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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02133

Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

Jennifer Taylor

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 3, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: The defendant's motion to

quash subpoena [32] is granted in part and denied in part. Production of documents

subject to the subpoena shall be made in compliance with Rule 45(c)(2). It seems likely

that Plaintiff's subpoena sought production in Pennsylvania in the anticipation that

documents would be mailed or electronically produced, such that the site of production

was not material; that is routine practice. It is difficult to imagine that Fairview has a bona

fide objection to mailing or emailing documents to Plaintiff's counsel, but if it does, it has

the right to insist on compliance with the rule. It is also difficult to imagine that this

kerfuffle could not have been resolved between the parties with a phone call rather than a

motion. Though not required by the letter of Local Rule 37.2 in this specific context, the

Court expects that for any motion relating to discovery, the parties will make a good faith

effort to resolve the dispute themselves before resorting to motion practice. Going

forward, any discovery motion must comply with the requirements of Local Rule 37.2.

Mailed notice(air, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02133 Document #: 36 Filed: 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:252
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 11, 2014

NO. 03

- 10

- 00348

- CR

Michael Cooper, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUS TICES GOODWIN AND FI ELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART ON REMAND

--

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by t he trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial

court’s judgments of conviction as to Counts II and IV . Therefore, the Court vacates the trial

court ’s judgments of conviction for aggravated robbery in Counts II and IV and affirm s the trial

court’s judgments of conviction for aggravated robbery as to Counts I, III, and VII

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, n o adjudication of costs is made.
Case 2:15-cv-02588-SPL   Document 1-1   Filed 12/21/15   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:15-cv-02588-SPL   Document 1-1   Filed 12/21/15   Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64833-64834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25916]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[15X 1109AF LLUT980300-L11500000.PH0000-24-1A]


Utah Recreation Resource Advisory Council Meeting/Conference Call

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting/conference call.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Federal Lands Recreation 
Enhancement Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah Recreation 
Resource Advisory Council (RecRAC) will host a meeting/conference call.

DATES: The BLM-Utah RecRAC will host a meeting/conference call on 
Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, from 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m., Mountain Standard 
Time.

ADDRESSES: Those attending in person must meet at the BLM-Utah State 
Office, Monument A Conference Room, 440 West 200 South, Fifth Floor, 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you wish to listen to the 
teleconference, orally present material during the teleconference, or 
submit written material for the RecRAC to consider during the 
teleconference, please notify Sherry Foot, Special Programs 
Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 
South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; phone (801) 539-4195; or, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#087b6e67677c486a6465266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9deefbf2f2e9ddfff1f0b3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a> no later than Friday, Nov. 21.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will consist of the Amended 
Business Plan for the San Juan River (proposes moving the San Juan 
River non-commercial boating permit lottery and reservation system to 
www.recreation.gov to improve customer service and permitting 
efficiency) and the Draft Business Plan for Recreation Use Permits in 
the BLM-Richfield Field Office (proposes to modify camping fees at 
Starr Spring, McMillan Spring, and Lonesome Beaver Campgrounds). A 
half-hour public comment period will take place from 10:30-11:00 a.m. 
The meeting is open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, 
and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to 
leave a message or question for the

[[Page 64834]]

above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a 
week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.

    Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4-1.

Jenna Whitlock,
Associate State Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-25916 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Spencer S. Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. Bancorp, 

Defendant.

No. CV-16-00236-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon review of the Parties’ Stipulation to Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 17), and 

good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing this action with prejudice, all parties shall 

bear their own attorney fees and costs incurred in this action. 

 Dated this 30th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00236-JJT Document 18 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the period ended March 31, 2006 of
MPW Industrial Services Group, Inc. (the Issuer) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date hereof. I, Robert Valentine, 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:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 15, 2006



/s/ Robert ValentineRobert ValentineVice President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
#### LOCCISANO et al. v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO.

No. 6093.

District Court, S. D. California, C. D.

June 25, 1947.

See also 72 F.Supp. 285.

Culbert L. Olson and John W. Olson, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

C. W. Cornell, O. O. Collins, Malcolm Archbald and John R. Allport, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.

O’CONNOR, District Judge.

The court has carefully considered the motion for a new trial filed by plaintiff in the above-entitled action in this court on May 22nd, 1947, and the briefs of attorneys, and has further re-examined the instructions given by the court to the jury.

In the supplemental memorandum in opposition to motion for a new trial, filed by defendant’s attorneys, the case of Cedzo v. Bergen, 53 Cal.App.2d 667, 128 P.2d 683, 688, decided in 1942, is cited, wherein the following language is quoted from the court’s opinion: “As a general rule it is proper for the court to state to the jury the issues raised by the pleadings (24 Cal.Jur. 825) and it is also true that a party is es-topped to assert error in an instruction requested **** * by an adversary if they merely invoke the same proposition which has been asserted by the party complaining (citing cases)”.

This court is bound by the rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Ballard v. United States, 9 Cir., 138 F.2d 540, at page 544, the Circuit Court quotes (paragraph 45) an instruction given by the trial Court. While the opinion does not state the fact, the record in the case shows that the defendants, prior to the trial, agreed to this instruction and twice during the trial, which was rather protracted, they requested the court to again advise the jury the substance of this instruction. The Circuit Court said that this was not a correct statement of the issues. It is clear, therefore, that, even an instruction requested by a party may be considered by the Circuit Court and found to be error. The instruction given by the court, in the case cited, was subsequently found by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a correct statement of the law. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148.

The Government, in its brief to the Circuit Court, page 67, called the Court’s attention to the fact that the particular instruction cited as error was brought to the attention of the defendants prior to the trial and, at the request of the defendants, it was repeated during the trial to the jury.

It is clear, therefore, that if the Circuit Court finds that, in its opinion, an instruction requested was erroneously given, the verdict may be set aside.

The Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict, and further the Court finds that there were no errors of law occurring at the trial.

Motion for new trial is denied, and exception allowed the plaintiffs.
#### A. G. Kyle *v.*James M. Clark.

Bill of Sale — Warranty of Condition.

“A black girl of yellow complexion, named Fannie, age about seventeen years, she is in good health and a slave for life.” Held: That the description sufficiently identified the slave, and that the language then changed from description to affirmation of condition as to health, which imparted a coveant of Warranty.

APPEAL FROM MERGER CIRCUIT COURT.

February 8, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

December 31, 1864, Kyle sold, to Clark a negro slave girl for $75 and gave a bill of sale evidencing that he had sold to Clark “a black girl of yellow complexion named Fannie aged about seventeen years *she is in good health and a slave for life.”*The girl having died within a few months Clark sued and recovered the consideration paid and for his trouble and expense or for a breach of warranty.

It is insisted that the words in said bill of sale that- *“she is in good health and a slave for life” do not*import a warranty,- and therefore appellant could only be liable for a fraud.

Such words could only have been used for one of two purposes,, that is, either as a description of the thing sold, else, as a contract of its condition.

The description of the age and color and sex had been previously recited and sufficiently identified her. The language is then changed from description to affirmation of condition as to health and term of servitude, and as this court said in *Dickens vs. Williams et al, 2 B. Mon. 37J±,*such an affirmation imports a covenant of warranty that it was so, and should be deemed as a part of the contract, and, therefore, stipulatory, especially when unqualified by anything else in the writing.

The true inquiry then was as to the health of the slave at the date of the sale and not whether the vendor knew she was *396unhealthy and concealed it, or falsely represented she was healthy knowing otherwise. We see no error in the judgment hence it is affirmed, with damages.

*Kyle, Gaither, for appellant.*

*C. A. Hardin, for appellee.*
#### Ann B. Nevitt’s Admr. *v.*L. P. Chandeon.

Administrator De Bonis Non — Wjho to Sue.

An action for devastavit against an administrator can only be brought by the distributees, and not by the administrator de bonis non.

APPEAL EROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.

January 4, 1872.

*538*Ilowell, for appellant.*

*Hodman, for appellee.*

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge' Peters :

This suit was brought by appellant, administrator de bonis non of Ann B. Nevitt, deceased, against Bray, as former executor of Mrs. Nevitt, and Price and appellant as sureties of Bray in his executorial bond. Judgment was rendered against Bray and Price, who made no defense, and the petition dismissed as to appellee, who defended the suit, and appellants seeks to reverse the judgment in favor of appellee.

In the case of Felts, &c., vs. Brown’s Admr., 3 J. J. Mar. 147, this court held that the right to recover for the assets which came to the hands of the first administrator, and were wasted by him, was in the distributees, .and not in the administrator *de bonis non, and Graves, &c., vs. Downey, 3 Mon. 355,*the same question is settled. Appellant’s petition was therefore properly dismissed. But whether appellee may or not ultimately be responsible to the devisees of the testatrix is not now legitimately before us. And we need not anticipate it.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,809,248
<SECURITIES>                                   552,521
<RECEIVABLES>                               55,516,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,990,048
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,887,773
<PP&E>                                       4,938,046<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,825,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       39,598,070
<BONDS>                                     17,543,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,287
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,358,306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,825,819
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,109,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,484,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             9,134,244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,073,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,582,261)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   120,676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,702,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.02)
<FN>
<F1>PP&E DOES NOT APPLY - FIGURE REPRESENTS OTHER ASSETS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Lewis et al *v.*R. T. Adams, Lindsey, et al.

