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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN )

PARKES, SUSAN VIGUS, and REGINA STONE, )

on behalf of themselves and a Class of others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. 1:12-cv-04069 

vs. ) Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly 

)

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., )

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, )

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC., )

ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, and )

THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and )

VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING )

TOURS, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF SUSAN VIGUS

COMES NOW Plaintiff Susan Vigus, by and through counsel, and Defendants Caribbean 

Cruise Line, Inc., Economic Strategy Group, Economic Strategy Group, Inc., Economic 

Strategy, LLC, The Berkley Group, Inc., and Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., by and 

through counsel, and hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all individual claims of 

Plaintiff Susan Vigus herein pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and 

mutual release, with each party to bear his, her, or its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ George Lang

George Lang 

Brian J. Wanca 

ANDERSON + WANCA

3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 173 Filed: 11/26/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:3064
2

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

Telephone: (847) 368-1500

Fax: (847) 368-1501

glang@andersonwanca.com

bwanca@andersonwanca.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Susan Vigus

_/s/ Jeffrey Backman 

Jeffrey Backman 

Greenspoon Marder, P.A. 

200 East Broward Blvd. 

Suite 1500 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

(954) 491-1120 

Email: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Caribbean 

Cruise Line, Inc. and Vacation 

Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc.

 /s/ Joseph W. Sanscrainte

Joseph W. Sanscrainte 

Law Office Of Joseph W. Sanscrainte 

1120 Avenue Of The Americas 

4th Floor 

New York, NY 10036 

(212) 626-6934 

Email: jws@sanscrainte.com

Attorneys for Defendants Economic 

Strategy Group, Economic Strategy 

Group, Inc., and Economic Strategy LLC

 /s/ M. Peebles Harrison

M. Peebles Harrison 

Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C. 

700 Blue Jay Street 

Suite 1 

Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948 

252-480-1414 

Fax: 252-480-1765 

Email: peebles@outerbankslaw.com

Attorneys for The Berkley Group, Inc.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 173 Filed: 11/26/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:3065
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 26, 2013, I served the above and 

foregoing by causing true and accurate copies of such papers to be sent to all counsel of record 

in this Action via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

 /s/ George Lang 

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 173 Filed: 11/26/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3066
1816.303-70 Cost-sharing contracts. ( a ) *Cost-sharing with for-profit organizations.* ( 1 ) Cost sharing by for-profit organizations is mandatory in any contract for basic or applied research resulting from an unsolicited proposal, and may be accepted in any other contract when offered by the proposing organization. The requirement for cost-sharing may be waived when the contracting officer determines in writing that the contractor has no commercial, production, education, or service activities that would benefit from the results of the research, and the contractor has no means of recovering its shared costs on such projects.
( 2 ) The contractor's cost-sharing may be any percentage of the project cost. In determining the amount of cost-sharing, the contracting officer shall consider the relative benefits to the contractor and the Government. Factors that should be considered include— ( i ) The potential for the contractor to recover its contribution from non-Federal sources;
( ii ) The extent to which the particular area of research requires special stimulus in the national interest; and
( iii ) The extent to which the research effort or result is likely to enhance the contractor's capability, expertise, or competitive advantage.
( b ) *Cost-sharing with not-for-profit organizations.* ( 1 ) Costs to perform research stemming from an unsolicited proposal by universities and other educational or not-for-profit institutions are usually fully reimbursed. When the contracting officer determines that there is a potential for significant benefit to the institution cost-sharing will be considered.
( 2 ) The contracting officer will normally limit the institution's share to no more than 10 percent of the project's cost.
( c ) *Implementation.* Cost-sharing shall be stated as a minimum percentage of the total allowable costs of the project. The contractor's contributed costs may not be charged to the Government under any other contract or grant, including allocation to other contracts and grants as part of an independent research and development program.
**Exhibit 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Richard C. Baylor, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Camco Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of Camco as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. Camco’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(f) and 15d15(f))for Camco and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to Camco, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of Camco’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluations; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in Camco’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during Camco’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Camco’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.5. Camco’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Camco’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Camco’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: August 4, 2006 By:  /s/ Richard C. Baylor    Richard C. Baylor, Chief Executive Officer
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 17 

Approving the discontinuation of the process for consideration and automatic 

implementation of the annual proposal of the Independent Medicare 

Advisory Board under section 1899A of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. HELLER, Mr. 

THUNE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MORAN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. 

SCOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the discontinuation of the process for consideration and automatic implementation of the annual proposal of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board under 

section 1899A of the Social Security Act. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress approves the discontinuation of the process 

4 for consideration and automatic implementation of the an5 nual proposal of the Independent Medicare Advisory 

6 Board under section 1899A of the Social Security Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Calprop Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date: August 6, 2003 (effective as of May 30, 2003)


                                        /s/ Victor Zaccaglin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Victor Zaccaglin
                                        Chairman of the Board
                                        Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Calprop Corporation (the "Company")
hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date: August 6, 2003 (effective as of May 30, 2003)


                                        /s/ Mark F. Spiro
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark F. Spiro
                                        VicePresident/Secretary/Treasurer
                                        (Chief Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Lee W. Bailey, Appellant, v. Raymond P. Schaeffner, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 16, 1964, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution pursuant to statute (CPLR 3216); and (2) from an order of said court, made February 18, 1964 upon renewal and reconsideration, which adhered to the original determination. Appeal from original order of January 16, 1964 dismissed, without costs, as academic; that order was superseded by the later order, granting reconsideration. Order of February 18, 1964, insofar as it adheres to the original determination and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; and defendant’s motion denied. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, we believe that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Dennis O’Sullivan, Respondent, v. George M. Gross, Doing Business as The Sands Company, et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Hamm, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed a Referee’s award of two weeks’ disability pay to the claimant. The claimant testified that he suffered an accident while engaged in carrying a can filled with garbage from the basement of the employer’s premises to the street. An injury sustained by an employee as a result, of the lifting of heavy objects or containers constitutes an accidental injury within the scope and meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law *(Matter of Messer*v. *Leading Youth*Center, 15 A D 2d 841; *Matter of Moore*v. *Snyder,*15 A D 2d 838) and it was conceded -at the hearing before the Referee that “any type of heavy lift would produce the condition”. While there are claimed inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony, his proof was not equivocal or fragmentary to the point that it failed to rise to the level of substantial evidence. Moreover, the occurrence of the accident is substantiated by the testimony of the superintendent of the building where the claimant was employed. He testified that a fellow employee of the claimant, who had died prior to the hearing, told him on October 21, 1961, that the claimant had had an accident on that day. He also testified that the claimant advised him of the accident when he returned to the employer’s premises two or three weeks later to obtain a pay cheek. As to causal relation the surgeon who operated on the claimant for a disc injury testified that the case history received from the claimant related to an accident two years- prior to October, 1962. However, the claim*993ant testified that he first came to this country from Ireland on January '10, 1961, and his testimony was supported by an immigration card. Moreover, there was received in evidence an X-ray registration card from the Department of Hospitals of the City of New York dated October 21, 1961. Hence the board could find that the surgeon’s case history as transcribed was in error in dating the occurrence of the accident a year before its actual happening. In response to a hypothetical question asked by the Referee the surgeon stated that the “lift” as testified to by the claimant could “be a competent producing cause ” of the injury which he sustained. This testimony connecting the injury with an accident on the job constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the board’s decision as to causal relation. The appellants state, although they do not argue the issue, that they raise also the question of notice. But, as this question was not raised in the application for review before the board, the appellants may not create this issue for the first time in this court *(Matter of Hedlund*v. *United Exposition Decorating Co.,*15 A D 2d 973, 975, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 646; *Matter of Chersi*v. *Lulich Constr. Co.,*19 A D 2d 672). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds' and Taylor, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID YANT, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) 1:12-cv-00871

) 

v. )

) Magistrate Judge Denlow

CHARLES G. MCCARTHY, JR. d/b/a )

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES G. )

MCCARTHY, JR. & ASSOCIATES )

and d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF )

CHARLES G. MCCARTHY, JR., )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

By agreement, the parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their respective 

attorneys, state as follows:

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

hereby stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action shall be dismissed without 

prejudice and without costs to either party.

Date: August 24, 2012

For Plaintiff, 

David Yant, Jr

 /s David M. Marco

SMITHMARCO, P.C.

205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2940

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Telephone: (312) 546-6539

Facsimile: (888) 418-1277

E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

For Defendant, 

Charles G. McCarthy d/b/a Law Offices of 

Charles G. McCarthy, Jr. & Associates and 

d/b/a Law Offices Of Charles G. McCarthy, 

Jr.

