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

Betsy Toman

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07916

Honorable Michael T. Mason

Cantigny Foundation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 10, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Michael T. Mason: Parties having filed their

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, all pending deadlines and hearings in this matter are

stricken. This case is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to pay its own attorneys'

fees and costs. Civil case terminated. (rbf, )

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: 1:11-cv-07916 Document #: 42 Filed: 10/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:86
235.070-3 Contract clauses. When the contractor is to be indemnified in accordance with 235.070-1, use either— ( a ) The clause at 252.235-7000, Indemnification Under 10 U.S.C. 3861—Fixed Price; or
( b ) The clause at 252.235-7001, Indemnification Under 10 U.S.C. 3861—Cost-Reimbursement, as appropriate.
[56 FR 36284, July 31, 1991, as amended at 87 FR 76995, Dec. 16, 2022]
TM:512264 /12415204/3/22/13 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND )

SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND; )

and ARTHUR H. BUNTE, JR., as Trustee, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 12 C 4722

v. )

) Honorable Joan B. Gottschall 

BOICHOT CONCRETE CORPORATION, ) District Judge

a Michigan corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and 

Arthur H. Bunte, Jr., as trustee, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move 

the Court to enter a consent judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant, 

Biochot Concrete Corporation (the “Defendant”). In support of thereof, Plaintiffs state as 

follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed this action to collect withdrawal liability from Defendant 

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) as amended

by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

2. Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to the entry of a consent judgment 

against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs.

3. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a consent 

judgment against Defendant.

4. Prior to the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Defendant’s 

counsel stated that he agreed to the granting of this motion.
TM:512264 /12415204/3/22/13 -2-

5. A copy of the proposed Consent Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit 1

for the Court’s review and will also be submitted electronically to the Court’s e-mail 

address for proposed orders.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the Consent 

Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Anthony E. Napoli______________

Anthony E. Napoli

Attorney for Central States, Southeast 

and Southwest Areas Pension Fund

9377 W. Higgins Road, 10th Floor

Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4938

(847) 518-9800, Ext. 3702

ARDC # 06210910

March 22, 2013 tnapoli@centralstatesfunds.org
#### 2452.216-80 Estimated cost and fixed-fee.

As prescribed in 2416.307(b), insert the following clause:

### ESTIMATED COST AND FIXED-FEE (APR 2019)

(a) It is estimated that the total cost to the Government for full performance of this contract will be $______[Contracting Officer insert amount], of which $______[Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the estimated reimbursable costs, and $______[Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the fixed fee.

(b) If this contract is incrementally funded, the following shall apply:

(1) Total funds currently available for payment and allotted to this contract are $______[Contracting Officer insert amount], of which $______[Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the limitation for reimbursable costs and $ ______[Contracting Officer insert amount] represents the prorated amount of the fixed fee (see also the clause at FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds” herein).

(2) If and when the contract is fully funded, as specified in paragraph (a) of this clause, the clause at FAR 52.232-20, “Limitation of Cost,” herein, shall become applicable.

(3) The Contracting Officer may allot additional funds to the contract up to the total specified in paragraph (a) of this clause without the concurrence of the contractor.

(End of clause)

[84 FR 15130, Apr. 15, 2019]
#### Wheeler *v.*Wheeler.

Evans, 3?. J.

1. Under tlie Civil Code, § 6165, a bill of exceptions operates as a supersedeas in a civil case where the plaintiff in error, on or before filing it with the clerk of the superior court, pays the costs and gives the prescribed bond, or files with tlie clerk in lieu tliereof an affidavit in forma páuperis, as prescribed • by the statute.

2. A supersedeas results only when the statute has been complied with. The affidavit in forma pauperis is tlie substitute for tlie bond, and must be.filed “on or before filing tlie-bill of exceptions.” The filing of the affidavit several days after the filing of the bill of exceptions will not suffice to comply with the statute. *Parker-Hensel Engineering Co.*v. *Schuler,*133 *Ga.*696 (66 S. E. 800).

3. No order of court is necessary to give effect to a supersedeas (obtained under the Civil Code, § 6165) resulting from compliance with the statute; and where no supersedeas has resulted because of non-compliance therewith, no order of court is necessary for the issuance of an execution on the judgment. Inasmuch as the motion in this case was to set aside a'supersedeas because of a failure to comply with the statute, and the judgment complained of is that the court vacated such supersedeas, *609and it appearing that no supersedeas in fact did exist, the judgment of the court will be affirmed.

March 11, 1913.

Vacation of supersedeas. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. March 20, 1912.

*W. U. Jacoway*and *Foust & Payne,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. P. Jacoway, H. P. Lumpkin,*and *T. J. Lumpkin,*contra. .

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto Blanco RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40957

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 2, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Blanco Rubio pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States subsequent to being deported after conviction of a felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 78 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Rubio maintains his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not assign sufficient reasons to support the sentence it imposed. Rubio does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. By not objecting to the district court’s failure to give specific reasons for the sentence, Rubio has relegated his claim to plain-error review. *United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 805-06 (5th Cir.2008); *United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya,*219 F.3d 437, 441 (5th Cir.2000).

“[Wjhen a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation”. *Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). In *Rita,*the Court acknowledged the district court judge might have said more than that the range was not “inappropriate” and that a sentence at the bottom of the range was “appropriate”, but was not required to do so. *Id.*at 2469.

Rubio’s sole objection to the presentence investigation report (PSR) was that the penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional, a contention that is foreclosed. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*—U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). At sentencing, Rubio requested a below-Guidelines sen*267tence based on his family situation and background. When sentenced, Rubio was 39 years old, married, and the step-father of an 11 year-old boy. Rubio attended school in Mexico for only two years and worked in construction. After hearing Ru-bio’s request for leniency, the district court adopted the PSR’s findings and recommendation and imposed the sentence.

In the light of the statement found sufficient by the Court in *Rita*and the scant assertion Rubio advanced in support of a below-Guidelines sentence, Rubio has not shown the explanation given by the district court was clear or obvious error that affected the outcome of the proceedings, and has, therefore, not demonstrated plain error. *See United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); *Izaguirre-Losoya,*219 F.3d at 441.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### 22.1906 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.222-55, Minimum Wages for Contractor Workers Under Executive Order 14026, in solicitations and contracts that include the clause at 52.222-6, Construction Wage Rate Requirements, or 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, where work is to be performed, in whole or in part, in the United States.

[79 FR 74550, Dec. 15, 2014, as amended at 87 FR 4123, Jan. 26, 2022]
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00114- CV Ro y Edwa r d Ad dic ks, Jr ., App e lla nt

v. State of Texas, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF FAY ETTE COUNTY , 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2005V- 004, HO NORAB LE DAN R. BECK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Roy

Edwar d Addicks, Jr., acting pro se, ha s filed a “ M o t i on for Or der Compelling the District Courts and Sher iff’s De partments and D istrict Attorney ’s Off ice to Send Copies of All Relevant Rec ords and Documents to Appellant.” We de ny this mot ion as we ha

ve no au t h o ri t y t o o rder

these e ntities to m ake c opies and send the m to appellant. Howe ver, a cler k’s rec ord has be en filed in this appea l. (No rep o rt er ’s record wa s made.) A ppellant must view the rec ord in order

to prepa re his brief because the brief must be based on the re cord. SeeTex. R. App. P. 3 8. 1( f) (s tate me nt o f f a c ts i n b ri e f m

us t be su pp or te d b y re c or d r e fe re nc es) . As a pp e lla nt i s incar cer ated, it is not practica ble for him to come to the Court. He swea rs that he is utterly

indige nt and ca nnot pay for a copy . Acc ording ly , the Court will check out the r ecor d to appellant by sending it t o h im s o h e c an p re pa

re his br ie f. Ap pe lla

nt i s warned that this recor d is the only copy . I t may not be alter ed in any

way including, but not limited to, underlining, hig hlighting , crossingout, or2

makingnotes in the marg ins. Further , if the re cord is not re turned, the a ppeal will be dismissed for lack of a cle rk’s re cord. S

ee T ex . R. App. P. 37.3(b) (may dismiss if no cler

k’s re cord a

nd appellant’ s fault).

In order to allow time for appe llant to review the rec ord and prepa re a brief w ithout havin gto f

ile any mor e mot ions fore xten sio n, thi s a pp e a l is a

bate d unti l January 8, 2007 . Appellant’s br ief is due on that date. No f urther e x tensions of time to file appellant’ s brief w ill be g rante d. Fa ilure t o file t he brief wil l result in a dismissal for wa nt of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P . 4 2 . 3 ( b ) , ( c ) . O f

c o ur s e , a p p e l l an tm ay f

i l e h i s b r i e f

e ar l i e r th anth e d e a d l i n e i f

h e i s r e a dy.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Filed: August 18, 2006
#### 2301.105 Issuance.
#### 2429.101 Resolving tax problems.

In order to have uniformity in HUD's treatment of the tax aspects of contracting and ensure effective cooperation with other Government agencies on tax matters of mutual interest, the Office of General Counsel has the responsibility within HUD for handling all those tax problems. Therefore, the contracting activity will not engage in negotiation with any taxing authority for the purpose of determining the validity or applicability of, or obtaining exemptions from or refund of, any tax. When a problem exists, the Contracting Officer shall request, in writing, the assistance of legal counsel. The request shall detail the problem and be accompanied by appropriate backup data. Counsel shall report to the Contracting Officer as to the necessary disposition of the tax problem. The Contracting Officer will notify the contractor of the outcome of the tax problem. Counsel is responsible for communications with the Department of Justice for representation or intervention in proceedings concerning taxes.

[60 FR 46157, Sept. 5, 1995]
#### 247.200 Scope of subpart.

This subpart does not apply to the operation of vessels owned by, or bareboat chartered by, the Government. See additional guidance at PGI 247.200 for procurement of transportation or related services.

[75 FR 51417, Aug. 20, 2010]
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 12 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 12

   Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the 
General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2017

Mr. Johnson (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
 McConnell, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, 
 and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
   read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the 
General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services 
Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (published at 81 Fed. 
Reg. 58562 (August 25, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1995 for May Drilling Partnership 1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711309
<NAME> MAY DRILLING PARTNERSHIP 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      180
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   328
<PP&E>                                          16,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               27
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       938
<SALES>                                            603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   612
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    249
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.46
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification ofChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officerpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe quarterly report of Cascade Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  ROBERT C. WARREN, JR. |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Robert C. Warren, Jr. |
| *Chief Executive Officer*  |
| June 8, 2006          |
|                       |
| /s/ RICHARD S. ANDERSON    |   |
| Richard S. Anderson        |
| *Chief Financial Officer*  |
| June 8, 2006          |

 

1

----
# C_2016429EN.01000101.xml

| 22.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8235 — IPIC/Mubadala)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 429/01)

On 17 November 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8235. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8235. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
22.404-4 Solicitations issued without wage determinations for the primary site of the work. ( a ) If a solicitation is issued before the wage determination for the primary site of the work is obtained, a notice shall be included in the solicitation that the schedule of minimum wage rates to be paid under the contract will be issued as an amendment to the solicitation.
( b ) In sealed bidding, bids may not be opened until a reasonable time after the wage determination for the primary site of the work has been furnished to all bidders.
( c ) In negotiated acquisitions, the contracting officer may open proposals and conduct negotiations before obtaining the wage determination for the primary site of the work. However, the contracting officer shall incorporate the wage determination for the primary site of the work into the solicitation before submission of best and final offers.
[53 FR 4935, Feb. 18, 1988, as amended at 70 FR 33666, June 8, 2005]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40352 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RODRIGO ZUNIGA-ALMAZAN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:07-CR-851-1 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodrigo ZunigaAlmazan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Zuniga-Almazan has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s briefdiscloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdrawis GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
#### Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Respondent, v John Currey, Appellant.

— Motion to prosecute appeal as poor person denied with leave to move before Special Term for the same relief (see *Jenks v Murphy,*21 AD2d 346).