendants, Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for 

Production of Documents to Defendants, and Notice of Deposition of Assisted Living Concepts, 

Inc., dated May 15, 2012. 

QB\17076432.1 

Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 41 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1280
3. Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of the transcript of 

the May 17, 2012 hearing on Ventas Realty, Limited Partnership's Motion for Expedited 

Discovery. 

4. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of Defendants' 

Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants and Plaintiff's 

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, dated May 31, 2012. 

5. Attached as Exhibit D hereto is a true and conect copy of Notice of 

Deposition of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., dated May 31, 2012. 

I certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements are true. 

Dated: Chicago, Illinois 

June 5, 2012 

/s/ John A. Rothstein 

John A. Rothstein 

QB\17076432.1 2 

Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 41 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1281
M. P. No. 75-94.

#### Manuel J. Furtado, Inc. *d.b.a.*The Helm *v.*Deeb G. Sarkas, *Liquor Control Administrator.*

Petition for writ of certiorari granted.

Joslin, J. not participating.

*949
      *John F. Penza, Jr.,*for petitioner. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Forrest Avila,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondent.
2009.406-3 Procedures. ( a ) *Investigation and referral.* ( 1 ) When a contracting officer becomes aware of possible irregularities or any information which may be sufficient cause for debarment, the contracting officer must first submit a complete statement of facts (including a copy of any criminal indictments, if applicable) and a recommendation for action to the Head of the Contracting Activity. If the contracting officer's statement of facts indicates misconduct on the part of the contractor in regard to an NRC contract, the Head of the Contracting Activity will refer the matter of misconduct to the Inspector General to determine if an investigation is required prior to referring the case to the debarring official.
( 2 ) To the extent the Head of the Contracting Activity believes that sufficient grounds for debarment exist, independent of any pending investigation by the Inspector General, the Head of the Contracting Activity shall immediately forward the case, without reference to any pending investigation, and a recommendation for action to the Senior Procurement Executive for review. In such circumstances, the Head of the Contracting Activity will take no additional action in regard to a specific matter of misconduct referred to the Inspector General prior to consulting with the Inspector General.
( b ) *Decision-making process.* If, after reviewing the recommendations and consulting with the Office of the General Counsel and, if appropriate, the Office of the Inspector General, the debarring official determines debarment is justified, the debarring official shall initiate the proposed debarment in accordance with FAR 9.406-3(c) and notify the Head of the Contracting Activity of the action taken. If the contractor fails to submit a timely written response within 30 days after receipt of the notice in accordance with FAR 9.406-3(c)(4), the debarring official may notify the contractor in accordance with FAR 9.406-3(d) that the contractor is debarred.
( c ) *Fact-finding proceedings.* For actions listed under FAR 9.406-3(b)(2), the contractor shall be given the opportunity to appear at an informal hearing. The hearing should be held at a location and time that is convenient to the parties concerned and no later than 30 days after the contractor received the notice, if at all possible. The contractor and any specifically named affiliates may be represented by counsel or any duly authorized representative. Witnesses may be called by either party. The proceedings must be conducted expeditiously and in such a manner that each party will have an opportunity to present all information considered pertinent to the proposed debarment.
22.1004 Department of Labor responsibilities and regulations. Under the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, the Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, make rules and regulations, issue orders, hold hearings, make decisions, and take other appropriate action. The Department of Labor has issued implementing regulations on such matters as— ( a ) Service contract labor standards provisions and procedures (29 CFR part 4, subpart A);
( b ) Wage determination procedures (29 CFR part 4, subparts A and B);
( c ) Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards statute (rulings and interpretations) (29 CFR part 4, subpart C);
( d ) Compensation standards (29 CFR part 4, subpart D);
( e ) Enforcement (29 CFR part 4, subpart E);
( f ) Safe and sanitary working conditions (29 CFR part 1925);
( g ) Rules of practice for administrative proceedings enforcing service contract labor standards (29 CFR part 6); and
( h ) Practice before the Administrative Review Board (29 CFR part 8).
[54 FR 19816, May 8, 1989, as amended at 71 FR 36933, June 28, 2006; 72 FR 63080, Nov. 7, 2007; 79 FR 24206, Apr. 29, 2014]
Fiscal Year 2014 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - RHODE ISLAND

FY 2014 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4400030 Barrington School District 100,722

4400065 Bristol-Warren Regional School District 527,438

4400090 Burrillville School District 494,323

4400120 Central Falls School District 2,591,981

4400150 Chariho Regional School District 405,547

4400210 Coventry School District 650,469

4400240 Cranston School District 2,877,869

4400270 Cumberland School District 503,516

4400300 East Greenwich School District 83,027

4400330 East Providence School District 1,395,654

4400360 Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District 177,711

4400390 Foster Elementary School District 69,095

4400420 Foster-Glocester Regional School District 97,969

4400450 Glocester Elementary School District 83,160

4400510 Jamestown School District 182,637

4400540 Johnston School District 795,797

4400570 Lincoln School District 422,634

4400600 Little Compton School District 47,845

4400630 Middletown School District 283,655

4400660 Narragansett School District 166,320

4400690 New Shoreham School District 19,366

4400720 Newport School District 959,798

4400750 North Kingstown School District 527,438

4400780 North Providence School District 817,541

4400810 North Smithfield School District 183,407

4400840 Pawtucket School District 4,828,357

4400870 Portsmouth School District 250,619

4400900 Providence School District 20,525,868

4400960 Scituate School District 178,851

4400990 Smithfield School District 185,686

4401020 South Kingstown School District 387,320

4401050 Tiverton School District 224,418

4401110 Warwick School District 1,504,258

4401140 West Warwick School District 902,062

4401170 Westerly School District 479,593

4401200 Woonsocket School District 4,585,743

4499999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2014 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
Exhibit
      32(d)








**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light Company (the “Company”) for the
      period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III, Executive Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




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




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











/s/
      Peter M. Scott III


Peter
      M.
      Scott III


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      8,
      2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Peter Donahue et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 1, 1978, which, after a hearing, determined that the notice of cancellation served by the Government Employees Insurance Company was valid, vacated the stay of arbitration and directed it to proceed to arbitration. Judgment reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable jointly by respondents, and application granted. To effectively cancel an insurance policy, there must be strict compliance with the requirements set forth in section 313 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law *(Matter of Lion Ins. Co. v Reilly,*61 AD2d 1047; *Thomas v Government Employees Ins. Co.,*61 AD2d 1044; *Duhs v Royal Globe Ins. Co.,*63 AD2d 992; *Matter of Country Wide Ins. Co. [Meadows],*63 AD2d 951). The notice here was clearly insufficient because it failed to comply with the statutory requirement that the financial security clause be printed in "type of which the face shall not be smaller than twelve point” (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 313, subd 1, par [a]; *Cohn v Royal Globe Ins. Co.,*67 AD2d 993). Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Order filed, December 10, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 12

- 00923

- CR

____________
WILLIAM MICHAEL JENK INS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 1342365



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 30, 2012

. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed
timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cantrece Addison , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this
appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM
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 Year-end Report on Form 10-K of Public Storage, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald L. Havner, Jr., as
Chief  Executive  Officer and President of the Company and John Reyes,  as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  each hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) 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 Company.


/s/ Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
-------------------------
Name:    Ronald L. Havner, Jr.
Title:   Chief Executive Officer & President
Date:    March 1, 2007

/s/ John Reyes
-------------------------
Name:    John Reyes
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:    March 1, 2007


This   certification   accompanies   the  Report   pursuant  to  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 134, as amended.


A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  required  by  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  has  been  provided  to the  Company,  and  will be
retained and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

                                   Exhibit 32
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles R. STEWART, and Paul Washington Kibby, Defendants.

No. 66 CR 58(1).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

July 9, 1970.

*807Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Harry Roth, Clayton, Mo., Samuel Ra-ban, co-counsel, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HARPER, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant, Charles R. Stewart, for a new trial.

The defendant was tried, found guilty, appealed, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and certiorari denied by the Supreme Court. The defendant seeks a new trial on the basis that evidence not available to the defendant at the time of the trial has come into his possession. The motion alleges that Agent Patch, one of the witnesses, was not in position to see what he testified to at the trial.

To support this contention the defendant offered to the court for what it is worth the affidavit of one Ophelia Brown, mother of Dudley Brown, one of the witnesses in the case. The affidavit is of no value, because Ophelia Brown, a resident of the St. Louis area, was not produced at the hearing on the motion, and the defendant’s attorney stated that she would only testify if she were paid $550.00 for testifying.

The affidavit itself does not pinpoint dates. It states what the witness could have seen, yet it does not state that the witness was at the location at all times, and is of no value without giving the government the opportunity to cross-examine, particularly when the affiant was in the area and could have been produced.

The attorneys further make much of the affidavit of Dudley G. Brown, who testified at the trial, and based upon the affidavit it would appear would contradict his testimony, but the first statement given by Dudley G. Brown to Harry Roth, one of the attorneys for the defendant, not sworn to, stated that he hoped that the information furnished would be helpful in securing an early parole for himself, who was then and is now incarcerated in the Missouri Penitentiary. The statement thereafter was notarized, and the defendant’s attorney sought to have Brown brought by writ before the court to testify. The court suggested that Brown be contacted to determine whether or not he would be willing to testify. He was contacted at the Missouri Training Center for Men in Moberly, Missouri, where he is now incarcerated, and he gave a statement on May 14, 1970, which was included in the record at the hearing.

Without going into the various inconsistencies in the statement, it is enough to be said that Brown stated, in part: “I will not take a lie detector test and I will not agree to be placed under oath before I sign this statement. I will not testify about the matter contained in this statement if I am brought back for a hearing or a trial.”

In such a state of the record, the court is at loss to understand what newly discovered evidence has been found, particularly that of any consequence. Defendant’s motion for a new trial is accordingly overruled in all particulars.
2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-4-2004 

# U SA v . Au s t in P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3308

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Aus t in " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1028. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1028NOT PRE CEDENT IAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 02-3308

___________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

vs. JAM ES A US TIN Ap pellan t.

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. Crimi nal No. 01-cr-00130-1) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Petr ese B. Tucker

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

January 26, 2004 BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, F UE NT ES , and ST AP LE TO N, Circu it Judges .

(Fil ed: Februar

y 4, 2004)

___________1 OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

Appellant

James Austin pl eaded guil ty to seven count s rel ated t o traffi cking in crac k cocaine. The Distri ct Court s entenced t he Appellant

to ninet y- seven months imp rison me nt. A ustin filed a no tice o f ap pea l, pro se , and h is app oi nt ed c oun se l, Je re my C. Gelb, Esq. , fil ed a brie f in accordance with And ers v. C aliforn ia , 386 U .S. 738 (196 7). Co unse l indica ted tha t there a re no non -frivo lous iss ues for ap peal.

We have carefully r eviewed the Appell ant’s brief, along with t he responsive brief of t he United States and ot her matt ers of r ecord. Austin did not file a pro se brie f. W e co nclu de, a fter our ow n re view of th e en tire re cor d, th at the Dis trict C our t did not err. Accordingly , the judgment of t he District Court

will be a ffirmed. The motion of defens e counsel to withdraw willbe grante d.

_________________________ TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing opinion. /s/ Richard L . Nygaard

_________________________________ Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01855

Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

Indchemie Health Specialties PVT. LTD., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, April 6, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Motion hearing held.

Application to appear pro hac vice by Todd Lawrence Krause [14] is granted. Motion to

suspend the local patent rules and coordinate discovery with a co−pending resolution of

motion for MDL transfer [15] is denied for the reasons stated in open court. Parties shall

file their discovery plan by 5/10/12. Status hearing set for 7/11/2012 at 09:15 AM. Mailed

notice(ca, )

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-01855 Document #: 21 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:138
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00373-CV

TANYA MARIE COX,

Appellant

v.

HUNTER WEBB AND ARNOLD GERIK,

Appellees

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-1337-4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 13, 2017, appellant, Tanya Marie Cox, filed a notice of appeal in this 

matter purportedly challenging an order signed by the trial court on October 27, 2017. 

However, attached to her notice of appeal is an order signed by the trial court on October 

16, 2017, whereby the trial court denied traditional and no-evidence motions for 

summary judgment filed by appellee, Arnold Gerik. Additionally, appellant’s notice of 

appeal refers to the trial court cause number as 2016-1337-4.
Cox v. Webb, et al. Page 2

Nevertheless, after receiving the Clerk’s Record in this matter, we discovered that, 

in trial court cause number 2016-1337-4, which is the basis for this appeal, the trial court 

granted summary judgment in favor of Gerik on October 27, 2017. However, the trial 

court’s October 27, 2017 order did not dispose of appellant’s claims against co-defendant 

Hunter Webb. As such, the trial court’s October 27, 2017 order entered in trial court cause 

number 2016-1337-4 is not final. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001) (noting that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment); see also Sultan v. 

Mathew, 178 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Tex. 2005) (“To be final for purposes of appeal, a judgment 

must dispose of all issues and parties in a case.” (internal citation omitted)). 

On February 6, 2018, we notified appellant by letter that this appeal is subject to 

dismissal because appellant appeals from an order that is not final. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3, 44.3. We requested a response from appellant showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal to be filed within twenty-one days of our February 6, 2018 letter. More than 

twenty-one days have passed, and appellant has not filed a response in this case. We 

therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. at R. 42.3; see also Sultan, 178 

S.W.3d at 751; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice
Cox v. Webb, et al. Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2018

[CV06]