alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11602

DUPAGE HOUSING AUTHORITY, an
Illinois municipal corporation, and FOREST
PRESERVE DISTRICT OF DUPAGE
COUNTY,

Vv.

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

Plaintiffs,
No. 03 C 2621

VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, an Illinois Judge Zagel

municipal corporation,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

NOW COMES the Defendant, Village of Oak Brook, by and through their attorneys,

James L. DeAno and Howard P. Levine, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50,

hereby moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law. In further support thereof, Defendant states as

follows:

Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant violated the Fair Housing Act Amendments
(“FHAA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (*ADA”) by: 1) intentionally
discriminating (disparate treatment); 2) creating a disparate impact; and 3) failing to
make a reasonable accommodation.

Throughout the course of this trial, Plaintiffs have failed to offer sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict in their favor and the Defendant is entitled to judgment in its
favor as a matter of law.

Under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to
gtant a directed verdict where there can be but one reasonable conclusion. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A scintilla of evidence in support of
the non-moving party's position is not sufficient to successfully oppose a directed

1


verdict in favor of the moving party; “there must be evidence on which the jury could
reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id.

4, The Village’s Denial of Plaintiffs’ Requested Zoning Did Not Constitute Intentional
Discrimination. There has been no evidence of direct discrimination against the
Plaintiffs. There has similarly been no evidence of indirect discrimination against the
Plaintiffs. As a result, the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

5. The Village’s Denial of the Plaintiffs’ Requested Zoning Does Not Have a Disparate
Impact on the Handicapped or Elderly. Plaintiff has produced no evidence which
would establish

6. The Defendant is entitled to directed verdict because the Plaintiffs have not established
that they Were entitled to a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA or the FHAA.
The accommodation they requested was not reasonable as a matter of law. Additionally,
Plaintiff has not established that the accommodation was necessary to avoid
discrimination.

7. Additional support for the Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law is
contained in the Defendant’s memorandum of law filed contemporaneously with this
motion.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Village of Oak Brook respectfully requests judgment be

entered in its favor in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted,
For Defendant
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK,

By: s/Howard P. Levine
Howard P. Levine

DeANO & SCARRY

2100 Manchester Road, Suite A-101
Wheaton, Illinois 60187

(630) 690-2800

Attorney #06197286
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1016 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1016

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New 
                    Jersey, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 1997

    Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Torricelli) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New 
                    Jersey, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 6 of Public Law 100-515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$4,000,000''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``five'' and inserting 
        ``10''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.7


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No(s). 333-204848, 333-184108, 333-178260, 333-129631,  and 333-214948 on Form S-8, 333-215992 on Form F-10 and 333-182656 on Form F-3 and to the use of our reports dated March 31, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016.





/s/ Deloitte LLP


Chartered Professional Accountants


Licensed Public Accountants


March 31, 2017





Toronto, Canada
No. 04-14-670-CR

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

VS. § FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SIMON RENE GARCIA § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

From the 175th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CR-10101

Hon. Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

In accordance with Tex. R. App. Pro. 10.5(b)(1), the undersigned counsel submits his 

“Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief,” and shows as follows:

This Court’s current briefing deadline is Thursday, August 6th, 2015. Since the filing of 

the State’s response brief, the undersigned has filed the following:

On Friday, July 31, 2015, Counsel filed a reply brief with this Court in State v. Luis 

Arnaldo Baez, Cause No. 04-14-00374-CR; 

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Counsel filed a petition for discretionary review (Cause 

No. PD-0756-15), with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, stemming from the San Antonio, 

Fourth Court of Appeals decision in Arrington v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2529 (Tex. App. 

San Antonio Mar. 18, 2015), involving four 60 and one 20 year (concurrent) sentences for sexual 

assault-related convictions;

Counsel has pretrial motions due to be filed no later than August 10th, 2015, in State v. 

Shawn Dillard, Cause No. 2015-CR-5293A, pending in the 290th D. Ct. of Bexar County, Texas, 

a capital murder prosecution in which the State (at least currently), has announced that they will 

seek the death penalty. 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00670-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

8/5/2015 4:28:45 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 08/05/15 4:28:45 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Counsel has prepared for a hearing, which is scheduled before the Hon. Pamela Mathy, 

on Thursday, August 6th, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m, in United States v. Shepherd, Cause No. SA:12-CR643-XR, involving a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition.

On Tuesday, August 4th, 2015, the undersigned counsel consulted with Ms. Mary 

Beth Welsh, Asst. Dist. Atty. with the Appellate Division of the Bexar County District 

Attorneys Office, who informed that she had no opposition to the requested extension of 

time.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests that this 

Court grant the requested 12-day extension of time to file his reply brief, to and including 

Monday, August 17, 2015. 

