alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Anthony Mays v. Ronald Watts, 

et al. 

Case Number: 20 CV 3228 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

City of Chicago, Philip Cline, Debra Kirby and Karen Rowan 

Attorney name (type or print): Terrence M. Burns 

Firm: Reiter Burns LLP 

Street address: 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5200 

City/State/Zip: Chicago, IL 60606 

Bar ID Number: 3122331 

(See item 3 in instructions) 

Telephone Number: 312 982-0090 

Email Address: tburns@reiterburns.com 

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? Yes No 

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? Yes No 

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? Yes No 

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? Yes No 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel 

 Appointed Counsel 

 If appointed counsel, are you a 

 Federal Defender 

 CJA Panel Attorney 

______________________________________________________________________ 

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on July 29, 2020 

Attorney signature: S/ Terrence M. Burns 

 (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.) 

Revised 8/1/2015 

Case: 1:20-cv-03228 Document #: 16 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:60
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FELCOR
LODGING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP JUNE 30, 2000 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          50,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,178
<PP&E>                                       4,194,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                 397,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,176,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,176
<BONDS>                                      1,882,743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    295,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,813,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,176,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,670
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,372)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,372)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,372)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)


</TABLE>
#### Dinslor *v.*Fresh et ux.

Slander — Excessive Verdict — Passion or Prejudice.

In an action for slander, which was excee'dingly aggravated, a verdict of $8,000 for damages, held +o he not so flagrantly excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice.

New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence — Effect to Mitigate the Offence.

Alleged newly discovered evidence, though showing no semblance of justification for slanderous words, where its doubtful tendency might serve to slightly mitigate the amount recoverable, will authorize a new trial, and no wrong be done the appellees.

APPEAL PROM BRACKEN CIROUIT COURT.

June 16, 1866.

The words spoken by defendant and sued on as slanderous, by the plaintiff are as follows, to wit: “Mary Fresh, you are a whore; a bad woman.” Then to John Fresh, husband of Mary Fresh, defendant said: “Your wife cuts herself in the finger, when she was Brown’s wife, and before you, Fresh, married her; you, Fresh, understand what I meañ, Brown had to *get*a doctor *567to cure ber twice.” Defendant tben langbed and said: “You, Fresh, understand that.” All being spoken in the presence of several other parties. Testimony was alleged to have been discovered, after the verdict and judgment, of a former unlawful co-habitation with others.

*Stanton*& Throop, *for appellant.*

*W. G.*& *F. F.*Marshall, *for appellees.*

OPINION OP the Coubt by

Judge Robebtson :

If the appellant, by diligent inquiry and careful scrutiny, might have ascertained before the trial that the appellee, Mary Fresh, was then pregnant, it might have been difficult, and probably impossible, to know that she had been impregnated before marriage. The subsequent birth of her child and its apparent age were necessary to lay a foundation for a safe judgment on that point. And therefore, although he appears to have been very negligent, yet, had he been more diligent, he might not have been able to make any proof of her conception before marriage. And had he been able to do so, it would have been of but little weight as evidence that she was a whore by merely, as might be presumed, anticipating with her betrothed husband, their approaching nuptials.

But, considering the apparent condition of the parties, a verdict for $8,000 seems quite high, though perhaps not so flagrantly excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice in the jury. The slander, as charged, was exceedingly aggravated, and, without 'any other testimony than that alleged to have been discovered since the trial, there could be no semblance of justification, and at the utmost, the doubtful tendency of that single fact would but slightly mitigate. But as it might have, and probably would have, such an effect and the verdict might have been somewhat reduced by it had it appeared before the jury, we are inclined after carful and perplexing consideration, to think that, without any violation of 'principle or law, a new trial would do the appellees no wrong, and would afford a more satisfactory and assuring evidence of justice.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

SAMI-SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS ) 

MANAGEMENT INC, ) 

 ) Case No. 1:20-cv-02346 

 Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr 

 ) 

OMNIVERE ACQUISITIONS, LLC et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

NOW COMES the undersigned attorney, Keith M. St. Aubin, of the law firm of Duane 

Morris LLP, counsel for Defendants, Omnivere Acquisitions, LLC and Driven, Inc., and hereby 

files this Motion to Withdraw as Counsel pursuant to Local Rule 83.17. The above-named 

Defendants are currently represented by counsel in this action by, among others, attorney 

Michael J. Schrier of Husch Blackwell LLP and Defendant will, therefore, suffer no prejudice 

from the granting of this motion. The undersigned thus requests that this motion be granted, that 

he and Duane Morris LLP no longer be listed as counsel of record, and that the Clerk of the 

Court remove the below email address (and the email addresses associated with the undersigned) 

from its ECF notice for this action. 

Dated: February 11, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Keith M. St. Aubin 

Keith M. St. Aubin 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 499-6700 

Email: kstaubin@duanemorris.com 

Counsel for Defendants Omnivere 

Acquisitions, LLC and Driven, Inc. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02346 Document #: 30 Filed: 02/11/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:224
 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 11, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel was filed electronically in the ECF system. Notice of this filing 

will be sent to the parties of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties 

may access this filing through the Court’s system. 

/s/ Keith M. St. Aubin 

Keith M. St. Aubin 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02346 Document #: 30 Filed: 02/11/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:225
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00302-CV

DAVID HERNANDEZ

V.

ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048-283327-16)

September 20, 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1610** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins Bates , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND , Defendant

– Appellee ,

**No. 15**  **- 1611** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

LISA HICKS THOMAS , Defendant

– Appellee,

**No. 15**  **- 1612** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

CBS NEWS ,2 Defendant

– Appellee,

**No. 15**  **- 1613** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

VIRGINIA STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT , Defendant

– Appellee ,

**No. 15**  **- 1614** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
JOEY JENKINS, III , Defendant

– Appellee ,

**No. 15**  **- 1615** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Bates , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LACEY NUNLEY, P.A., Deputy General Counsel, Legal Department, The Federal Bank of Richmond , Defendant

– Appellee ,3 **No. 15**  **- 1616** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Bates , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

LACEY NUNLEY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv
- 00320

- REP ; 3:14

- cv
- 00164

- REP ; 3:14

- cv
00165

- REP ; 3:14

- cv
- 00193

- REP ; 3:14

- cv
- 00322

- REP ; 3:14

- cv
- 00380

- REP ; 3:14

- cv
- 00381

- REP )

Submitted : August 2 7 , 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY , AGEE , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Hephzibah Bates , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.4 PER CURIAM: Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing her complaints in her consolidated civil suits as
frivolous and entering a prefiling injunction preventing Bates

fro m filing further complaints related to the issues raised in
the instant complaints . We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal s for the reason s stated by
the di strict court

. See Bates v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond ,
3:14

- cv
- 00320

- REP ( E.D. Va. May 15, 2015); see also Cromer v.
Kraft Foods N. Amer., Inc. , 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004)
(setting forth standard of review of prefiling injunction). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Andrew Heckinger *v.*Cassonier Hibrick and Wife.

New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence.

Altbougb the affidavits of the witnesses by whom it is proposed to make proof of the newly discovered evidence conduces to show that the appellant was. not apprised of the fact that he could make such proof by them, until after the rendition of the judgment against *439him, yet he does not state this to be a fact in his own affidavit, nor does he state any fact showing diligence on his part.

APPEAli FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 9, 1871.

*Woolley, for appellant. ■*

*Gibson, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Although the affidavits of the witnesses by whom it is proposed to make proof of the newly discovered testimony conduces to show that the appellant was not apprised of the fact that he could make such proof by them until after the rendition of the judgment against him, yet he does not state this to be the fact in his own affidavit, nor does he state, or attempt to show that he at any time prior to the trial and judgment used any diligence whatever to discover who was present at the time he was charged with speaking the slanderous words. It is possible that the excitement under which he was laboring at the time might have prevented his noticing the presence of these newly discovered witnessess, but by inquiring of Siebold or his daughters he might easily have ascertained' the fact that these witnesses were present and, having ascertained this fact, it would have been his duty to inquire of them as to what they knew of the prosecution.

We are of the opinion the court did not err in excluding the testimony as to remarks or charges made by Hibrick against his wife. Such charges conduced to establish the truth of the slanderous words and as the plea of justification was not made, the testimony was inadmissible.

Judgment *affirmed.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"The Apollo-Soyuz Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wANBNqpUZ0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/apollo-soyuz\/the-apollo-soyuz-mission\/\">The Apollo-Soyuz Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/apollo-soyuz\/the-apollo-soyuz-mission\/embed\/#?secret=wANBNqpUZ0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The Apollo-Soyuz Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wANBNqpUZ0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/467599main_astp13_apollo_launch_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Land Lease with Southern Taiwan Science Park Administration



 Exhibit 4.14 
  
 (English Summary) 
  
 LEASE 
  
 Parties:

  
 TAINAN SCIENCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT PREPARATION
OFFICE (the “Lessor”) 
  
 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED (the “Lessee”) 
  
 Leased Premises:

  
 The government-owned land containing 1 hectare, located on
Tainan Science-Based Industrial Park at lot no. Gong 6, Tainan. 
  
