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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITE HERE HEALTH, )

)

MATTHEW WALKER, as fiduciary of UNITE HERE )

HEALTH, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

Plaintiffs, ) NO. 12 C 5137

)

vs. ) JUDGE ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN

)

RICHARD SIMON, d/b/a United Maintenance Service )

at Hyatt Regency O’Hare, )

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, and move for entryofjudgment bydefault against

Defendant, RICHARD SIMON, d/b/a United Maintenance Service at Hyatt Regency O’Hare, in the

total amount of $295,914.70, plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount

of $2,301.25. 

On June 28, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Defendant’s attorney (by

mailing copies ofsaid documents, along with the Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service

of a Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons) (a copy of the Summons and Waiver of Service

of Summons is attached hereto). Therefore, Defendant’s answer or motion under Rule 12 was due

by August 28, 2012. As Defendant has failed to timely answer the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully

request entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Laura M. Finnegan 

Case: 1:12-cv-05137 Document #: 7 Filed: 09/11/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and further

certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United States Mail to the following

non-CM/ECF participants on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 11th day of September 2012:

Mr. Richard Simon

1550 S. Indiana Avenue

Chicago, IL 60605

Mr. Tom H. Luetkemeyer

Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP

222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60601-1081

/s/ Laura M. Finnegan 

Laura M. Finnegan

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6210637

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: lmfinnegan@baumsigman.com

I:\HEREW\United Maintenance\motion.lmf.df.wpd

Case: 1:12-cv-05137 Document #: 7 Filed: 09/11/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:38
27.405-4 Other existing data. ( a ) Except for existing works pursuant to 27.405-2 or commercial computer software pursuant to 27.405-3, no clause contained in this subpart is required to be included in— ( 1 ) Contracts solely for the acquisition of books, periodicals, and other printed items in the exact form in which these items are to be obtained unless reproduction rights are to be acquired; or
( 2 ) Other contracts that require only existing data (other than limited rights data) to be delivered and the data are available without disclosure prohibitions, unless reproduction rights to the data are to be obtained.
( b ) If the reproduction rights to the data are to be obtained in any contract of the type described in paragraph (b)(1) (i) or (ii) of this section, the rights shall be specifically set forth in the contract. No clause contained in this subpart is required to be included in contracts substantially for on-line data base services in the same form as they are normally available to the general public.
\ 

) 

( \ 

\ .I 

' I 

SECTION 1 

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 

TYPE OF KILN: Iron Ore Pellitizing 

NOMINAL BURNER RATING: -J ··400 MM Bu_t/hr 

... ·-

FUEL OPTIONS: Pulverized coal 

Pulverized coke 

Natural gas 

DESIGN PULVERIZED FUEL INPUT: 7 tons/hour 

DESIGN CONVEYING AIR FLOW: 14,000 acfm 

CONVEYING AIR TEMPERAUTURE: 170°F 

PRESSURE LOSS ON P.F. AT DESIGN: 14 inches w.c. 

P.F. GRIND DEFINATION: 80% 200 mesh 

DESIGN NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION: 7,250 scfm 

NATURAL GAS LHV: 920 Btu/scf 

PRESSURE LOSS ON GAS AT DESIGN: 20 psig 

DESIGN IGNITION AIR CONSUMPTION: 1, 385 scfm 

PRESSURE LOSS OF IGNITION AIR 5 psig 

AT DESIGN #2 

DESIGN COOLING AIR FLOW {GAS FIRING): 2,500 scfm 

PRESSURE LOSS OF COOLING AIR AT DESIGN: 0.5 inches w.c. 

ELECTRICS: 

Line: 460/3/60 

Control: 120/l/60 

ELEVATION: Sealevel 

LOCATION: Indoors 

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Not Applicable 

C620 

Page 4
#### CITY OF NEW YOKK v. CHILDS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Municipal Corporations—Obstruction of Sidewalk—Proceedings for

Penalty—Burden of Proof.

Where, in an action by a municipality for a penalty for maintaining steps and railings projecting on a street, there was no evidence showing the street line in question, it was error to permit a recovery on the assumption that the street line was the same as the house line, as the burden of showing that the defendant had encroached on the street was on the plaintiff.

2. Evidence—Judicial Notice.

In an action to recover a penalty for encroaching on a street with steps and railings, the court cannot take judicial notice that the street line and house line on a certain street are the same.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan.

Proceedings by the city of New York against Elsworth Childs to recover penalties for violation of the Revised Ordinances, §§ 330, 331, in maintaining steps and railings projecting on the street. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and TRUAX, JJ.

Dudley R. Horton (Henry D. Hotchkiss, of counsel), for appellant.

Geo. L. Roves (Arthur S. Cosby, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We are of the opinion that the evidence does not show that the ordinances above referred to have been violated by the defendant. No evidence was given on' the trial showing the street line of the street. It was taken for granted by the plaintiff that the street line was the same as the house line. The burden of showing that the defendant had encroached upon the street more than 12 • inches was upon the plaintiff. We cannot take judicial notice that the street line and the house line on Broadway are the same, and in fact the evidence shows that all the houses on Broadway at Twenty-*165Eighth street, where the building in question is situated, do not have the same line, whether it be called “house line” or “street line.” Judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
# C_2016372EN.01000101.xml

| 11.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8209 — GLM/Multico/Toray Group/TTC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 372/01)

On 4 October 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 32016M8209. 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 32016M8209. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 393 

Making minority party appointments for the 115th Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2018 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Making minority party appointments for the 115th Congress. 

1 Resolved, That the following be the minority member2 ship on the following committees for the remainder of the 

3 115th Congress, or until their successors are appointed: 

4 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Mr. Menen5 dez, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Coons, Mr. Udall, Mr. 

6 Murphy, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Book7 er 

8 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRE9 NEURSHIP: Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. 

10 Heitkamp, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Coons, Ms. 

11 Hirono, Ms. Duckworth 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2801.101 Purpose. ( a ) The Justice Acquisition Regulation (JAR) provides agency guidance, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 1.301(a)(2), and establishes, in this chapter, procurement regulations that supplement the FAR, 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) chapter 1, and must be utilized conjunction with the FAR.
( b ) ( 1 ) The JAR contains Department of Justice (DOJ) policies that govern DOJ's acquisition process or otherwise control acquisition relationships between DOJ's contracting activities and contractors. The JAR contains— ( i ) Requirements of law;
( ii ) Deviations from the FAR requirements; and
( iii ) Policies that either have a significant effect beyond the internal procedures of DOJ or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.
( 2 ) Relevant internal DOJ policies, procedures, guidance, and information not meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are issued by DOJ in other announcements, internal policies, procedures, or guidance.
#### 252.225-7028 Exclusionary policies and practices of foreign governments.

As prescribed in 225.7307(b), use the following clause:

# Exclusionary Policies and Practices of Foreign Governments (APR 2003)

The Contractor and its subcontractors shall not take into account the exclusionary policies or practices of any foreign government in employing or assigning personnel, if—

(a) The personnel will perform functions required by this contract, either in the United States or abroad; and

(b) The exclusionary policies or practices of the foreign government are based on race, religion, national origin, or sex.

(End of clause)

[68 FR 15639, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 73156, Dec. 9, 2005]
#### In the Matter of the City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for John Purroy Mitchel Houses.

Motion granted and the attorneys for elaimant-reapondent are hereby directed to accept the notice of appeal heretofore served by petitioner-appellant in connection with the appeal. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131933(18) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 131933 

 COA: 271427 

Allegan CC: 04-013757-FH 

DARIEL IRE HOUGH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

29, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

p0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mlntteb ~tate5 ~ourt of ~peaI5

for tbe jfeberaI ~trcutt

IN RE FUSION-10, INC.,

Petitioner.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 139

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case no.

11-CV-0391, Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

ORDER

Fusion-io, Inc. submits a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas to grant its motion to transfer a

severed portion of the action to the United States District

Court for the District of Utah.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Solid State Storage Systems, Inc. IS directed to respond no later than October 4, 2012.

Case: 12-139 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2012
IN RE FUSION-IO, INC.

FOR THE COURT

2

SEP 26 2012

Date

lsi Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Scott F. Partridge, Esq.

Christopher James Mierzejewski, Esq.

David Sochia, Esq.

U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex., Clerk

s8

FILED

U.s. COURT OF APPeALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SEP 26 l012

JAN HORBAlY

CLERK

Case: 12-139 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2012
# C_2017039EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8229 — Hammerson/Irish Life/ILAC Shopping Centre)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 39/01)

On 14 December 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 32016M8229. 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 32016M8229. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/17/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:97
Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/17/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:98
Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/17/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:99
Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/17/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:100
Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/17/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:101
#### 2419.811 Preparing the contracts.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2

Eastern Division

Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05105

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

A−S Medication Solutions LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, March 19, 2019:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The Court modifies its

previous entry (378) to read as follows: The Court directs the following changes to

plaintiff's revised proposed notice of the judgment and fee / expense petition: (a) The

4/19/2019 date should be modified to 4/26/2019 given the Court's delay and should be

modified to state that this is a date for objecting to the proposed attorney's fee, expenses,

and incentive award. The 120 day period approved by the Court is a deadline for

negotiating checks once the judgment is paid out. (b) The language stating, "Your

payment will be $319.98 times the number of faxes sent to you according to the records in

the case" should be modified to read: "If the Court approves the requested attorney's fees,

expenses, and incentive payment, your payment will be $319.98 times the number of

faxes sent to you according to the records in the case. If the Court approves a lesser

amount of attorney's fees, expenses, and/or incentive payment, your payment will be

greater on a pro rata basis." With these modifications, the Court authorizes sending the

notice to class members. (mk)

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-05105 Document #: 379 Filed: 03/19/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14413
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

October 4 , 2012

No. 11

- 2605

MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,

Appellant

v.

CHERYL SCHWARZWAELDER

( W.D. Pa. Nos. 2

- 11

- cv

- 00107 and No. 2

- 11

- cv

- 00162)

Present: SLOVITER and VAN ASKIE

, Circuit Judge s

1. Appellee’s Petition for Reconstitution of Panel or, Alternatively, for Rehearing

by the Panel.

2. Appellant’s Answer to the Petition for Rehearing

Respectfully,

Clerk

____________________ __ ___________ ORDER

__________ _____________________ The foregoing petition for panel rehearing and reconstitution of the panel is granted. Oral

argument will be scheduled at the convenience of the panel

.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas I. Vanaskie

Circuit Ju dge

Dated: October 16, 2012

T nh/ cc: Joseph H. Chivers, III, Esq.

Patricia A. Tsipras, Esq.

Lauren D. Rushak, Esq.

Michael J. Fortunato, Esq.
#### In the Matter of Albert Fam, Respondent, v. Frank Shapiro et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding by a property owner under article "VIII (§170 *et seq.)*of the Highway Law, to lay out and open an addition to a certain public highway in the Town of Hempstead, in which the condemnation commissioners appointed in the proceeding for the purposes set forth in the statute (§ 173), by their decision rendered March 26, 1962 after hearings, determined that the proposed addition was necessary and proper and assessed the resulting damages, the four objeetants Shapiro and Ritterman (contiguous property owners) and the objectant town appeal from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered July 20, 1962, which, *inter alia:*(1) granted the applicant’s motion to confirm the commissioners’ decision; (2) affirmed the damage awards made by the commissioners; and (3) denied the cross motion of the individual objeetants to vacate such decision. Order reversed on the law and on the facts, with one bill of costs to the individual objeetants and one bill of costs to the objectant town; applicant’s motion to confirm the commissioners’ decision denied and cross motion of the individual objeetants to vacate the decision granted, with $50 costs to said objeetants; and proceeding dismissed. Findings of fact contained or implicit in the decisions at Special Term which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The record discloses that prior to this proceeding a developer had constructed a street which terminated in a cul-de-sac, consisting of a circle. The present applicant had no interest in the street or the dwellings abutting it which had been sold by the developer. The applicant owns a parcel on which he lives. Its north line touches a southerly portion of the circled cul-de-sac. He has independent access to and from his parcel by means of a passageway 21 feet wide to a highway to the east. He has also obtained an easement of at least 10 feet so as to effect even vehicular passage to the circle through parts of lots which had been sold by the developer to the individual objeetants. By the order here appealed from, the applicant would acquire at public expense access of 50 feet to the circle, resulting in a taking from the individual objeetants of a triangular parcel on each side of the spot at which the applicant’s lot touches the circle. The applicant attempted to show that Adams Street, with which the proposed addition would connect, has never been legally constituted a public highway. Such attempt, if successful, would require dismissal of the application since the proposed taking would then create two small triangles in the midst of private property. The acquisition by condemnation of the subject damage parcels would serve only to augment the applicant’s existing access. Under all the circumstances, the proposed taking is, in our opinion, neither necessary nor for a public purpose. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: In the matter of T. S.

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00825

- CV

Trial court case number: JV21772

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 & Probate Court o f Brazoria County

This is an accelerated appeal from a juvenile certification judgment. On January 4, 2018, Appellant was granted a one

- time 21

- day extension to file his brief. Appellant timely filed his brief on January 24, 2018.

On February 13 , 201 8

— the day the State’s brief was due

— State’s counsel filed a first

motion for extension of time to file its brief . In the motion, the State avers: “Length of time requested for extension: 30 days until March 11, 2018”; however, it is noted that an extensio n until March 11, which is a Sunday, would be a 26

- day extension , not a 30

- day

extension.

Appeals in juvenile certification cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed, so far as reasonably poss ible. See Order Accelerating Juvenile Certification Appeals and Requiring Juvenile Courts to Give Notice of the Right to an Immediate appeal, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9156 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). The notice of appeal in this case was filed on October 27, 2017, from the juvenile certification judgment signed on September 26, 2017, setting the 180

- day compliance deadline for April 25, 2018. See id . at 3(a).

Th is appeal is currently set for submission on March 21, 2018.

Although this is the State’s first extens ion request, the accelerated schedule in juvenile certification cases requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines and greater scrutiny of extensions. State’s c ounsel contends that an extension is needed because, among other reasons, he is busy pre paring briefs in two criminal appeals. Counsel hasnot listed whether he has already requested extensions in these cases. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d).

Accordingly, the State’s motion for an extension of time to file it s brief is GRANTED , in part, until March 6 , 2018 , but no further extensions will be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ L a ura C. Higley

Acting individually

Date: February 1 5 , 2018