 Respectfully submitted,

Jorge G. Aristotelidis

Tower Life Building

310 South St. Mary’s Street, Suite 1830

San Antonio, Texas 78205

210/277-1906

jgaristo67@gmail.com

By: /s/ JORGE G. ARISTOTELIDIS

SBN: 00783557
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 5th of August, 2015 a copy of the foregoing “Unopposed 

Motion for Extension of Time to file Reply Brief” has been delivered to the Appellate Section of 

the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, via email. 

/s/ JORGE G. ARISTOTELIDIS
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 29, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O RT H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16463 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 6 5 - C R - OR L - 1 9 DA B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A N I E L M O R S E , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T , an dH IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E RC U R I A M: H . K y le F le tc h e r , ap p o in te dc o u n s e l f o rD an ie l M o r s e , h a s f

ile dam o tio n to2

w i thd raw on appealsupp ort ed by a bri ef prepare d p ursuantt o A nd er s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof

the appe a li s c orr e c t . B e c aus e i nde pe nde nte xam i na t i on of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s no arg u ab l e i ssu es o f m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th draw i s G R A N TED , and M orse ’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
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
 CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Annual Report of Purchase Point Media Corp. (the "Company")
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"),  I, Steven
A. Kempenich, 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 to the best of my
knowledge:





(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
result of  operations of the Company.




/s/
Steven A. Kempenich


Steven A.
Kempenich


Chief
Executive Officer


April 14,
2008
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IBSG International, Inc. for the quarter ended March
31, 2004, I, Geoffrey Birch, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer , hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

| | 1. | Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, 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-QSB for the
               quarter ended March   2 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IBSG
International, Inc.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 25, 2004

/s/ Geoffrey BirchTreasurer and Chief
Financial  Officer
#### Dwayne McKnight et al., Respondents, v ATA Housing Corp., et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[942 NYS2d 210]

In action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated July 8, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On June 16, 2007, the infant plaintiff was staying at the apartment of the third-party defendant, his aunt, when he allegedly was bitten by her pit bull terrier. The defendants owned and managed the apartment building in which the third-party defendant rented her apartment.

“To recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises; (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog” *(Sarno v Kelly,*78 AD3d 1157, 1157 [2010]; *see Baisi v Gonzalez,*97 NY2d 694, 695 [2002]; *Strunk v Zoltanski,*62 NY2d 572, 575 [1984]; *Jones v Pennsylvania Meat Mkt.,*78 AD3d 658, 659 [2010]; *Bennett v White,*37 AD3d 630, 630 [2007]; *Ali v Weigand,*37 AD3d 628, 628-629 [2007]; *Madaia v Petro,*291 AD2d 482, 483 [2002]; *Bemiss v Acken,*273 AD2d 332, 333 [2000]).

In opposition to the defendants’ demonstration of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Beljean v Maiuzzo,*256 AD2d 533, 533 [1998]), the plaintiffs submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Bennett v White,*37 AD3d at 631; *Han v F & M Enter. of Corona Corp.,*293 AD2d 572, 573 [2002]; *Beljean v Maiuzzo,*256 AD2d at 534). The affidavits from the neighbors of the third-party defendant submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the *958defendants had notice that the third-party defendant was harboring a dog in her apartment and whether they knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities *(see Bennett v White,*37 AD3d at 631). Further, the deposition testimony of the defendants’ assistant superintendent also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had notice that the third-party defendant was harboring a dog in her apartment.

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit *(see Quiroa v Ferenczi,*77 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2010]; *Stern v Waldbaum, Inc.,*234 AD2d 534, 535 [1996]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



The Board of Directors
PathoGenesis Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-87615, 333-87613, 333-05095, 333-45571, 333-61183 and 333-63679) on Form S-8
of PathoGenesis Corporation of our reports dated January 21, 2000, except as to
note 12 which is as of March 23, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of PathoGenesis Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1999, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule for
the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, which reports appear in the December
31, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of PathoGenesis Corporation.


                                       KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 27, 2000
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42868-42869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16668]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The cooperative agreement applications and the 
discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the cooperative agreement 
applications, the disclosure of which would

[[Page 42869]]

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Review.
    Date: September 9, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-0813, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 30, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16668 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### **Exhibit 12.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, Ad Scheepbouwer, certify that:

 

1.                         I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-Fof Koninklijke KPN N.V.;

 

2.                         Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                         Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                         The company’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for thecompany and have:

 

(a)    Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectivenessof the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)    Disclosed in this report anychange in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.                         The company’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)    all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 
| Date: March 8, 2004                    |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
| /s/ Ad Scheepbouwer                         |   |
| Chairman of the Board of Management and CEO |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Foxe, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered on January 25, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Fein, Lynch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 149 (Friday, August 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, September 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 
317-3087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 9, 2021 
at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments 
or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and 
structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Fred Smith. For more information please contact Fred Smith at 
1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office, 1111 
Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at 
the website: http://www.improveirs.org.

    Dated: August 2, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-16778 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 16, 2019

NO. 03-19-00194-CR

Leroy Pickens, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 35TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILLS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.