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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 183

Honoring the life of Betty Shabazz.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 10, 1997

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

RESOLUTION

Honoring the life of Betty Shabazz.

Whereas the Nation honors Betty Shabazz as a wife, mother,

educator, and advocate for civil and human rights,

women, and the poor;

Whereas Betty Shabazz, through her life and deeds, has been

an inspiration to people around the world;

Whereas Betty Shabazz was a woman of strength, resilience,

perseverance, and grace who overcame the greatest of

challenges;

Whereas Betty Shabazz was born Betty Sanders in Detroit,

Michigan, on May 28, 1936;

Whereas Betty Shabazz met and married the controversial

activist and leader El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm

X) in New York in 1958;
2

•HRES 183 IH

Whereas on February 21, 1965, while pregnant with twins,

Betty Shabazz and their four daughters witnessed Malcolm X’s assassination;

Whereas Betty Shabazz exhibited her resiliency and determination as a single mother, raising and educating her

six daughters, Attallah, Qubilah, Ilyasah, Gamilah, and

twins Malikah and Malaak;

Whereas Betty Shabazz found the time to become certified as

a registered nurse, and to later earn bachelor’s and master’s degrees and, finally, a doctorate in education administration from the University of Massachusetts;

Whereas Betty Shabazz joined the administrative staff of

Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, rising to

high positions;

Whereas, while preserving the public memory of her late husband, Betty Shabazz earned a reputation of her own, as

an educator, public speaker, and advocate for women,

education, and civil and human rights;

Whereas on June 23, 1997, Betty Shabazz succumbed to injuries suffered in a tragic fire;

Whereas Betty Shabazz personified the roles of wife, mother,

and professional woman; and

Whereas Betty Shabazz will be forever remembered for her

love of family, her commitment to humankind, and for

the joy and laughter she brought to all those who knew

her: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors

2 the life of Betty Shabazz.

Æ
#### CATHERINE McNAMARA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted May 1, 1945

Decided May 18, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Peksicie.

For the appellant, *Drewen*<£• *Nugent (John P. Nugent).*

For the respondent, *Edward DeBevo*and *Alex R. DeSevo.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The suit was upon a policy of life insurance claiming a double indemnitjr. The pertinent provision of *49the policy is as follows: “Accidental Death Benefit. Upon receipt of due proof that the death of the Insured resulted, independently of all other causes, from bodily injuries caused solely by external, violent, and accidental means, the Company will pay, as an additional death benefit, an amount equal to the amount payable under the Schedule, unless such injuries (injury) **** * is the result of participation in an assault or felony.” The proofs show that the insured died as the result of a fractured skull.

On the night of February 14th, 1942, he attended a dance. In the early morning of the next day, accompanied by a friend he went to a saloon. Thereafter, they went to a restaurant at 203 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City. A former pugilist was having his breakfast. There was plenty of room around the counter but the insured sat on a package containing the pugilist’s lunch. A verbal altercation ensuing, the insured struck the protesting pugilist, and knocked out one of his teeth. The restaurant proprietor put the men out on the street. The pugilist then struck the insured a blow which felled him to the street and fractured his skull so that he died in two days.

The learned trial judge found in favor of the beneficiary named in the policy, the reason given being that the insured must have been engaged in such an assault as would reasonably lead to his death, in order to avoid the indemnity provision of the policy. We think not. The policy provides that there shall be no double indemnity if the death is the result of participation in an assault or felony. The insured not only was the aggressor, having started a fist fight, but he could have reasonably foreseen the fatal possibilities of its continuance. But under the language of the policy, it is enough that death results from his participation in an assault or felony. The insured was the aggressor, he provoked the fight and there is no right of recovery in such a ease under the language used in this policy. He invited the encounter and the double indemnity feature falls. If the rule of foreseeable consequences applied — blit we think it does not — the result would be the same since a fist fight may result fatally.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Dawon A Wordlaw

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−03200

Honorable Manish

S. Shah

Enterprise Leasing Company Of Chicago, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, June 13, 2023:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion to reassign

cases [122] is denied. This is a closed case and the local rule for reassignment of related

cases applies to pending cases. The motion should be filed before Judge Pacold, who has

the lowest numbered pending case. Related cases would be reassigned to Judge Pacold.

Judge Shah's supervision of the class action did not result in any significant familiarity

with the case that would result in judicial efficiency in supervising the new cases filed by

opt−outs. After consulting with Judge Pacold, Judge Shah decided that a reassignment

under IOP 13(d) was not appropriate because reassignment would not save judicial time.

Notices mailed. (psm, )

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-03200 Document #: 126 Filed: 06/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1133
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 31, 2016

No. 04-16-00338-CV

IN RE Allen Jackie JONES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On May 31, 2016, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for

emergency stay. The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for emergency stay are denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). The court’s 

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on May 31, 2016.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CI-04328, styled In re Marriage of Tetyana Jones and Allen Jackie 

Jones, pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen H. Pozza presiding.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, ) 

on behalf of plaintiff and ) 

the class members defined herein, ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 20 C 3057 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Rowland 

 ) Magistrate Judge Cummings 

HOME PHYSICIANS GROUP, LLC, ) 

and JOHN DOES 1-10, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Able Home Health, LLC, voluntarily 

dismisses its individual claims against Defendant Home Physicians Group, LLC with prejudice 

and without costs. Plaintiff Able Home Health, LLC voluntarily dismisses its class claims 

against Defendant Home Physicians Group, LLC without prejudice and without costs. Plaintiff 

Able Home Health, LLC voluntarily dismisses its claims against John Does 1-10 without 

prejudice and without costs. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ Heather Kolbus 

 Heather Kolbus 

Daniel A. Edelman 

Heather Kolbus 

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

 & GOODWIN, LLC 

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 739-4200 

(312) 419-0379 FAX 

Case: 1:20-cv-03057 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:57
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Heather Kolbus, hereby certify that on September 2, 2020, I caused a true and accurate 

copy of the foregoing document to be filed with the Court’s CM/ECF system, and to be served 

via email upon the following: 

Alexander Passo- apasso@llflegal.com 

 Latimer LeVay Fyock LLC 

 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100 

 Chicago, IL 60603 

 s/ Heather Kolbus 

 Heather Kolbus 

Daniel A. Edelman 

Heather Kolbus 

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

 & GOODWIN, LLC 

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 739-4200 

(312) 419-0379 FAX 

 

 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-03057 Document #: 17 Filed: 09/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:58
{"id":3363,"count":6,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/er-2\/","name":"ER-2","slug":"er-2","taxonomy":"category","parent":2655,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/3363"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2655"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=3363"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=3363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Exhibit 23.2



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:



(i) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121051) pertaining
to the Gramercy Property Trust Inc. (formerly known as Gramercy Capital Corp.) Equity Incentive Plan;

(ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-149838) pertaining
to the Gramercy Property Trust Inc. (formerly known as Gramercy Capital Corp.) 2008 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and

(iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-182477) pertaining
to the Gramercy Property Trust Inc. (formerly known as Gramercy Capital Corp.) 2012 Inducement Equity Incentive Plan.



of our report dated March 31, 2014 with respect to the Consolidated
Financial Statements and schedule of GPT GIG BOA Portfolio Holdings LLC, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year
ended December 31, 2013.





| | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
| | ---------------------



|New York, New York | 
|------------------ | 
|March 31, 2014     |
No. 56.

#### Sarah A. Thompson and others, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Joseph P. McCulloch, defendant in error.

II.] A bill cannot bo sustained,'which seeks to charge the defendant, as administrator — át the same time, denying that he is such; leave will be grant- . ed-to the complainants, however, to amend, by striking out that portion'of the bill which controverts the validity of the trustee’s appointment.

In Equity, in Walker Superior Court. Decision by Judge John H. Lumpkin, May Term, 1854.

Sarah A. Thompson and others, the distributees and heirs at .law of William Thompson, deceased, filed their bill against' Joseph P. McCulloch, as administrator on - the estate of William Thompson, alleging that he had, through a third person, purchased valuable real estate at his own sale, for a small price, and praying to set aside the sale, and for a general account.

After, answer, complainants amended their bill," alleging that the defendant never was legally appointed "administrator on said estate, and setting forth the order of his appointment, and showing that the requisites of the Statute had not Been.. *528complied with, and praying that the appointment might be declared null and void.

To the bill as amended, defendant demurred for want of Equity. The Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the the bill, and this decision is assigned as error.

Akin, for plaintiff in error.

Trippe, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The bill, as amended, cannot be sustained. As at first framed, it made a clear case for Equity. As amended, the complainants, by their own showing, have a full, complete and adequate remedy at Law. Consequently; it is not a case of election; for by electing to abide by the amendment, they elect to go out of Court.

The judgment below, then, must be affirmed, with leave to the parties to strike out the amendment and stand upon the original bill. Upon the doing of which, within a reasonable time, it is the direction of this Court that the order dismissing the bill be set aside, and the cause re-instated.
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Michael P. Wilson, CFO of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do hereby 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.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.  Date: January 16, 2007.  /s/ Michael P. Wilson _______________________ Michael P. Wilson (CFO)
|                                         |                                   |                               |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                         | ** **                             |
| DATE:                November 12, 2007  | By:                          | /s/ Min-Tan              Yang |
|                                         | MIN-TAN                YANG            |
|                                         | CHIEF                EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

|                                         |                                       |                               |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                         | ** **                                 |
| DATE:                November 12, 2007  | By:                              | /s/ Suang-Yi              Pai |
|                                         | SUANG-YI              PAI                  |
|                                         | CHIEF              FINANCIAL OFFICER  |

----
exv10w14



 





EXHIBIT 10.14




AMENDMENT TO THE EQUIPMENT LEASE AGREEMENT



This Amendment, hereinafter referred to as “Amendment” is made and entered into
effective as of this the 17th day of December 2003, to that certain Equipment
Lease Agreement and, together herein referred to as “Agreement”, which was made
and entered into on or about the 9 April, 2003, between Mitcham Industries,
Inc., a Texas Corporation “MITCHAM”, and Sercel, Inc. with its principal place
of business at Houston, Texas, U.S.A. (Sercel).




     Sercel and MITCHAM have entered into the Agreement of which the term is 31
December 2003;



     Sercel and MITCHAM are now willing to renew their relationship under the
following terms and conditions:



W I T N E S S E T H :



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises
and undertakings set forth below and intending to be legally bound hereby, the
parties agree as follows:




	1.	 	Both parties mutually agree to extend the Agreement for an additional
year from January 1st to December 31, 2004. Any further renewal may only
be agreed upon between the Parties through written agreement signed by
both Parties.






	2.	 	Except, as specifically mentioned herein, all other Terms and Conditions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF MITCHAM and Sercel each has caused this Amendment to be
executed and effective as of the date first written above.







	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	For and on behalf of Sercel:

	 	 For and on behalf of Mitcham Industries, Inc.
	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Mark Farine
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
	

	 	
 
	 	 	 	
 
	Printed Name:

	 	Mark Farine
	 	Printed Name:
	 	Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Vice President of Sales
	 	Title:
	 	President — CEO
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	31 Dec. 2003
	 	Date:
	 	Dec. 31, 2003
9540.

#### Bynum *v.*The State.

Decided April 2, 1918.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Madison—Judge Anderson. February 8, 1918.;

*Williford & Lambert,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. G. Foster, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

There is no merit in the only special ground of the motion for a new trial. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Barwell,*•/., *concur.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION** **1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin M. Modany, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Kevin M. Modany

Chief Executive Officer

February 18, 2009
#### Christopher W. CAREAGA, Appellant, v. Judge Harry M. JAMES, the People of the City of St. Louis, Missouri—a Municipal Corporation, by Alphonso J. Cervantes and Jim Conway, authorized agents of the City of St. Louis, Collectively in their Official Capacity, Appellees.

No. 79-1723.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 1980.

Decided March 17, 1980.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1980.

Christopher W. Careaga, pro se.

Jack L. Koehr, City Counselor, and Michael E. Hughes, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This pro se civil rights suit was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff, a Missouri state inmate, against Judge Harry M. James and the people of St. Louis. Plaintiff, who plead guilty to four felony charges in 1971, alleged in substance that after he plead guilty, Judge James, then presiding in the circuit court of the State of Missouri, expressed regret that he was legally barred from imposing a death sentence. The district court1 held that the alleged actions of Judge James were within the scope of his judicial immunity *(citing Gilbert v. Corcoran,*530 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1976); *Johnson v. Reagan,*524 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1975)), and held that the claim against the people of St. Louis, based on a theory the judge was their authorized representative, was not cognizable. The district court further denied as moot plaintiff’s *1063motion to substitute as a defendant the successor to Judge James who had died. Based on those holdings the court by separate judgment dismissed the complaint with prejudice on August 9, 1979, and plaintiff appeals.

Taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, the act of sentencing and comments made by Judge James incident to sentencing plaintiff were clearly judicial acts and within the scope of judicial immunity enjoyed by Judge James, *Stump v. Sparkman,*435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331, *rehearing denied,*436 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 2862, 56 L.Ed.2d 795 (1978); *Pierson v. Ray,*386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); *McClain v. Brown,*587 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1978); *Gilbert v. Corcoran,*530 F.2d 820, 821 (8th Cir. 1976); and plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state a claim that Judge James’ action and comments were in the clear absence of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s attempt to join the people of St. Louis, through the mayor, on the theory that Judge James was the representative of the people likewise lacks merit. Any attempt to hold the mayor, city, or people of St. Louis liable is predicated upon a theory of *respondeat superior*which does not apply in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *Cotton v. Hutto,*577 F.2d 453, 455 (8th Cir. 1978) (and cases cited therein). *See also Ronnei v. Butler,*597 F.2d 564, 566 (8th Cir. 1979).

Affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.