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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

RICHARD SPINNENWEBER )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00101-JTM-JEM

ROBERT LADUCER, and )

RED RIVER SUPPLY )

INCORPORATED )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND/OR TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Defendants, Robert Laducer and Red River Supply, Inc., by counsel, Stephen 

M. Brandenburg of CAMELI & HOAG, P.C., move this Court for a new trial and/or an 

order of remittitur amending the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(a) & (e).

1. Following a two-day trial that concluded on December 4, 2018, the jury 

entered a verdict against Robert Laducer and Red River Supply, Inc. in the 

amount of $1,000,000. 

2. This verdict is grossly excessive, and the medical evidence submitted at trial 

does not support a verdict in this amount. Rather than basing the damages 

awarded on the evidence, it appears the jurors relied on the improper 

arguments Plaintiff’s counsel made during opening and closing statement in 

which he requested the jurors use the verdict to send a message to trucking 

companies.

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 154 filed 01/01/19 page 1 of 3
2

3. Given the lack of evidentiary foundation to support the verdict, Defendants 

now move the Court to enter an order for a new trial on damages pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59 and/or enter an order amending the verdict reducing the 

amount of damages awarded to the Plaintiff. 

4. Defendants have submitted a memorandum of law in support of this motion 

and request that the Court set this matter for a hearing.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this motion be granted and the Court 

enter an order for a new trial and/or an order of remittitur amending the judgment 

and for all other just and proper relief.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Stephen M. Brandenburg

Stephen M. Brandenburg (#28935-45)

Perry W. Hoag (#19113-45)

CAMELI & HOAG, P.C.

5920 Hohman Avenue

Hammond, IN 46323

Telephone: 219-802-8392

sbrandenburg@camelihoaglaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants, Robert Laducer and 

Red River Supply Incorporated

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 154 filed 01/01/19 page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 1, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing 

will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. 

Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Stephen M. Brandenburg

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 154 filed 01/01/19 page 3 of 3
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 15

- 00251

- CV

IN RE HEB GROC ERY COMPANY, LP

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 4, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 27, 2015

, relator HEB Grocery Company, LP filed a petition for writ of

mandamus with an emergency motion for temporary stay of discovery deadlines. The court has

considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus , the response filed on behalf of the real party in

interest and relator’s reply and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013

- CI

- 08676, styled Patricia Rani Spaulding v. HEB, Inc., HEB Grocery

Com pany, LP; HEBCO GP, LLC and HEBCO Partners, Ltd. , pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable Martha Tanner presiding.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1934 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate 

copolymers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain vinyl chloridevinyl acetate copolymers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN VINYL CHLORIDE-VINYL ACETATE CO4 POLYMERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.— Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 
2 

•HR 1934 IH 

‘‘ 9902.39.02 Vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate 

copolymers (CAS No. 9003– 

22–9) (provided for in subheading 3904.30.60) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

DANIEL E. WILKINS, 

 Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

v. Cause No. 3:15-CV-514 JD 

BRUCE LEMON, DAVID LIEBEL, AND 

MARK SEVIER, 

 Defendants. 

ORDER 

 Daniel E. Wilkins, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Wilkins 

wants the court to order that he be immediately permitted “the ability to purchase Halal oil from 

an outside vendor for the purpose of emulating the Prophet Muhammad and enhancing his daily 

prayers.” DE 36 at 9. He does not want to buy the oil sold by the prison commissary. Nor is he 

asking that his brand or quality of oil be stocked at the commissary. “A preliminary injunction is 

an extraordinary and drastic remedy; it is never awarded as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 

674, 689-690 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A] preliminary injunction . . . 

should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” 

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 

must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

 Here, Wilkins has no chance of success on the merits. He is proceeding on a claim for 

permanent injunctive relief against Commissioner Bruce Lemmon (in pertinent part) for 

preventing him from having Halal prayer oil based on three legal theories: the First Amendment, 
2 

RLUIPA, and Equal Protection. Neither the First Amendment nor RLUIPA require the use of an 

outside vendor to provide religious items. From an Equal Protection perspective, Wilkins has 

provided nothing to indicate that any religious groups at his prison are currently permitted to 

purchase prayer oil from outside vendors. So under no legal theory can Wilkins succeed in 

obtaining an injunction requiring that he be able to purchase prayer oil from an outside vendor. 

 Moreover, the PLRA circumscribes the scope of the court’s authority to enter an injunction 

in the corrections context. 

Where prison conditions are found to violate federal rights, remedial injunctive 

relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the 

violation of the Federal right, and use the least intrusive means necessary to correct 

the violation of the Federal right. This section of the PLRA enforces a point 

repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison conditions: 

Prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the 

institutions they manage. 

Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). 

 For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion (DE 35). 

SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED: February 10, 2017 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge 

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Ruby Newco LLC on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, the
undersigned officers of Ruby Newco LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ruby Newco
LLC.



|               |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                           
|-------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|               |  |  | 
|March 20, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    K. RUPERT
MURDOCH
|               |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | K. Rupert Murdoch                                         
|               |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                      
|               |  |  | 
|               |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    DAVID F. DEVOE   
|               |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | David F. DeVoe                                            
|               |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Senior Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13245]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5212-9]


Georgia Transformer Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to settle claims for response costs 
at the Georgia Transformer Site (Site) located in Thomasville, Georgia, 
with approximately 80 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the 
Site. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for 
thirty days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement 
should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate 
the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. 
Copies of the proposed settlement and a list of proposed settling 
parties are available from: Mr. Greg Armstrong, Enforcement Project 
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Waste 
Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 347-5059 ext. 6188.
    Written comment may be submitted to the person above within 30 days 
of the date of publication.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
Richard D. Green
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.
[FR Doc. 95-13245 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Charles Hess, Marty Higgins, Robert "Glen" 

McCormick, Ronald Papa, Frank Shera, and Al 

Tornquist 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Biomet, Inc. and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., 

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-208

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AND 

OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS

Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling, Pretrial Conference, and Trial Order (Dkt. No. 214) 

Plaintiffs provide this reply to the objections and counter-designations to Plaintiffs’ deposition 

designations (Dkt. Nos. 250, 250-1). 

Defendants submitted no objection to Plaintiffs’ designations. See Dkt. No. 250-1. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs submit no reply in support of its designation of deposition testimony that 

it may offer at trial.

However, Defendants submitted a number of counter-designations. Id. Plaintiffs’ 

objections to said counter-designations are attached as Exhibit 1, filed contemporaneously with 

this reply.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00208-JD-MGG document 287 filed 08/14/19 page 1 of 3
Dated: August 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary Cruciani

Gary Cruciani (pro hac vice)

Travis E. DeArman (pro hac vice)

Jonathan Powers (pro hac vice)

MCKOOL SMITH

300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 978-4000

gcruciani@mckoolsmith.com

tdearman@mckoolsmith.com

jpowers@mckoolsmith.com

Joseph R. Fullenkamp

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

700 1st Source Bank Center

100 North Michigan Street

South Bend, IN 46601-1632

Telephone: (574) 233-1171

joe.fullenkamp@btlaw.com

Alice J. Springer

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

52700 Independence Court, Suite 150

Elkhart, IN 46514

Telephone: (574) 233-1171

alice.springer@btlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Charles Hess, Marty Higgins,

Robert “Glen” McCormick,

Ronald Papa, Frank Shera, and

Al Tornquist

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00208-JD-MGG document 287 filed 08/14/19 page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was 

served through email/ECF system and/or by the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, 

addressed to the following parties, this 14th day of August, 2019:

Joshua B. Fleming

Elizabeth Trachtmann

Daniel M. Janssen

Quarles & Brady LLP

135 N. Pennsylvania St., Suite 2400

Indianapolis, IN 46204

/s/ Jonathan Powers

Jonathan Powers

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00208-JD-MGG document 287 filed 08/14/19 page 3 of 3
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1911 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Clothianidin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Clothianidin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLOTHIANIDIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.52 (E)–1-(2-Chloro-1,3-thiazol5-ylmethyl)–3-methyl-2- 

nitroguanidine (Clothianidin) 

(CAS No. 210880–92–5) 

(provided for in subheading 

2934.10.90) ......................... 5.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1911 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:15-cr-64 

 ) 

CLARENCE BLANCHARD. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY 

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 Upon defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11, this matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Andrew P. Rodovich, United 

States Magistrate Judge, on March 16, 2016, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel 

for the defendant, and counsel for the United States of America. 

 The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, before the 

Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record. 

 In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on 

the record, and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of Assistant United States Attorney 

Armando L. Salinas, and of Attorney Jerome T. Flynn, counsel for the defendant, 

 I FIND as follows: 

1. that the defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the 

plea is offered; 

2. that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not 

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse 

witnesses, and his right against compelled self-incrimination; 
2 

3. that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including 

the effect of the supervised release term, and the defendant understands that the 

Probation Department will prepare a pre-sentence report based upon the 

sentencing guidelines but that the court may depart from those guidelines under 

some circumstances; 

4. that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made 

and is not the result of force or threats or of promises; 

5. that the defendant is competent to plead guilty; 

6. that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a 

prosecution for perjury or false statement; 

7. that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further, 

 I RECOMMEND that the court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty to the offense 

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A presentence report has been 

ordered. 

 ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2016. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CREATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Anahita Villafane, certify that:

 

1.               I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Creative ComputerApplications, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

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

 

(c)          Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent third fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  July 15, 2004 | /S/ Anahita Villafane                    |   |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Anahita Villafane                        |
|                           | Controller and Chief  Accounting Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32 (a)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the nine months ended September 30, 2005, I, Harold C. Rauner, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Financial Banking
Companies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-QSB, 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 such Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/ HAROLD C. RAUNER                 
|Harold C. Rauner                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer



Date: November 14, 2005