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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. )

) No. 02 C 8700

RICHARD CATRAMBONE and )

GREAT LAKES BUILDING ) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

MATERIALS, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 21, 2011 at 9:45 a.m., or as soon

thereafter as counsel shall be heard, we will appear before the Honorable Magistrate

Judge Maria Valdez presiding in Room 1300, of the 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,

Illinois, and then and there present Plaintiff’s Petition for Preliminary Injunction as to

Trucking Companies, Plaintiff's Petition to Cancel Fraudulent Transfer as to

Trucking Companies, and Plaintiff's Combined Memorandum of Law, copies of

which accompany this notice.

I certify that on September 16, 2011, the foregoing Plaintiff’s, Notice of Motion

and Motion were filed electronically with the Court. Notice of this filing will be

accomplished pursuant to ECF as to Filing Users and shall comply with Local Rule 5.5 as

to any party who is not a Filing User or represented by a Filing User. Parties may access

this filing through the Court's system. 

By: s/ Carlton Odim____________________ 

 Carlton Odim 

Odim Law Offices

225 West Washington Street, #2200

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 578-9390 - Tel 

(312) 578-9395 - Fax 

carlton@odimlaw.com

Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 325 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1682
SERVICE LIST

1. Richard Catrambone

10756 Wentworth Drive

Naperville, IL 60564

(Individually and as President of Summit Express, Inc.)

2. Lorraine Catrambone

10756 Wentworth Drive

Naperville, IL 60564

(Individually and as President of SG North LLC)

3. Denise Catrambone Gray aka Denise Gray

President of Sum Exp, Inc.

10031 Cummings Street

Huntley, IL 60142

(Individually and as President of Sum Exp, Inc)

4. Joseph Francis Bigane, III

Registered Agent

SG North, LLC and

SG West, LLC

2100 Clearwater Dr

Suite 300

Oak Brook, IL 60523

(As registered agent for SG North LLC and SG West LLC

5. Lisa Catrambone Jacobson aka Lisa Jacobson

1070 Pearlman Drive

Lake Zurich, IL 60047

(Individually and as registered agent for Sum Exp, Inc.)

Case: 1:02-cv-08700 Document #: 325 Filed: 09/16/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1683
exhibit10_24.htm


    SECOND
AMENDMENT

    TO
THE

     MCINTOSH
STATE BANK

    DIRECTOR
RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

    DATED
DECEMBER 19, 2002

    AND
AMENDED JANUARY 9, 2007

    FOR

     D.
KEITH FORTSON


    


    THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is adopted this
30th
day of November, 2008, by and between MCINTOSH STATE BANK, a state-chartered
commercial bank located in Jackson, Georgia (the “Company”), and KEITH D.
FORTSON (the “Director”).

    


    The Company and the Director executed
the DIRECTOR RETIREMENT AGREEMENT on December 19, 2002 effective as of January
1, 2003, and executed a First Amendment on January 9, 2007 (the
“Agreement”).

    


    The undersigned hereby amend the
Agreement for the purpose of bringing the Agreement into compliance with Section
409A of the Internal Revenue Code.  Therefore, the following changes
shall be made:

    


    Section 1.1 of the Agreement shall be
deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:

    


    
      	
              1.1

            	
              “Change
      of Control” means a change in the ownership or effective control of
      the Company or any entity which is the majority shareholder of the
      Company, or in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the
      Company or any entity which is the majority shareholder of the Company, as
      such change is defined in Section 409A of the Code and regulations
      thereunder.

            


    

    


    Sections 2.3, 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the
Agreement shall be deleted in their entirety and replaced by the
following:

    


    
      	
              2.3

            	
              Change of Control
      Benefit.  Upon a Change in Control, the Company shall pay
      to the Director the benefit described in this Section 2.3 in lieu of any
      other benefit under this Agreement.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.3.1

            	
              Amount of
      Benefit.  The annual benefit under this Section 2.3 is
      the Change of Control Annual Benefit set forth in Schedule A for the Plan
      Year ending immediately prior to the date of the Change in Control occurs,
      determined by vesting the Director in the projected Normal Retirement
      Benefit described in Section 2.1.1.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.3.2

            	
              Payment of
      Benefit.  The Company shall pay the annual benefit amount
      to the Director in twelve (12) equal monthly installments commencing with
      the month following a Change of Control, payable to the Director for a
      period of ten (10) years.

            


    

    


    


    IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the
Company and the Director hereby consent to this Second Amendment.

     

    


    Director:                                                                           MCINTOSH
STATE BANK

    


    


      /s/  D.
Keith
Fortson                                                  
   By/s/  William K.
Malone

    D. KEITH
FORTSON                                                  
 Title    Chief Executive
Officer
(9 App. Div. 497.)

#### GAMBLE v. LENNON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1896.)

Appeal—Dismissal—Rules of Court—Failure to File Printed Case.

An appeal will be dismissed on appellant’s failure to file the printed case within the time allowed by court, after default in filing the same within the time required by the rules of court, without excuse, or attempting to. secure an extension of time.

*278• Action by Annie Gamble, as administratrix, etc., against William F. Lennon. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Dismissed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, WILLIAMS, and PATTERSON, JJ.

Grossman & Vorhaus, for plaintiff.

David M. Neuberger, for defendant.

PER CURIAM,

The defendant was in default for failure to file the printed case at the July term, and a motion to dismiss the appeal heard at that term was denied upon condition that the printed case be filed and served by the 31st day of August. This was done as a matter of favor to the appellant, although he was then in default, and strictly the plaintiff was entitled to have the appeal dismissed. At that time it appeared that the appellant, although in default, had made no effort to procure an extension of his time to file and serve the printed case, which he might easily have done under the rules, had he been able to show any good reason for it After the 10th of September—to which date his time to file case had been extended by stipulation—he was again in default, and again he permitted his default to stand without any effort to procure an extension of the time, relying upon the good nature of his adversary or of the court to permit him to escape from the difficulty in case another motion should be made to dismiss his appeal. His reliance has proved a broken reed. While the court is inclined to give a party every reasonable opportunity that his appeal may be heard, yet there should be some diligence by attorneys to enable the court to relieve them. In this case nothing of the kind has been made to appear. It is a pure instance of neglect to do the thing which was prescribed in apparent reliance upon the dislike of the court to enforce rigidly the rules which have been made for the protection of suitors. It is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule to be applied to such cases. This much may be said: That where a party is likely not to be able to prepare his case within the time required by the rules, he should procure an extension of time if he has any good reason for asking for it, and if he does not do so an inference will be drawn that he had no grounds upon which to make such an application, and, unless that inference can be rebutted, not only by proof of good grounds for the delay, but by giving reasons why an application for the extension of time was not made, he stands in great jeopardy of having his appeal dismissed.

The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is granted, with $10 costs.
#### Jeremy S. Gnade, Respondent, v Sunburst Optics, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[942 NYS2d 922]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered June 29, 2011 in a breach of contract action. The order, among other things, granted in part plaintiff s motion for partial summary judgment on his first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988, 988 [1988]; *Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts,*63 AD2d 566, 567 [1978]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the "Report") by Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Registrant"), the
undersigned hereby certifies that, to his 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 the Registrant.

                                   /s/ James R. Murphy
                                   -------------------
                                   James R. Murphy
                                   Chairman of the Board of Directors, President
                                   and Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)


                                   March 4, 2004
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





The
      undersigned hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1.
      They
      are the chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively of
      SpaceDev, Inc. (the "Company");





2.
      The
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
      2006, that this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and,





3.
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      August 14, 2006      /s/
      Mark N. Sirangelo


Mark
      N.
      Sirangelo


Chief
      Executive Officer





And;





/s/
      Richard B. Slansky


Richard
      B. Slansky


President
      and Chief Financial Officer
----

----

| (1) | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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                  the                  Registrant. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                  July 21, 2006 | /s/                  WILLIAM H.                  CAMPBELL                                     |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | William                  H. Campbell                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                  | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00508

- CV
Annabelle Lopez v. Nayely Herrera
On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 1681

- 20

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 9, 2024
Page 1 - DECLARATION OF REILLEY D. KEATING IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RELATOR 

SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT

111919351.1 0061542-00016

Reilley D. Keating, OSB No. 073762

reilley.keating@stoel.com

Stephen H. Galloway, OSB No. 093602

stephen.galloway@stoel.com

STOEL RIVES LLP

760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000

Portland, OR 97205

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Facsimile: (503) 220-2480

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex 

rel. MICHAEL T. BROOKS,

Relator,

v.

TRILLIUM COMMUNITY HEALTH 

PLAN, INC., AGATE RESOURCES, INC., 

and LANE INDIVIDUAL PRACTICE 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:14-cv-01424-MC

DECLARATION OF REILLEY D. 

KEATING IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

RELATOR SHOULD NOT BE 

ADJUDGED IN CIVIL CONTEMPT 

I, Reilley D. Keating, declare as follows:

1. I am one of the counsel of record for Trillium Community Health Plan, Inc., 

Agate Resources, Inc., and Lane Individual Practice Association, Inc., in the above-captioned 

proceeding. I make this declaration in support of Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause 

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 108 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 - DECLARATION OF REILLEY D. KEATING IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

RELATOR SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT

111919351.1 0061542-00016

Why Relator Should Not Be Adjudged in Civil Contempt. I have personal knowledge of the 

facts stated in this declaration.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy, with pertinent portions 

highlighted, of email correspondence between myself and Relator Michael T. Brooks on 

August 6, 2021.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy, with pertinent portions 

highlighted, of an email that Mr. Brooks sent me on August 9, 2021. 

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: August 10, 2021.

/s/ Reilley D. Keating

Reilley D. Keating

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 108 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

111919351.1 0061542-00016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing DECLARATION OF REILLEY D. 

KEATING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY RELATOR SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT on the 

following named person(s) on the date indicated below by:

 mailing with postage prepaid

 overnight delivery

 email

 notice of electronic filing using the CM/ECF system

to said person(s) a true copy thereof, contained in a sealed envelope, addressed to said person(s) 

at his or her last-known address(es) indicated below.

Michael T. Brooks

32713 Vintage Way

Coburg, OR 97408

Tel: 541-556-6130

Email: mibrooks@mac.com

Plaintiff Pro Se

DATED: August 10, 2021.

STOEL RIVES LLP

/s/ Reilley D. Keating 

REILLEY D. KEATING, OSB No. 073762

reilley.keating@stoel.com

STEPHEN H. GALLOWAY, OSB No. 093602

stephen.galloway@stoel.com

Telephone: 503.224.3380

Of Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:14-cv-01424-MC Document 108 Filed 08/10/21 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

GINGERLEE DOMINGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 6:14-cv-01683-AA 

tpR:ffi'esIIDj ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE 

Having considered the patiies Joint Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice, the record 

contained herein, and for good cause having been shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED; and 

[Proposed] Order Granting Joint Mot. 1 

For Dismissal With Prejudice 

Case 6:14-cv-01683-AA Document 28 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 2
2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATEDthisdfayof ~ 

SUBMITTED BY: 

CAROLINE D. CIRAOLO 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

s/ Yen Jeannette Tran 

YEN JEANNETTE TRAN 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 683 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

202-616-3366 (v) 

202-307-0054 (f) 

Y.Jeannette.Tran@usdoj.gov 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

Acting United States Attorney, District of Oregon 

Of Counsel 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

[Proposed] Order Granting Joint Mot. 2 

For Dismissal With Prejudice 

'2015. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:14-cv-01683-AA Document 28 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2
#### Charles De Martino, Petitioner, v Robert Kiley, as Chairman of the New York City Transit Authority, et al., Respondents.

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondents, dated January 23, 1984, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a police officer with the New York City Transit Authority.

Petition granted to the extent of vacating the penalty imposed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to the respondent New York City Transit Authority for reconsideration of the issue of an appropriate penalty in accordance herewith.

Substantial evidence exists in the record to support respon*703dents’ determination sustaining the charges against the petitioner *(see, Matter of De Bois v Rozzi,*114 AD2d 848). However, in determining an appropriate sanction, the hearing officer consulted petitioner’s departmental file with respect to his prior disciplinary record. Petitioner’s employment record was not introduced into evidence at the hearing nor was petitioner notified that his employment record would be considered by the hearing officer in determining an appropriate penalty.

Under a similar set of circumstances, the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner was entitled to prior notice of adverse material contained in his personnel file and to an opportunity to rebut such evidence prior to the determination of a penalty *(Matter of Bigelow v Board of Trustees,*63 NY2d 470). In view of the hearing officer’s failure to notify the petitioner that his employment record would be considered in arriving at a determination of a penalty and to afford petitioner an opportunity to challenge the record and submit mitigating data with regard to information contained therein, a remittal of the matter is required. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Muhammad Abdurraheem, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 90]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered January 7, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. *570The misdemeanor information included the deposition of the arresting officer, which alleged that for approximately 10 minutes, defendant stood immediately next to a table on which t-shirts were “spread out,” and that defendant was “arranging and handling said merchandise.” The table was “in the vicinity” of a given private address and was “open to public view.” When approached, defendant stated that he did not need a license because he “work[ed] at the store.”

Giving these facts “a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” *(People v Casey,*95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find that the accusatory instrument sufficiently alleged unlicensed general vending (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-453). “[A]s a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” *(People v Davis,*13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), the information adequately alleged that defendant engaged in the conduct required for acting as a general vendor *(see*Administrative Code § 20-452 [b]). The alleged conduct, taken together with defendant’s statement to the officer, negated any noncommercial explanation *(see People v Sylla,*154 Misc 2d 112, 115-116 [Crim Ct, NY County 1992]; *People v Diouf,*153 Misc 2d 887, 889-890 [Crim Ct, NY County 1992]). Likewise, the information, read as a whole, supported the inference that defendant was acting in a “public space” *(see*Administrative Code § 20-452 [d]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:5262
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:5263
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:5264
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:5265
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5266
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:5267
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:5268
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:5269
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:5270
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:5271
Case: 1:01-cv-04366 Document #: 678 Filed: 08/18/03 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:5272
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

HONIE CALEY, Case No. 6:14-cv-01715-MA 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

MARSH, Judge 

ORDER 

On June 29, 2015, plaintiff's attorney filed an unopposed 

Motion To Dismiss her Complaint {#11), indicating that plaintiff 

passed away on June 5, 2015. Plaintiff sought Supplemental 

Security Income benefits pursuant to Title XVI only. aintiff's 

attorney indicates that there is no surviving spouse eligible to 

receive payment of bene ts, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.542(b), and there 

is no evidence that plaintiff received interim assistance from a 

state entity, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.121. Accordingly, pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4l(a), plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss her Complaint 

is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~ day of JULY, 2015. 

ma4~:;m~ Malcolm F. Marsh 

United States District Judge 

1 - ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01715-MA Document 13 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 1