alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

Northern District of Indiana 

THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY OF 

FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, 

Plaintiff 

v. Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-357 HAB 

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY 

LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant 

The court has ordered that (check one): 

 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs. 

 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff . 

 X Other: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff The Medical Protective Company of Fort Wayne, 

Indiana and against the Defendant American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company in the amount 

of Six Million Nine Hundred Seventy Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars and Seventy-Four Cents 

($6,970,567.74) equaling the remaining policy limit (net of prior exhaustion) plus statutory prejudgment 

interest at eight percent (8%) per annum from October 13, 2013 to the date of judgment. 

This action was (check one): 

 X tried to a jury with Judge Holly A. Brady presiding, 

and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

 tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was 

reached. 

 decided by Judge 

DATE: January 31, 2020 ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT 

By s/C. Reed 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

USDC IN/ND case 1:13-cv-00357-HAB document 175 filed 01/31/20 page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-1999

<CASH>                        2,187,513
<SECURITIES>                    249,985
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,296,990
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              3,734,488
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,778,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           579,875
<BONDS>                       1,823,545
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                   (2,768,164)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,778,641
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                207,964
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                435,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              177,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (404,925)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (304,236)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                   (304,236)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.80)



</TABLE>
Udeme T. NDON, petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE.

No. 12-10622.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### John JOSEPH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Don TAYLOR, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-55748.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2005.

Decided May 5, 2006.

Frank G. Prantil, Attorney at Law, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner — Appellant.

Alan D. Tate, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent — Appellee.

*711Before: REINHARDT and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

1. Neither the failure to define certain terms in a jury instruction nor the failure to give an additional instruction *sua sponte*“so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction” violated John Joseph’s due process rights. *See Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (citations omitted).

2. Joseph’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail as he has not shown “that there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

4. After our independent review of the record, we conclude that the state court decision denying Joseph’s habeas petition was not “objectively unreasonable.” *Pham v. Terhune,*400 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.2005) (citation omitted).

5. To the extent Joseph raises arguments not encompassed within the certificate of appealability (COA), we construe this as a motion to expand the COA and deny the motion because Joseph fails “to make a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right.” *Nardi v. Stewart,*354 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
William SMITH, petitioner, v. Shelia WRIGHT, et vir.

No. 12-1066.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, 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:  May 14, 2004











































#
Jeff Russell TRAXTLE, petitioner, v. Sherri HOLMAN, et al.

No. 13-6461.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 1 of 7
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 2 of 7
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 3 of 7
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 4 of 7
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 5 of 7
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 6 of 7
USDC ND/IN case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 129-1 filed 01/09/15 page 7 of 7
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 148 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to report to Congress 

regarding the ownership and control of broadcast stations used to serve 

language minorities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to report to Congress regarding the ownership and control 

of broadcast stations used to serve language minorities, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Minority 

5 Media Opportunities Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP. 

7 (a) REVIEW OF LICENSE TRANSFER.—Section 

8 211(b) of the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 
2 

•HR 148 IH 

1 1992 (Public Law 102–538; 106 Stat. 3545) is amended 

2 by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Subsection (a) also 

3 applies to any person holding a broadcast license used pri4 marily to serve a language minority. The hearing required 

5 by subsection (a) shall include record evidence, analysis, 

6 and Commission findings regarding the effects of the ap7 plication on competition and diversity in the programming 

8 and distribution markets for the specific language minor9 ity at issue. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘lan10 guage minority’ means persons who are American Indian, 

11 Asian American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish herit12 age.’’. 

13 (b) BROADCAST STATIONS SERVING LANGUAGE MI14 NORITIES.—Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 

15 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 111) is amended 

16 by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(i) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than January 

18 1, 2006, the Commission shall, after notice and comment, 

19 report to Congress regarding the ownership and control 

20 of broadcast stations (including AM, FM, and television 

21 broadcast stations) used to serve language minorities. The 

22 Commission shall consider the effects, with respect to both 

23 competition and diversity concerns, of multiple ownership 

24 and undue concentration in the programming and dis25 tribution markets specific to a language minority. For 
3 

•HR 148 IH 

1 purposes of this subsection, the term ‘language minority’ 

2 means persons who are American Indian, Asian American, 

3 Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage.’’. 

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Annual Certification Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc.,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ THOMAS P. BENSONThomas P. BensonChief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President And
Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
Thomas A. CENSKE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7295.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Christopher Dena LAVER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5996.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
George BROWN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9668.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11588]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:


    Name of Committee: Communication Disorders Review Committee.
    Date: June 8, 1995.
    Time: 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Crowne Plaza, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    Contact Person: Craig A. Jordan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIDCD/DEA/SRB, EPS Room 400C, 6120 Executive 
Boulevard, MSC 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 301/496-8683.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.


    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sec. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. The 
application and/or proposal and the discussion could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders)

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-11588 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12120]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1049-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Louisiana, FEMA-1049-DR), dated May 10, 1995, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Louisiana dated May 10, 1995, is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of May 10, 1995:

Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, LaFourche, Orleans, St. Bernard, 
St. James, St. John, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, and Terrebonne 
Parishes for Individual Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Richard W. Krimm,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 95-12120 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-M
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certification of ChiefExecutive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Arbor EnTechCorporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on thedate hereof (the “Report”), Mark Shefts, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report for the fiscalquarter ended October 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           The information in the QuarterlyReport, and the information in the Report, fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                           | /s/ Mark Shefts         |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                           | Mark Shefts             |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer |
| Dated:  December 14, 2004 |                    |

 

1

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a)**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

I, Robert D. Kelly, certify that: 

1) I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SolarCity Corporation; 

2) Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 27, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

BRADLEY BONAR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-402

)

INTERCON CARRIERS, L.C., and )

MELITON SILVA, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants Intercon Carriers, L.C., and Meliton Silva removed this case here on

December 23, 2014, from Noble Circuit Court, Albion, Indiana, alleging that the Court has

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Docket # 1.) In the Notice of Removal,

Defendants allege that Plaintiff Bradley Bonar is a citizen of the State of Indiana; Defendant

Meliton Silva is a citizen of the State of Texas; and Defendant Intercon Carriers, L.C., “is a

limited liability company, and the two members of Intercon Carriers, L.C., are both citizens of

the State of Texas.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 5-7.) 

Defendants’ jurisdictional allegations inadequately set forth the citizenship of Intercon

Carriers, L.C. As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Defendants bear the

burden of demonstrating that the requirement of complete diversity has been met. Chase v.

Shop’n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Defendants cannot, as

they attempt to do here, merely allege a “naked declaration that there is diversity of citizenship”

in its Notice of Removal. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2007). 

A limited liability company’s citizenship “for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the

citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus,
the Court must be advised of the identity of each member of Defendant Intercon Carriers, L.C.,

and such member’s citizenship. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir.

2006); see generally Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996)

(explaining that the court would “need to know the name and citizenship(s)” of each partner for

diversity jurisdiction purposes).

Therefore, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record on or before January 20,

2015, by filing an Amended Notice of Removal that properly alleges the citizenship of each

party, including the identity and citizenship of each member of Defendant Intercon Carriers, L.C.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 6th day of January 2015.

s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2