 Lease
Term: 
  
 Commencing November 1, 2000 and expiring on October
31, 2020. 
  
 Rental: 
  
 The rental shall be ten New Taiwan Dollars and thirty cents (NT$10.30) per
square meter per month. 
  
 The total amount of annual rent shall
be one million two hundred and thirty-six thousand New Taiwan Dollars (NT$1,236,000). 
  
 Lessee shall pay the rental NT$1,236,000 each year. The first year’s rent shall be paid to the agent of the ROC Treasury appointed by Lessor on the execution date of this Lease. Lessee shall pay the rent to
Lessor on the anniversary of the execution date each year thereafter. 
  
 During the term of the Lease, should the government adjust the land price, Lessee agrees to an adjustment of the rent to become effective the following month, or at any time thereafter. 
  









 Termination by Lessor: 
  

Lessor may terminate the Lease at any time if any of the following shall occur: 
  
 a. Lessee violates any term or provision of this Lease pertaining to the use of the land; 
  
 b. as provided by the Civil Code or other relevant regulations; 

 
 c. Lessee is ordered to withdraw from the Tainan Science-Based
Industrial Park or its permit has been withdrawn; or 
  
 d.
Lessee has defaulted in payment of the annual rent for two or more years. 
  
 Miscellaneous: 
  
 If Lessee intends to extend
the term of the Lease, prior to the expiration of this Lease, Lessee shall inform Lessor of such intention in writing three months prior to the expiration date. Lessee shall return the land to Lessor immediately after the expiration date if Lessee
does not apply to Lessor for an extension as provided above. 
  
 Upon expiration, Lessee shall sell its buildings, equipment and permanent fixtures on the leased property or shall dismantle such buildings, equipment and permanent fixtures and abandon all facilities inside of such premises, and return the
land to Lessor. 
  
 This Lease shall be effective from the
execution date of the Lease, or from the starting date of the Leasing, whichever is earlier. When this Lease expires, the Lease is automatically terminated. If the Lease is otherwise terminated, it shall be terminated as of such date. 
  
 Should any suit arise from this Lease, Lessor and Lessee agree that the
governing law shall be the laws of the Republic of China and the Taiwan Tainan District Court shall be the competent court of jurisdiction in the first instance.
9130.

#### Cook *et al. v.*Robinson.

Decided May 16, 1918.

Rehearing denied July 10, 1918.

Complaint; from city court of Oglethorpe—Judge Greer.. June 26, 1917.

*John B. Guerry,*for plaintiffs in error. *Jule Felton,*contra.

Wade, C. J.

1. Irrespective of whether the question presented in the former bill of exceptions in this case *(Cook*v. *Robinson,*19 *Ga. App.*207, 91 S. E. 427), in which error w;as assigned also on the overruling of the defendant’s demurrer to the petition, is res judicata because of the failure of this court to expressly rule thereon, the trial court did not .err in overruling the 'demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition as amended.

2. There is no substantial merit in any of the special assignments of error in ^ the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence sufficiently supported the verdict returned, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, J.J., concur.*
Dec 16 2015 01;46Din

*

« VS COURT OP APPEALS CAUSe NO. 04-1S-00697-CV TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. CV-15-D000318

Janette Suzanne Clark. Appellant
V. Samuel David Clark. Appellee § § § FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, Texas782QS-3037
Motion to Dismiss Cause No. 04-15-00697-CV 

### Since Appellant, though well below the U.S. Poverty Guidelines ofindigence, has been denied indigent 

### status bythe 198*'' DistrictTrial Court, Appellantwishes to dismiss herappeal. Shefurther begs for mercy from the Trial Courtand the Appellate Court to reduce or dismiss the costs accrued by her appeal and in the case ofno dismissal, she requests small monthly payments be allowedto pay the fees Incurred. Appellant cannot procure propercouncil becauseof her indigent status and is unable to represent herselfdue to inadequate knowledge and long standing health issues. Appellant would like to 

### state that she is not gulity ofthe accusations ofAppellee and that she wishes neverto have any contact with him again.

Cc; Samuel David aark ByUSPS 198* District Court By Fax Respectfully submitted, December 16,2015/

ro Se Appelpnt Co er 

# ^ m Is® 'Z- '•T'rn

ro ••• tj9 XT P001
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 201 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 30, 1997.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to the following measures:
            (1) Any resolution reported before August 3, 1997, providing for 
        consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of 
        the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998, an 
        amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an amendment reported 
        in disagreement from a conference thereon.
            (2) Any resolution reported after July 30, 1997, and before August 
        3, 1997, providing for consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 
        2014) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(2) and 
        (d) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
        year 1998, an amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an 
        amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```