Descent and Distribution — Sale of Trust Property — Wills.

Under a will, property was devised to a wife, and in the event of her marriage, to he sold and distributed in connection with her children; she sold property of $600 and invested it in lands, and shortly thereafter married: Held that the distributees were equitably substiuted to a correspondent equity in the ’land. . -

Same — Notice—Subsequent Purchasers.

Subsequent purchasers of the land are held to have been purchasers with notice of this equity.

Guardian and Ward — Fiducial Relations — Estoppel.

The fiducial relations of a guardian will estop him from denying the interest of his wards in land, sold by order of court and bought in by him for a mere trifle.

APPEAL FROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT.

October 11, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

By his will W. R. Marion gave to his wife some personal property and a slave *Dave,*directing, in the event of her marriage, a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceds between her *308and tbeir infant children. She sold Dare for $600, and with the greater part of the proceeds bought, jointly with her brother, a tract of land of about 54 acres in Todd county, Kentucky. Not long afterwards she intermarried with J. T. Lindsey, who, being appointed guardian of her infant children, forthwith proceeded as guardian to obtain, in twenty days after filing his petition, a decree for selling the interest of his wards in the said land, and, at the decretal sale he bought it for $46.60, and the commissioner conveyed to him the title. In a few days afterwards he sold the entire tract for $750. This suit was brought to set aside the purchase of Lindsey, and to sell the interest of the petitioners, who alleged that the land was fraudulently sacrificed.

Lowry, *for appellants.*

Petrie, *for appellees.*

Their petition, concurred in by the mother, was dismissed, and we think erroneously.

By the conversion of Dave into land the infant legatees were equitably substituted to a correspondent equity in the land.

Lindsey is estopped to deny that interest in the land. His fiducial relation and the trifle he paid make his purchase at the decretal sale is constructively fraudulent, and entitle his wards to a restitution of their portion of the land, or portion of the price he sold it for. As it was the duty of his vendees, immediate or remote, to look into his title and they must be presumed to know that it was voidable, and cannot claim to have been *bona fide*purchasers without notice of the equity of the appellants, who have a right to avoid all the sales unless.on a judicial settlement with their guardian, ample justice can be assured to them in some other way.

The circuit court, therefore, erred in dismissing the petition, and that judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 606 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 606

 To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include 
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, as part of the 
                          Appalachian region.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 1997

 Mr. Goodlatte (for himself and Mr. Boucher) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include 
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, as part of the 
                          Appalachian region.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF MONTGOMERY, ROANOKE, AND ROCKBRIDGE COUNTIES, 
              VIRGINIA, AS PART OF APPALACHIAN REGION.

    The 12th undesignated paragraph of section 403 of the Appalachian 
Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 403) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Montgomery,'' after ``Lee,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``Roanoke, Rockbridge,'' after 
        ``Pulaski,''.
                                 <all>
```
9335.

#### Western & Atlantic Railroad Company *v.*Thomasson.

Bloodwoeth, J.

There is some evidence to support the verdict in this case; it is approved by the trial judge; and while there are inaccuracies in some of the excerpts from the charge, of which complaint is made, these errors are not so material, when considered in connection with the entire charge and in the light of the evidence, as to justify this court in holding that the judge erred in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Harwell, J., concurs.*

Bboyles, P. J.,

.dissenting. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence which authorized a recovery for the plaintiff was very weak, the great weight of the evidence being in favor of the defendant. Under these circumstances I think that the errors in the charge of the court, *564which in the opinion of the majority of this court ,are denominated “inaccuracies^” were sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant’s cause to require a new trial.

Decided July 31, 1918.

Action for damages; from Bartow superior court—Judge Tarver. September 8, 1917.

*Tye, Peeples & Tye, Neel & Neel,*for plaintiff in error. ■

*Buford Boykin, Sidney Holderness, Finley & Henson,*contra.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Rolls-Royce Corporation ) ASBCA No. 62314-ADR

)

Under Contract No. N00019-14-D-00016 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Scott E. Pickens, Esq.

Matthew T. Michaels, Esq.

 Barnes & Thornburg LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

R. Montana Erickson, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE D’ALESSANDRIS

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter 

judgment in favor of appellant.

It is the Board’s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a 

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of

$4,500,000. This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No further 

interest shall be paid. 

Dated: January 19, 2022

(Signatures continued)

DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I concur

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62314-ADR, Appeal of 

Rolls-Royce Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: January 20, 2022 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals