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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PAINTERS )

AND DECORATORS PENSION FUND, )

TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PAINTERS )

AND DECORATORS WELFARE FUND, )

TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PAINTERS )

AND DECORATORS DEFERRED SAVINGS )

FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO )

PAINTERS AND DECORATORS ) No. 20-cv-2471 

APPRENTICESHIP FUND, TRUSTEES OF )

THE CHICAGO PAINTERS AND )

DECORATORS SCHOLARSHIP FUND, )

AND TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO ) Judge Ellis

PAINTERS AND DECORATORS JOINT )

COOPERATION TRUST FUND, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) Magistrate Judge Cummings

)

v. )

)

THREE-D ENTERPRISES, INC., a dissolved )

Illinois Corporation )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PAINTERS AND 

DECORATORS PENSION FUND, ET AL, by counsel, and hereby dismiss this action 

against Defendant, THREE-D ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois Corporatoin, without 

prejudice pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In support thereof, Plaintiffs state:

1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 22, 2020.

2. Plaintiffs served Defendant with the Complaint on April 24, 2020. 

3. Defendant not having answered, Plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss the 

case without prejudice.

Case: 1:20-cv-02471 Document #: 17 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:64
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs give this notice, dismissing the case without prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PAINTERS 

AND DECORATORS PENSION FUND, et al.,

s/Grant R. Piechocinski

One of Their Attorneys

Donald D. Schwartz

James R. Anderson

Grant R. Piechocinski

ARNOLD AND KADJAN LLP

35 E. Wacker Dr., Ste. 600

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 236-0415

Case: 1:20-cv-02471 Document #: 17 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically on 

the 27th day of October 2020, and a copy of the foregoing was sent to the following parties 

by operation of the Courts electronic filing system and by U.S. Mail.

Three-D Enterprises, Inc.

c/o its Registered Agent, Dennis Michon

15255 S. 94th Ave., Suite 205

Orland Park, IL 60462

/s/Grant R. Piechocinski

ARNOLD AND KADJAN LLP

35 E. Wacker Dr., Ste. 600

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 236-0415

Fax (312) 341-0438

Case: 1:20-cv-02471 Document #: 17 Filed: 10/27/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:66
Exhibit 23.1

Larry O'Donnell, CPA, P.C.
Telephone (303)745-4545
2228 South Fraser Street
Unit 1
Aurora, Colorado 80014


US Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We  hereby  consent to the  use in this Form 10-KSB/A Annual Report, our letter
dated March 15, 2006 except for Note 2 and Note 13, which is  April  13,  2007,
relating  to   the  financial  statements  of South Texas  Oil  Company  as  of
December 31, 2004 and 2005 and for the period from  January 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2005.


/s/ Larry O'Donnell
-------------------
Larry O'Donnell, CPA, P.C.

April 17, 2007
Aurora, Colorado
#### Albertus Williams, by, etc., *v.*Cleveland Portwood.

Infants — Contracts—Necessaries.

In order to enforce the contract of an infant it must be shown that the property purchased was necessary for his support, and *738where the whole fortune of the infant is less than $1,000.00, the annual profits of which would not be sufficient to maintain him in the most economical style, a horse is not a necessity.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

1872.

*Burnam, for appellants.*

*Chenault, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

It is conceded that at the time appellee executed the note he was under 21 years of age. That being the case, in order to enforce the contract it was necessary to show that the horse, for the price of which the note was given, comes under the denomination of necessaries.

This appellant has failed to do. The whole fortune of the young man was less than $1,000, the annual profits of which would not be sufficient to support him in the most economical style, and to be comfortable it was necessary that he should have engaged in some business or labor, or he must necessarily use a part of his principal. It does not appear that he was engaged in any permanent or regular pursuit, and under the circumstances we are not prepared to say that the horse was a necessity. Judgment affirmed.
#### Dudley Smith, etc., *v.*W. H. Sandford & Co.

Pleading — Amended Answer — Offer to File After Conclusion of Evidence ■ — Facts Already Stated or Known to Defendant When Original Answer is Filed.

The court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit an amended answer to be filed, on tbe conclusion of tbe evidence, which sets up a defense already plead in tbe original answer, or facts known to tbe defendant when be filed bis original answer.

APPEAL PROM GALLATIN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 4, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Upon the trial of this cause in the court below after a judgment in favor of appellants had been reversed by this court, and after the evidence on both sides had been concluded, they tendered, and asked to be permitted to file an amended answer containing a statement of facts which constituted a special plea of *non esi factum,*concluding in these words. They therefore say that said note is without consideration in whole, or in part; because the plaintiff, W. H. Sandford, did not go with him to the city of Louisville as he agreed to do in said contract at the time of signing said note in blank, and did not in any wise do as .he agreed to do looking to the release of defendant’s son. He says that said note was filled up fraudulently by plaintiffs for $577.80, instead of $325.00 as aforesaid.

Whether it was intended by this amended answer to rely on the plea of no consideration, as the conclusion quoted would seem to indicate, or whether it was intended as a plea of *non est factum*cannot be material, for if the first-named defense was in*281tended that was already in and the appellants were not prejudiced by the refusal of the court to permit it to be filed, and if the latter was intended, all the facts stated in the amended answer were known to appellants when they filed their original answer, and it was no abuse of discretion in the court below to refuse to permit them to file it. *Barbour v.*Moss, *Admr. opinion:*1857.

