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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JUAN ZAMORA, and FRANCISCO

ZAMORA, on behalf of themselves, and all

other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and

unknown,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE BRICKMAN GROUP LTD.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:12-cv-02020

Honorable Judge Joan B. Gottschall

Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

PLAINTIFFS’ UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

NOW COME Plaintiffs, through their attorneys of record, and hereby move this Court to 

grant their Uncontested Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees. In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs hereby move this Court to enter an Order granting their Uncontested Motion for 

Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Award of Attorneys’ Fees.

2. In support thereof Plaintiffs submit contemporaneously herewith their Memorandum of Law 

in Support of Their Uncontested Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and 

Award of Attorneys’ Fees. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant their Uncontested Motion, 

and for such other relief as this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Electronically Filed 4/16/2014

Case: 1:12-cv-02020 Document #: 62 Filed: 04/16/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:179
s/ John W. Billhorn

_________________

John W. Billhorn

BILLHORN LAW FIRM

120 S. State Street Suite 400

Chicago, IL, 60603 

(312) 853-1450

Case: 1:12-cv-02020 Document #: 62 Filed: 04/16/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:180
#### 1831.205 Selected costs.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and Chief Executive 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ E. James Collord

By  __________________________________

E.  James Collord

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 25, 2011
**CYoshitomi - Department of Education Regulatory Negotiations**

**Conference Agenda**

**Topic 3:   DOE Regulatory Negotiations: Accreditations - Transfer of Credit**

The Department also seeks the advice of negotiators on how to ensure that transfer of credits remain the decision of institutions, but disallow institutions from categorically denying credits from national accreditors if the courses completed by the student are in alignment with those offered by the accepting institution.

FacilitatePro Conference Report
#### 1602.170-4 Contractor.

*Contractor* means carrier.
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-5 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:306
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-5 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:307
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14-5 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:308
Exhibit 32


                          ASPEN EXPLORATION CORPORATION

                   Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350
           Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

     To my knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June
30, 2005, containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934;
and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspen
Exploration Corporation for the periods presented.


September 23, 2005


/s/ Robert A. Cohan
-------------------
Robert A. Cohan, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF OCTOBER 13 , 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD78192 DeAnthony Thomas, et al., Individually, and as Representatives of the U.S. Bank

Direct Loans Settlement Class vs. U.S. Bank National Association ND, et al

WD78193 Jack L Beaver an d Hilda M. Beaver, et al., Individually, and as Representatives of

all others Similarly Situated vs. U.S. Bank National Association and Wilmington Trust

Company, et al

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURI AM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

NONE
No. 89-1393.

#### Fugate *v.*Borg Textile Corp.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Cross Properties, Inc., Respondent, against Joseph J. Lennox, et al., Constituting the Board of Review of the City of Yonkers, Appellants.

In a tax certiorari proceeding, the Board of Review of the City of Yonkers appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 5, 1960, which: (1) granted petitioner’s motion to amend its petition by substituting a verification by its president for the verification by its attorney; (2) struck out the defense that the proceeding was not timely commenced, by reason of the improper verification of the original petition; and (3) denied the board’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for the same reason. The verification was made by the attorney for *771the reason that he was familiar with the facts. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### 219.811 Preparing the contracts.

When preparing awards under the PA, follow the procedures at PGI 219.811.

[72 FR 20762, Apr. 26, 2007]
Second Department,

July, 1963

(July 1, 1963)

#### Leon Himmelfarbe, Respondent, v. Cathedral Funeral Home, Inc., et al., Defendants; B & F Home Improvement Corp., Appellant, and Harry *712Ostrov, Respondent.

In an action to foreclose a purchase-money second mortgage, the defendant B *&*P Home Improvement Corp., a mechanic’s lienor, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 20, 1962, which *inter alla*(a) granted the plaintiff-mortgagee’s motion for summary judgment striking out said defendant’s answer and counterclaims; (b) severed its cross complaint against the defendant Ostrov for further prosecution; and (e) directed the entry of judgment of foreclosure and sale. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion denied; and judgment of foreclosure and sale, entered September 24, 1962, vacated. In our opinion, there are issues of fact as to whether ia conspiracy existed; and, if it did, whether the plaintiff and the defendant Ostrov participated in such conspiracy. If the appellant can establish its contentions, plaintiff may be estopped from asserting that his mortgage is prior and superior to the appellant’s lien *(Bedford Lake Park Corp.*v. *Twelve Linden Corp.,*8 A I) 2d 962). The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order for summary judgment is not appealable because final judgment of foreclosure and sale was subsequently entered is denied. An order for summary judgment is a final order, dispositive of substantial rights, and is appealable on its own merits (cf. *Biley*v. *Southern Transp. Co.,*278 App. Div. 605; *Morris*v. *Albany Hotel Corp.,*243 App. Div. 645, affd. 268 N. Y. 641). This view has been recognized by statutory amendment (L. 1942, eh. 212) to section 562 of the Civil Practice Act. Under such amendment the “notice of appeal from an order directing summary judgment * " e shall be deemed to specify a judgment upon such order entered after service of the notice of appeal and before entry of the order of the appellate court upon such appeal”. Accordingly, the judgment is now before the court for review and, since the order is being reversed, it follows that the judgment must be vacated. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ„ concur.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 80 

To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water resources 

development projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2017 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water 

resources development projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO 

4 BEAR ARMS AT WATER RESOURCES DEVEL5 OPMENT PROJECTS. 

6 The Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or 

7 enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from 

8 possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional 

9 firearm, in any area open to the public (other than a Fed10 eral facility as defined in section 930(g) of title 18, United 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 80 IS

1 States Code) at a water resources development project 

2 covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal 

3 Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 

4 Act), if— 

5 (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by 

6 law from possessing the firearm; and 

7 (2) the possession of the firearm is in compli8 ance with the law of the State in which the water 

9 resources development project is located. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-9: Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Protecting Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Released from Bonneville Hatchery, 1991 
Figure 4. Jones Beach, Columbia River, sampling sites. The beach and purse seining areas are denoted by asterisks. 

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

Table of Contents
1837.203-72 NASA contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-72, Access to Sensitive Information, in all solicitations and contracts for services that may require access to sensitive information belonging to other companies or generated by the Government.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-73, Release of Sensitive Information, in all solicitations, contracts, and basic ordering agreements.
#### In the Matter of Ruby R., an Infant. Yates County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Thomas R., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[832 NYS2d 845]

Appeal from an order of *1215the Family Court, Yates County (W Patrick Falvey, J.), entered March 9, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, directed respondent to stay away from his child through February 27, 2007.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs (see *Matter of Tanya R.B. v Darren W.,*254 AD2d 813 [1998]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge Map 3 of 3

Route 2 - South Hunt Map

0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600

Meters

0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Miles

Legend

Parking

Refuge Boundary

Wildlife Trails

Hunt Areas

Shotgun, archery and primitive firearms hunting for deer, turkey, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, rabbit, and woodcock

Archery deer hunting, shotgun hunting for turkey, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, rabbit, and woodcock

Archery hunting only for deer and turkey

Route 110

Harvard

Ayer

Route 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income and statement of cash flows contained in
Form 10-Q of Cambridge Electric Light Company for the nine months ended
September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016573
<NAME> CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          100,055
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>         10,157
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              23,016
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            76,001
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     209,229
<COMMON>                             8,665
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           27,953
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 11,226
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      47,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                17,402
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  27,272
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     116,611
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      209,229
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           98,834
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 1,317
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          93,781
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          95,098
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              3,736
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                   1,360
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       5,096
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             2,514
<NET-INCOME>                         2,582
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        2,582
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               589
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            1,199
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               5,332
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
IIA 

Calendar No. 42 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 41 

Providing for an exception to the limitation on the appointment of certain 

persons as the United States Trade Representative. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2017 

Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on Finance, reported the following original 

joint resolution; which was read twice and placed on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for an exception to the limitation on the appointment of certain persons as the United States Trade 

Representative. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENT 

4 OF CERTAIN PERSONS AS UNITED STATES 

5 TRADE REPRESENTATIVE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The limitation under section 

7 141(b)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

8 2171(b)(4)) shall not apply to the first person appointed, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 41 PCS 

1 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the 

2 United States Trade Representative after the date of the 

3 enactment of this joint resolution, if that person served 

4 as a Deputy United States Trade Representative before 

5 the date of the enactment of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 

6 of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). 

