alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Minute ilir Form (05%)
United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois
sente Magstrate Jude Milton I. Shadur “than signed ode
CASE NUMBER 01 C 2099 DATE 10/1/2001
CASE Gerald Morris vs. Albertson, Inc. et al
TITLE
Gin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (by state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
()) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
@) oO Answer briefto motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue____
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon__set for___at.
(5) Qo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on__set for ___at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__set for at
(oO) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to____at.
(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

QFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 OFRCP41(a)\(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) ~+x—- [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Jewel’s motion to strike is granted
in its entirety. (22-2) Third Amended Complaint 4 13 through 19, 22 through 24 and 26 are stricken.

dl) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required.

number of notices

oY | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. @

ing deputy inals

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. rae

10/1/2001

courtroom ap get-2 Aid 29 dete led ice
SN deputy’s ow
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



rome eee ar

Sor

ane ne ee Ue oti a cemeaia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

GERALD MORRIS, etc., )
Plaintiff,

v. No. 01 C 2099
ALBERTSON, INC., et al. , }

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In accordance with this Court's request, counsel for
plaintiff Gerald Morris (“Morris”) has submitted a list of
Seventh Circuit decisions that in his view call for denial of the

motion by defendant Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (“Jewel”) to strike a

host of the allegations in Morris! Third Amended Complaint

(“TAC”) --TAC 9913 through 19, 22 through 24 and 26--as being
impermissibly beyond the scope of Morris! agency-filed Charge of
Discrimination. This Court has reviewed that Charge and the TAC
in light of the cited authorities, and it finds that Jewel's
motion to strike is sound in its entirety.

Accordingly all of the above-referred-to paragraphs of the
TAC are indeed stricken. This should not however be
misunderstood as necessarily barring the admissibility at trial
(or for summary judgment purposes) of evidence as to any of those
matters that may qualify for such admissibility under Fed. R.
Evid. 404 (b)--for example, as bearing upon the issue of Jewel's

assertedly race-discriminatory intent in dealing with Morris on


Rete bona

chee eat wi

his still-viable claim.

Chiles OL hee

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: October 1, 2001
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00457-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

DANIEL SOLIS

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20MC-05536-1

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2022
##### 



Exhibit 13.1 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Lihir Gold Limited, a Papua New Guinea corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. Dated: 29 June 2004 /s/ Neil SwanName:
    Neil SwanTitle:
    Managing Director
#### Joseph Siragusa et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 65053.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court did not err in dismissing the claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1); § 241 (6). The claims pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6) are subject to the defense of comparative negligence and require *987inquiry into the correlation of negligence and comparative negligence in causing the injuries complained of *(Long v Forest-Fehlhaber,*55 NY2d 154, 159-161; *Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp.,*44 NY2d 290). The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the accident did not result from any negligence on the part of the State, but from claimant’s negligence in driving off the shoulder. Labor Law § 240 (1) is inapplicable to this case. The statute is addressed to situations in which a worker is exposed to the risk of falling from an elevated work site or being hit by an object falling from an elevated work site *(see, Kahn v Gates Constr. Corp.,*103 AD2d 438, 441-447; *Nagel v Metzger,*103 AD2d 1, 10; *DaBolt v Bethlehem Steel Corp.,*92 AD2d 70, 74-75, *appeal dismissed*60 NY2d 701). The contour of the highway cannot be equated with an elevated work platform or structure within the contemplation of the statute. To so hold would be to "strain the language of the statute * * * 'so as to establish a cause of action and right of recovery not contemplated by the Legislature’ ” *(DaBolt v Bethlehem Steel Corp., supra,*p 75). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, McMahon, J.— negligence.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivory Shire, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 907]

Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered December 18, 2010, which denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

Upon defendant’s 1994 conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and conspiracy in the *1295fourth degree, he was sentenced as a persistent felony offender to 15 years to life in prison. In 2009, County Court denied his motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. Approximately one year later, defendant requested reconsideration of the order denying resentencing. The court denied the application, and defendant now appeals.

“Appeals in criminal cases are strictly limited to those authorized by statute” *(People v Bautista,*7 NY3d 838, 838-839 [2006]; *see People v De Jesus,*54 NY2d 447, 449 [1981]; *Matter of State of New York v King,*36 NY2d 59, 63 [1975]). This appeal must be dismissed as there is no statute authorizing an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider the denial of resentencing *(see*CPL 450.10, 450.15, 450.30, 440.46).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Spain and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
#### Denise L. Winter, Respondent, v Kelly M. Black, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 909] —

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated June 1, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

To be entitled to summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 852 [1985]). On a motion for summary judgment, a “bare affirmation of an attorney, who demonstrates no personal knowledge of the matter, is unavailing and without evidentiary value” *(Bahlkow v Greenberg,*185 AD2d 829, 831 [1992]; *see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; *Mobil Oil Corp. v Penna,*139 AD2d 501 [1988]).

On her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiffs arguments regarding how the accident occurred were supported only by the affirmation of her attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, her motion for summary judgment should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d at 324; *Mackenzie v City of New York,*81 AD3d 699, 700 [2011]; *Todd v Godek,*71 AD3d 872, 873 [2010]; *Gjokaj v Fox,*25 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Rivera, J.E, Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 4
          - [PS Docket No. 15-80; Report No. 3179; FRS 39529]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for Reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Ian P. Culver, on behalf of California Public Utilities Commission.

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 13, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 23, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity & Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0944 or via email at                         *Saswat.Misra@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3179, released July 19, 2021. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:                     *http://apps.fcc.gov/​ecfs/​.*                     The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.                

                    Subject: In the Matter of Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, published at 86 FR 22796, April 29, 2021, in PS Docket No. 15-80. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).                     *See also*47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-16126 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### In the Matter of Wilda C., Appellant, v Miguel R., Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 467]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 5, 2011, which dismissed the petition seeking visitation with prejudice and enjoined petitioner from filing any additional custody and/or visitation petitions regarding the subject child without permission of the court, *632unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The Family Court did not dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds, but on the merits, and thus, the issue of jurisdiction is not properly before this Court on appeal. While respondent urges that a prior order of the Family Court did rule on the issue and has collateral estoppel effect, the record before this Court is insufficient to make such a determination and the issue should be addressed on remand (see *Matter of Richard*W. *v Maribel G.,*78 AD3d 480 [2010]).

It is undisputed that full custody was awarded to respondent in March 2009 (see *Matter of Miguel R. v Wilda C.,*74 AD3d 631 [2010]). The parties represent that an order of protection was issued the same day directing petitioner to “stay away from [the child] except for court ordered supervised visits after documentation of compliance with mental health treatment,” and the child’s attorney represents that the order of protection was for a period of one year. As there is no indication in the record before this Court that the order of protection was ever extended or that there is any other outstanding order addressing visitation, dismissal of the petition on the grounds that petitioner failed to allege a change in circumstances warranting modification cannot be affirmed. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
# C_2019295EN.01006402.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/64

---

Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Chiesa v Parliament

(Case T-445/19)

(2019/C 295/84)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giulietto Chiesa (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       6,661,529
<SECURITIES>                                 2,093,677
<RECEIVABLES>                                  866,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,760,134
<PP&E>                                       1,040,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                 274,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,824,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,577
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,614,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,824,468
<SALES>                                        493,201
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,869,430
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,663,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,563,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,009,570)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,009,570)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,009,570)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.29)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jasmine Gregory, the Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:





1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  March 25, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------
Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:999

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 2 of 29 PageID #:1000

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 3 of 29 PageID #:1001

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 4 of 29 PageID #:1002

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 5 of 29 PageID #:1003

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 6 of 29 PageID #:1004

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 7 of 29 PageID #:1005

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 8 of 29 PageID #:1006

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 9 of 29 PageID #:1007

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 10 of 29 PageID #:1008

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 11 of 29 PageID #:1009

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 12 of 29 PageID #:1010

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 13 of 29 PageID #:1011

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 14 of 29 PageID #:1012

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 15 of 29 PageID #:1013

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 16 of 29 PageID #:1014

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 17 of 29 PageID #:1015

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 18 of 29 PageID #:1016

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 19 of 29 PageID #:1017

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 20 of 29 PageID #:1018

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 21 of 29 PageID #:1019

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 22 of 29 PageID #:1020

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 23 of 29 PageID #:1021

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 24 of 29 PageID #:1022

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 25 of 29 PageID #:1023

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 26 of 29 PageID #:1024

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 27 of 29 PageID #:1025

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 28 of 29 PageID #:1026

Case: 1:02-cr-00892 Document #: 130 Filed: 01/22/03 Page 29 of 29 PageID #:1027
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:102
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:103
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:104
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:105
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:106
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:107
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:108
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:109
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:110
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:111
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:112
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:113
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:114
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:115
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:116
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:117
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:118
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:119
Case: 1:01-cv-06566 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/01 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:120