/s with consent Charles G. McCarthy, Jr.

Charles G McCarthy, Jr

800 Enterprise Drive, #204

Oak Brook IL 60523

Telephone: (630) 571-4126

Facsimile: (630) 571-3367

E-mail: charlie@mccarthy.net

Case: 1:12-cv-00871 Document #: 22 Filed: 08/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:62
## Organizations and Government Agencies

Disclaimer
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Administration on Developmental Disabilities
- U.S. Department of Justice - Disability Rights Section
-  U.S. Department of Education - Office for Civil Rights
- Federal Student Aid Eligibility
- U.S. Department of Education - Federal Student Aid (FSA) Approved Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary (CTP) Programs
- ThinkCollege.net

## Other Resources

- Grantmaking at ED
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Settlements and Consent Agreements

Institutional Service Home
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 14 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.14
                                          Agreed to May 24, 2017        

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF 
              KING KAMEHAMEHA I.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used on June 11, 2017 for an event to celebrate the 
birthday of King Kamehameha I.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
#### 252.239-7001 Information Assurance Contractor Training and Certification.

As prescribed in 239.7103(b), use the following clause:

# Information Assurance Contractor Training and Certification (JAN 2008)

(a) The Contractor shall ensure that personnel accessing information systems have the proper and current information assurance certification to perform information assurance functions in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program. The Contractor shall meet the applicable information assurance certification requirements, including—

(1) DoD-approved information assurance workforce certifications appropriate for each category and level as listed in the current version of DoD 8570.01-M; and

(2) Appropriate operating system certification for information assurance technical positions as required by DoD 8570.01-M.

(b) Upon request by the Government, the Contractor shall provide documentation supporting the information assurance certification status of personnel performing information assurance functions.

(c) Contractor personnel who do not have proper and current certifications shall be denied access to DoD information systems for the purpose of performing information assurance functions.

(End of clause)

[73 FR 1829, Jan. 10, 2008]
#### Merle Lefkowitz v. Sheila Grosswald.

Motion to dispense with printing and for enlargement of time denied in all respects. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. No. A-1-CA-35111

5 WILLIAM DANIEL MARTINEZ,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

8 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 John J. Woykovsky, Assistant Attorney General

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellant

14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

15 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender

16 Santa Fe, NM 

17 for Appellee

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 FRENCH, Judge.
2

1 {1} The State of New Mexico (Plaintiff) appeals the district court’s orders granting

2 Defendant William Daniel Martinez’s motion to dismiss and dismissal of charge

3 without prejudice. Defendant was charged with a single count of aggravated fleeing

4 a law enforcement officer pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1.1 (2003). The

5 sole issue before the district court was whether the deputy’s vehicle was an

6 “appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” pursuant to Section 30-22-1.1(A).

7 The district court found (1) that the law enforcement vehicle “was equipped with red

8 and blue LED lights located within the grill area that were visible through the grill

9 even when not activated[,]” (2) that the vehicle “had a siren, the speakers of which

10 were also located within the grill area[,]” (3) “[t]he vehicle had an antenna that is not

11 common to civilian vehicles[,]” and (4) the deputy “activated his red and blue flashing

12 lights and his siren” resulting in Defendant eluding the deputy. Importantly, the

13 district court also found that the law enforcement vehicle “bore no insignias, stripes,

14 decals, labels, seals, symbols or other pictorial signs or lettering indicating its identity

15 as a law enforcement vehicle.” In concluding that the deputy’s vehicle was not

16 “appropriately marked” pursuant to Section 30-22-1.1(A), the district court ruled that

17 to be marked, “requires at a minimum some type of readily observable insignia or

18 lettering that conveys the identity or ownership of the vehicle.”
3

1 {2} This case raises the same issue, appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle,

2 pursuant to Section 30-22-1.1(A), as the one this Court recently decided in State v.

3 Montano, ___-NMCA-___, ¶¶ 1, 35-47, ___P.3d___(No. A-1-CA-35275, March 29,

4 2018). For the same reasons as those discussed in Montano, we reverse.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 ______________________________

7 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 ___________________________________

10 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

11 ___________________________________

12 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 3, 2018

p1218

Order 

Clerk

January 3, 2018

156210

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156210

COA: 337202

Genesee CC: 14-036308-FC

RONALD LAVERN TURNER, II,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.