7 (b) LIMITED EXCEPTION.—This section applies only 

8 to the first person appointed as United States Trade Rep9 resentative after the date of the enactment of this joint 

10 resolution, and to no other person. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 42 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 41 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for an exception to the limitation on the 

States Trade Representative. appointment of certain persons as the United 

APRIL 25, 2017 

Read twice and placed on the calendar 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed November 17, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-16-00318-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF T.N.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 8506-CX

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kevin Earl Scott has filed a pro se notice of appeal in which he attempts to

appeal from the trial court’s October 18, 2016 decision to deny Scott’s request for 

court-appointed counsel. We notified Scott by letter dated October 28, 2016, that it 

did not appear to this court that a final, appealable order had been entered by the trial 

court, and we requested that Scott file a response showing grounds to continue this 

appeal. Scott filed a response; however, he has not shown grounds upon which this 

appeal may continue. 

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from 

final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 
2

2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial 

court’s letter ruling relates only to the appointment of counsel and is not a final, 

appealable order because it does not dispose of all parties and all claims. 

Additionally, the letter ruling does not appear on its face to be final. See McNally v. 

Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. Because 

no final, appealable order has been entered in this cause, we lack jurisdiction and 

dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

November 17, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JANETTE R. OGLE 

v. Record No. 2708-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MAY 14, 1996 

 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 

AND 

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John B. Delaney; Delaney, McCarthy, Colton 

& Botzin, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Barry P. Heitin, on brief), for appellees. 

 Janette R. Ogle contends that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in denying her application on the ground that 

her March 10, 1994 fall down a stairway did not arise out of her 

employment. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 

5A:27. 

 On March 10, 1994, while in the course of her employment, 

Ogle fell down a three-step carpeted stairway. Ogle was wearing 

rubber soled, deep tread shoes. Ogle testified that she had 

descended one flight of stairs and was beginning to descend a 

second when her foot "stuck," causing her to lose her balance. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

She fell, striking her head, wrists, left shoulder, and twisting 

her neck and back. Ogle noticed nothing unusual about the steps 

or the carpet. The employer's post-accident inspection revealed 

no defect in the stairs or carpet. 

 "To prove the 'arising out of' element, [in a case involving 

injuries sustained from falling down stairs at work,] [Ogle] must 

show that a condition of the workplace either caused or 

contributed to her fall." Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v. 

Shell, 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing 

County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 

73, 76 (1989)). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment 

is a mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the 

appellate court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour, 8 Va. 

App. 482, 483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). However, unless we 

conclude that Ogle proved, as a matter of law, that her 

employment caused her injury, the commission's finding is binding 

and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co., 210 

Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). 

 Although Ogle was in the course of her employment when her 

injury occurred, her evidence did not show that any defect in the 

stairs or the carpet or any condition peculiar to her workplace 

caused her to fall down the steps and injure herself. Ogle could 

not explain why her foot stuck on the carpeted stair nor was 

there any evidence that the placement of the handrails in the 

stairway had anything to do with her fall. Because no evidence 
 3 

showed a causal connection between the conditions of Ogle's 

employment and her fall, we are unable to find that she proved as 

a matter of law that her injury arose out of her employment. 

 For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Butler
Manufacturing Company Consolidated Statements of Operations for the quarter
ended March 31, 1997, and Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1997, 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     67,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,737
<PP&E>                                         223,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                 152,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,171
<BONDS>                                         39,243<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,623
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,983<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,612
<SALES>                                        188,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,968<F3>
<CGS>                                          156,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,427<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,341
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,896
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,896
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<FN>
<F1>Reflects long-term debt, less current maturities
<F2>Reflects other stockholders' equity before deduction of $30.3 million cost of
treasury stock
<F3>Reflects net sales plus net international joint venture income less net other
expense
<F4>Consists of selling, general and administrative expense
</FN>
        

</TABLE>