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

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

Eastern Division

Robert Blair

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02637

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Devry, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 6, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendant's motion to

dismiss[5] is entered and briefed as follows: Responses due by 6/21/2012. Replies due by

6/28/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Motion hearing set for 6/7/2012 on this motion is

stricken.Mailed notice(tsa, )

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-02637 Document #: 8 Filed: 06/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:41
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Barner Aker, Deceased. Trustees of the Troy Annual Conference, Appellant; Bank of Richmondville, as Administrator C. T. A. and Successor Trustee of the Estate of Barner Aker, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal from a decree of the *936Surrogate’s Court of Schoharie County which, among other things, construed the provisions of decedent’s will which, after giving to decedent’s widow and daughter successive life estates in his residuary estate, provided that *“*Upon the death of both my wife * * * and my daughter * * * I give and bequeath to the Methodist Episcopal Church of East Cobleskill, New York, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars, said sum to be invested and kept invested by the Trustees or proper officers of said Church and the interest and income therefrom expended annually for running expenses of said Church.” The church was a corporation and in existence and holding regular services at the date of testator’s death in 1926, but regular services ceased sometime between 1939 and 1946; on April 10, 1948, the church was declared discontinued and abandoned, by resolution of its parent body, the Troy Annual Conference, which thereafter, by deed of July 14, 1951, sold and conveyed the church property. Thus, upon the termination of the second life estate on August 28, 1958 the legatee was no longer in existence and the gift failed. The appellant Conference contends, however, that the fund should nevertheless be paid to it upon application of the cy pres rule; but we are constrained to affirm the conclusion of the Surrogate’s Court that the doctrine of ey pres cannot be invoked in this case because testator’s charitable intent was restrictive and not directed to general charitable objectives. *(Matter of Scott,*8 N Y 2d 419; *Matter of Syracuse Univ.*[Heffron], 3 N Y 2d 665; *Matter of Merritt,*280 N. Y. 391.) The testator’s limited and restricted intent seems apparent in the provision for a gift to the local church, to be managed by its local officers, and the income to be *“*expended annually for running expenses of said Church.” Thus, the Surrogate properly found: *“*The intention of the testator * * * must have been to promote the conducting of religious services within the community, the furnishing of a place of worship, and the furnishing of spiritual guidance and instruction in the community. Since the Conference, no doubt for good and practical reasons has declared the Church extinct and has impliedly admitted that there is no intention or possibility of carrying out this specific purpose and it appears that there is no direction which could be made by the Court which would accomplish this purpose, the legacy cannot be made effective within the intent of the testator.” Appellant relies, also, on the amendment to section 16 of the Religious Corporations Law by chapter 660 of the Laws of 1949, which would now cover this precise situation, but the amendment cannot be given retroactive application. Decree affirmed, with costs to parties filing briefs, payable from the estate. Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### Carlos Lugo, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Efrain Lugo, et al., Respondents, v. Stewart Kaufman, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
Publications

Appendix Table C1. Daily purse seine and beach seine fishing effort, water temperatures, and Secchi disk transparency measurements at Jones Beach, Tanner Creek vs. midstream Columbia River release, 1991.

a --- = data not available.b First recovery of study fish.

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Table of Contents
#### 217.173 Multiyear contracts for military family housing.

The head of the agency may enter into multiyear contracts for periods up to 4 years for supplies and services required for management, maintenance, and operation of military family housing and may pay the costs of such contracts for each year from annual appropriations for that year (10 U.S.C. 2829).

[76 FR 58154, Sept. 20, 2011]
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 993 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying 

broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service and 

from imposing certain regulations on providers of such service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2017 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. JOHNSON, 

Mr. PAUL, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. SASSE, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 

reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service and from imposing certain regulations on providers of such service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring Internet 

5 Freedom Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 993 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF FCC. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The rule adopted by the Federal 

3 Communications Commission in GN Docket No. 14–28 on 

4 February 26, 2015 (relating to broadband Internet access 

5 service), shall have no force or effect, and the Commission 

6 may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form, 

7 or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as such 

8 rule, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically author9 ized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this 

10 Act. 

11 (b) RULE DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

12 ‘‘rule’’ has the meaning given the term in section 804 of 

13 title 5, United States Code. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### 1515.404-475 Cost realism.

The EPA structured approach is not required when the contracting officer is evaluating cost realism in a competitive acquisition.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3407 DATE 1/14/2013

CASE

TITLE

Kurkjian vs. Portfolio Management Partners, LLC et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Motion by plaintiff Kevin Kurkjian to strike counterclaim and complaint (#45) is granted. Parties need not

appear on 1/15/2013. See statement section of this order for details. Scheduling conference set for

1/29/2013 at 8:30 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On November 15, 2012, the court denied defendants’ motion to file instanter a counterclaim and cross-claim

against Kurkjian and his attorney Kasalo and gave defendants 14 days to amend their pleadings. (Dkt. #38.) 

At that time, the court orally instructed defendants that Kasalo was not a party to the lawsuit and therefore a

counterclaim was not the proper procedural mechanism by which to assert a claim against him. See Dkt. #45

Ex. I at 3 (defendants must file “a motion to join a third party or an indispensable party or something because

[Kasalo] is not a party to this lawsuit”). On November 29, 2012, defendants filed a pleading entitled

“Counterclaim” against Kurkjian and Kasalo asserting, inter alia, that Kasalo “has shown a pattern of

unprofessional conduct in violations [sic] of the Rules of Professional Conduct” and seeking to recover actual

damages, attorney’s fees and costs and other appropriate relief. (Countercl. ¶ 43 & Wherefore Clause.) 

Contrary to this court’s directive, defendants did not move to join Kasalo as a third party under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 14, nor do they identify any other procedural basis that would allow them to assert a claim

against him. At the same time, the “Counterclaim” fails to identify those claims that are asserted against

Kurkjian as opposed to his lawyer. For these reasons, Kurkjian’s motion (#45) is granted and the document

styled as a “Counterclaim” (#39) is stricken. A scheduling conference will be held in this case on January

29, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. 

12C3407 Kurkjian vs. Portfolio Management Partners, LLC et al. Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-03407 Document #: 47 Filed: 01/14/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:297
211.107 Solicitation provision. ( b ) To comply with section 875(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), use the provision at FAR 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, in DoD solicitations that include military or Government-unique specifications and standards.
[84 FR 4368, Feb. 15, 2019]
#### 2152.210-70 Investment income.

As prescribed in 2110.7004(a), insert the following clause:

# Investment Income (OCT 2005)

(a) The Contractor must invest and reinvest all FEGLI Program funds on hand until needed to discharge promptly the obligations incurred under the contract. Within the constraints of safety and liquidity of investments, the Contractor must seek to maximize investment income. However, the Contractor will not be responsible for any actions taken at the direction of OPM.

(b) All investment income earned on FEGLI Program funds shall be credited to the FEGLI Program.

(c) When the Contracting Officer concludes that the Contractor failed to comply with paragraph (a) or (b) of this clause, the Contractor must pay to OPM the investment income that would have been earned, at the rate(s) specified in paragraph (d) of this clause, had it not been for the Contractor's noncompliance. *Failed to comply with paragraph (a) or (b) of this clause* means:

(1) Making any charges against the contract which are not actual, allowable, allocable, or reasonable; or

(2) Failing to credit any income due the contract and/or failing to place funds on hand, including premium payments and payments from OPM not needed to discharge promptly the obligations incurred under the contract, tax refunds, credits, deposits, investment income earned, uncashed checks, or other amounts owed OPM in income-producing investments and accounts.

(d)(1) Investment income lost as a result of unallowable, unallocable, or unreasonable charges against the contract shall be paid from the 1st day of the contract term following the contract term in which the unallowable charge was made and shall end on the earlier of: (i) The date the amounts are returned to OPM; (ii) the date specified by the Contracting Officer; or, (iii) the date of the Contracting Officer's Final Decision.

(2) Investment income lost by the Contractor as a result of failure to credit income due under the contract or failure to place funds on hand in income-producing investments and accounts must be paid from the date the funds should have been invested or appropriate income was not credited and will end on the earlier of:

(i) The date the amounts are returned to OPM;

(ii) The date specified by the Contracting Officer; or

(iii) The date of the Contracting Officer's final decision.

(3) The Contractor shall credit to the FEGLI Program income that is due in accordance with this clause. All amounts payable shall bear lost investment income compounded semiannually at the rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury as provided in section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-563), *during* the periods specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2).

(4) All amounts due and unpaid *after* the periods specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall bear simple interest at the rate applicable for each 6-month period as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury until the amount is paid [see FAR 32.614-1].

(End of clause)

[58 FR 40381, July 28, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 41154, July 18, 2005]
Submitted by Marc Jerome

When the GE Rule was negotiated, very little data existed about debt to earnings. Both institutional and programmatic earnings data made available since the publication of the Rule should give the Department, consumer advocates, and policymakers reason to question the appropriateness of the 8% and 12% D/E thresholds. The issue comes into play when a student compares a degree program at a GE institution and a non-GE institution.Research from Mark SchneiderAn analysis of programmatic D/E data from the University of Texas is available and instructive. It indicates that for certain fields of study, such as drama and the fine arts, over half of the programs would fail if the GE D/E metrics applied to them.*Our analysis of data derived from the College Scorecard concludes that certain proprietary degree programs that do not pass the GE D/E metrics have significantly better (lower) D/E rates than rates for similar (or identical) non-GE programs when calculated using debt and earning values from the College Scorecard.Data Request:To help the Committee better understand whether the current 8% and 12% thresholds are appropriate, we are requesting the Department compile comparable programmatic D/E data for a representative sample of non-GE degree programs in any or all of the following degree programs: acupuncture, criminal justice, drama, early childhood education, fine arts, graphic art design, and music.*Nexus Research & Policy Center: Letter to the Department of Education dated July 7, 2017.Marc M. JeromePresidentMonroe College
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-2001
<CASH>                          50,801
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   216,251
<ALLOWANCES>                    11,702
<INVENTORY>                     3,138,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4,052,297
<PP&E>                          2,719,228
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,548,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  9,338,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,630,445
<BONDS>                         2,793,771
<COMMON>                        290,707
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     112,136
<OTHER-SE>                      3,433,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    9,338,519
<SALES>                         3,876,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,876,028
<CGS>                           2,893,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   4,511,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                130,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              249,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (766,088)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (766,088)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (766,088)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.03)


</TABLE>
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 26 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education 

relating to teacher preparation issues. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Mr. SASSE (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

HELLER, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. ROBERTS, and 

Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation issues. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Education relating to teacher preparation 

5 issues (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 75494 (October 31, 

6 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
### The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report an d re commendationof the Honorable William A. Knox, United State s Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3053

___________ Linda Cummings, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. C.O. 1 Robert Alderman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 31, 1996 Filed: June 6, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Linda Cummings appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment by the District Court in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Renz 1 Correctional Officer, Robert Alderman. After denovo review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the Distric t Court's grant of summary judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellant's motion for reconsideration of our prior orde r denying her motion to consolidate.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 10-R
------------
(C-XIII)


                          CONSENT OF DIRECTOR
                                  OF
                        CARLYLE MANAGERS, INC.


     The undersigned, being all the directors of Carlyle Managers, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), acting by written consent
pursuant to Section 141(f) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, hereby
consent to the adoption of, and do hereby adopt, the following resolutions:

     WHEREAS, this Corporation is the holder of certain demand notes made
by its shareholders in the aggregate original principal amount of
$3,000,000 (the "Notes"), as set forth in EXHIBIT A attached hereto; and,

     WHEREAS, this Corporation desires to make a distribution to its
shareholders aggregating $2,000,000, as a return of capital (the
"Distribution"); and,

     WHEREAS, in order to effect the Distribution, the outstanding
principal amount of the Notes will be reduced as set forth in such Exhibit
A.

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Corporation make the
Distribution, as a return of capital, effective as of the date hereof, to
be paid by the reduction of the outstanding principal amount as set forth
EXHIBIT A attached hereto; and,

     FURTHER RESOLVED, that any officer of this Corporation is hereby
authorized and directed to effect the Distribution as of the date hereof,
to enter into, execute and deliver, or to ratify, any and all documents
incidental or related thereto, including without limitation, those
documents deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence the reduction in the
outstanding principal balances of each of the Notes as set forth herein,
and any said officer is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever
actions said officer deems reasonably necessary in order to consummate the
transaction described or contemplated.


Dated:           October 31, 1996




STUART C. NATHAN
--------------------
Stuart C. Nathan



Being the sole director or Carlyle Managers, Inc., a Delaware corporation.





                               EXHIBIT A
                               ---------



                                                Original 
                                                Principal    Principal
Payor                          Date of Note      Amount      Reduction
-----                         --------------   ----------    ---------

JMB Realty Corporation        March 25, 1993   $  450,000     $300,000

JMB/Manhattan
 Associates, Ltd.             March 25, 1993   $  600,000     $400,000

Carlyle Real Estate
 Limited Partnership-XIII     March 25, 1993   $  600,000     $400,000

Carlyle Real Estate
 Limited Partnership-XIV      March 25, 1993   $1,200,000     $800,000

JMB Service Bureau
 company (a division of
 Northbrook Corporation),
 as successor-in-interest
 to JMB Holdings Corporation  March 25, 1993   $  150,000     $100,000
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA
- 2016 - 5040 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM192AD

A300
- 57 - 6047, R02
--- 4/2/99 A300
- 57 - 6047, R03
--- 9/28/99 A300
- 57 - 6047, R05
--- 5/27/08

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
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47-4 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1393
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47-4 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1394
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 47-4 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1395
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

REWARDS NETWORK ESTABLISHMENT 

SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PANNA, INC., a New York corporation, 

ZANZIBAR LLC, a New York limited liability 

company, and EMILIO BARLETTA, 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12 cv 2544

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER

Defendants Panna, Inc., Zanzibar LLC, and Emilio Barletta (collectively, “Defendants”), 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §1401(a), and 

by and through Valorem Law Group LLC, respectfully submit this Motion to Dismiss or 

Transfer. In support of the motion, Defendants have filed a memorandum of law and the 

Declaration of Defendant Emilio Barletta, attached as Exhibit A to the memorandum of law. 

Defendants respectfully this Court to either (1) dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without 

prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue; or in the alternative, and to avoid 

the constitutional question of personal jurisdiction, (2) transfer the case under the federal transfer 

statute to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Dated: June 26, 2012 EMILIO BARLETTA

PANNA INC. 

ZANZIBAR, LLC 

By: /s/ Stuart J. Chanen 

 One of Their Attorneys

Case: 1:12-cv-02544 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:76
Stuart J. Chanen

VALOREM LAW GROUP LLC

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 676-5480 (Telephone)

(312) 676-5499 (Facsimile)

Stuart.Chanen@valoremlaw.com

Case: 1:12-cv-02544 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:77
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Stuart Chanen, an attorney, certify a copy of this brief was filed electronically on 

June 26, 2012. Notice of this filing will be sent to the parties by operation of the Court’s 

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

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stuart J. Chanen

Case: 1:12-cv-02544 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:78