*Drone, for appellee.*

Nor can we, in view of the pleadings and evidence in this case and the former opinion of this court, adjudge that the court below erred in giving a peremptory instruction complained of.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### James Robinson *v.*W. P. Owsley, etc.

Roads and Passways — Private Passway — Dedication—Prescription—Land of Vendor Surrounding Land of Vendee.

A private passway can not be created by dedication; it must be granted, and this grant must be proven, either by a writing, or by a continued use and enjoyment, under a claim of right, for the term of fifteen years.

Such a right might be implied in a case in which the vendor owned lands entirely surrounding those sold to his vendee.

APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 13, 1872.

*571*Hill & Alcorn, for appellant-*

*Owsley & Burdett, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The conveyances under which appellees hold do not reserve a right of way over that lands in favor of appellants. The conveyances to appellant’s remote vendor, who was purchaser at the sale made by the agent Owsley, does not attempt to secure to him a right of way over the land of appellees.

The announcement at the auction sale that such reservation should be made was an agreement for the sale of an interest in real estate. It was never reduced to writing. Appellant’s remote vendor, Wm. J. Miller, accepted his conveyance without having this agreement incorporated therein. There is no evidence conducing to show he was not apprised of this omission in the deed at the time of its acceptance.

A private pass-way cannot be created by dedication. It must be granted, and this grant must be proved, either by a writing or by a continued use and enjoyment under a claim of right for the term of fifteen years. *Bowman v. Wickliffe,*15 B. Mon. 68; *Hall v. McLeod,*2nd Metcalfe 104.

Such a right might be implied in a case in which the vendor owned land entirely surrounding those sold to his vendee, but such is not the case hére. If a pass-way over the lands of appellee is essential to the perfect enjoyment by appellants of his lands, he must obtain it in the manner prescribed by the statutes.

Judgment affirmed.
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
Case: 1:20-cv-00423 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 81 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                                H. R. 81

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 H. R. 81

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan 
  Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the ``Robert K. Rodibaugh United 
                    States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 401 South Michigan Street 
in South Bend, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert 
K. Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert K. 
Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049011
<NAME> OMNI DOORS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          102208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                102208
<PP&E>                                           71164
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  173372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         55767
<OTHER-SE>                                      117605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    173372
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   126628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (126628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (126628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (126628)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Orion Desktop Model","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OSlFncMeXQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/orion-desktop-model\/\">Orion Desktop Model<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/orion-desktop-model\/embed\/#?secret=OSlFncMeXQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Orion Desktop Model” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OSlFncMeXQ\" 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\/2023\/02\/edu_2019-orion-desktop-model.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":347}
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 13, 2008



/s/ Gregory S. MadarGregory S. MadarSenior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification
is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Walker A. Howard *v.*Sol. McCollum.

Appeals and Errors — Former Decision — Amended Petition.

The former decision of the Court of Appeals must be regarded as final as to all questions involved in this controversy except such issues as are raised by the amended petition filed after the return of the case to the Chancery Court.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY.

October 19, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The former decision of this court must be regarded as final as to all questions involved in this controversy except such issues as are raised by the amended petition of appellee filed after the return of the cause to the chancery court.

Whether it was proper to make further enquiry as to the solvency of Howard is altogether immaterial, as the preponderance of the testimony taken after the cause was removed to the chancery court, fully rebuts the allegation of his insolvency.

We are of opinion that appellee failed to make out a state of case justifying the conclusion that the sale of the Union county land to him comes within the inhibitions of the Champerty laws.

It is not claimed that the land sold by Howard and wife to appellees was in the adverse possession of any one at the time the sale and the first conveyance was made. The evidence of Shiman and Bryant, both of whom are setting up claim to the land, is indefinite and unsatisfactory. They speak in general terms of claiming and holding to the boundaries of the William Bryant survey. But the testimony of Johnson and Buckman conclusively rebuts their claim to any actual possession of the particular tract alotted to Howard and wife in the petition made by the Union county court. Besides this if it be true that since 1866 Shiman has been in the actual possession of said land, it *538is utterly incomprehensible how his client McCollum should have remained in ignorance of that important fact, during all this litigation up to the return of the cause.from this court, and the intimation that a disturbance of his possession, or an actual eviction would alone be sufficient to authorize the relief he was seeking.

*Marshall & Clark, for appellants.*

*Mix, for appellee.*

The chancellor should have dismissed the appellee’s petition. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions that such action be taken.
IV

House Calendar No. 107

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 263

[Report No. 105–314]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1998, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 8, 1997

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations

for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and

for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for

4 the Department of Transportation and related agencies

5 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for
2

HRES 263 RH

1 other purposes. All points of order against the conference

2 report and against its consideration are waived. The con3 ference report shall be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 107

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 263

[Report No. 105–314]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference reposes. ending September 30, 1998, and for other pur- tation and related agencies for the fiscal year appropriations for the Department of Transpor- port to accompany the bill (H.R. 2169) making

OCTOBER 8, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed