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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LIZA GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, 

doing business as HCR MANORCARE 

HEALTH SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-02466

Honorable Judge Sara L. Ellis

 Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

DEFENDANT’S APPENDIX OF EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Manorcare Health Services, LLC (“HCR”), in accordance with the Court’s 

summary judgment procedures, respectfully submits its Appendix of Evidentiary Materials in 

Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (“Appendix”). The following materials correspond 

to the Parties’ Joint Statement of Materials Facts not in Dispute and HCR’s Memorandum in 

Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Exhibit 1 - Complete Deposition Transcript from the Deposition of Liza Gray.

Exhibit 2 - Complete Deposition Transcript from the Deposition of Diane Lube.

Exhibit 3 - Complete Deposition Transcript from the Deposition of Deborah Durham.

Exhibit 4 - Complete Deposition Transcript from the Deposition of Kelly Ciger.

 Respectfully submitted,

David K. Haase

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100

Chicago, IL 60654

By: /s/ Peter T. Tschanz

 One Of Its Attorneys 

Case: 1:20-cv-02466 Document #: 50-1 Filed: 04/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:159
Telephone: 312.372.5520

Fax: 312.372.7880

Email: dhaase@littler.com

Peter T. Tschanz

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

111 Monument Circle, Suite 702 

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Telephone: 317.287.3600

Facsimile: 317.636.0712

Email: ptschanz@littler.com

Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Peter T. Tschanz, an attorney, hereby certifies that on April 15, 2022, he caused a copy of 

the foregoing Defendant’s Appendix of Evidentiary Materials In support of Its Motion for 

Summary Judgment to be served electronically with Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

(electronic case filing) system, which sent notification of such filing to the following counsel of 

record:

Ethan E. White

EMERY LAW, LTD.

2021 Midwest Road, Suite 200

Oak Brook, IL 60523

(630) 984-0339 (direct)

ewhite@emerylawltd.com

/s/ Peter T. Tschanz

 Peter T. Tschanz 

Case: 1:20-cv-02466 Document #: 50-1 Filed: 04/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:160
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Quarter Ended March 31,
                                                   ---------------------------------
                                                       2001                 2000
                                                   ------------         ------------
<S>                                                <C>                  <C>
Diluted net income per share:
   Net (loss) income to common shareholders        $ (4,791,000)        $  2,540,000

   Average number of shares outstanding              10,507,313           10,507,313
   Net effect of dilutive stock options
       based on treasury stock method                       N/A                  N/A
                                                   ------------         ------------
   Total average shares                              10,507,313           10,507,313
                                                   ============         ============

   Diluted net (loss) income per share             $      (0.46)        $       0.24
</TABLE>
Subject: EXT :FW: Feedback on CSF 2.0 Concept Paper re Potential Significant Updates 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:57:13 PM 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:13 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: Feedback on CSF 2.0 Concept Paper re Potential Significant Updates 

Hello, 

I am excited about the addition of "Govern!!" 

While the wording in the concept paper leads me to believe that this change is "fait accompli," I 

wanted to go on the record supporting this change. 

In our risk assessment engagements, we find it important to understand how and how well an 

organization manages the implementation and maintenance of controls. And to what degree the 

organization uses a risk management process to determine the level of governance needed. 

While you are focused on risk management decisions at the level of accept, mitigate, transfer, or 

avoid, we go one level deeper. We focus on the degree of a control's risk mitigation. A control may 

have a very high theoretical risk reduction capability. But poor administration of the control 

will greatly reduce its actual risk reduction. Coverage is also obviously important. 

Thank you. 

Bill Frank, Chief Client Officer 

Monaco Risk Analytics Inc. | https://www.monacorisk.com/ [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
Exhibit 10.21

                                      As of January 1, 2003


Mr. Andrew H. Tisch
667 Madison Avenue
New York, New York  10021

Dear Mr. Tisch:

  Reference is made to your Employment Agreement with Loews Corporation (the
"Company"), dated January 1, 1999, as amended by agreement dated January 1,
2002 (the "Employment Agreement").

  This will confirm our agreement that the Employment Agreement is amended as
follows:

  1.  Term of Employment.  The period of your employment under and pursuant to
      ------------------
the Employment Agreement is hereby extended for an additional period through
and including December 31, 2003 upon all the terms, conditions and provisions
of the Employment Agreement, as hereby amended.

  2.  Compensation.  You shall be paid as basic compensation (the "Basic
      ------------
Compensation") for your services to the Company and its subsidiaries under and
pursuant to the Employment Agreement a salary at the rate of Eight Hundred
Thousand ($800,000) Dollars per annum for the extension period January 1, 2003
through December 31, 2003. Basic Compensation shall be payable in accordance
with the Company's customary payroll practices as in effect from time to time,
and shall be subject to such increases as the Board of Directors of the
Company, in its sole discretion, may from time to time determine.

  3.  Incentive Compensation Plan.  In addition to receipt of Basic
      ---------------------------
Compensation under the Employment Agreement, you shall participate in the
Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers of the Company (the
"Compensation Plan") and shall be eligible to receive incentive compensation
under the Compensation Plan as may be awarded in accordance with its terms.

  4.  Other Compensation.  The compensation provided pursuant to this Letter
      ------------------
Agreement shall be exclusive of compensation and fees, if any, to which you
may be entitled as an officer or director of a subsidiary of the Company.

  Except as herein modified or amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.


Mr. Andrew H. Tisch
As of January 1, 2003
Page 2


  If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, would you please
sign the enclosed duplicate copy of this Letter Agreement at the place
indicated below and return the same to us for our records.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       LOEWS CORPORATION


                                       By:         /s/ Gary W. Garson
                                          ------------------------------------
                                                     Gary W. Garson
                                                  Senior Vice President

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

 /s/ Andrew H. Tisch
-----------------------
   Andrew H. Tisch

                                      2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration by the Wind-Up Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, entered May 21, 2014, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of Sundance Venture Partners, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 09/09-0387 issued to Sundance Venture Partners, L.P., on April 23, 1990, and said license is hereby declared null and void as of May 21, 2014. 

United States Small Business Administration. 

Dated: October 24, 2014. 

Javier E. Saade, 

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 2014-26680 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Merrill Smith *v.*D. F. Smith.

Signatures — Expert Testimony.

Tlie conclusions of expert witnesses are entitled to very little weight where they do not agree, either in their test or reasoning.

APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

January 4, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The proof conducing to show that the signatures to the disputed papers are genuine is neither convincing nor satisfactory. Those who profess to be acquainted with the handwriting of appellant are by no means positive in their opinions that the disputed signatures are genuine.

The cbnclusions of the experts are entitled to very little consideration. They do not agree either, in their tests or reasoning. A personal inspection of all the papers, those conceded to be genuine, and those disputed, satisfies us, either that appellant’s genuine signature made at different times differed so much that it could not be said to be characteristic, or else that the same person did not sign all the papers before us. Besides this the circumstances of the case incline us to doubt very greatly whether appellant owed to appellee any debts other than those *723secured by the mortgage. No reason is given why the $900, paid October 23, 1865, was credited on the debts secured by the mortgage instead of being applied to the payment of those which were not secured, if in point of fact such' debts were claimed to exist when Poore was endeavoring to induce appellee to advance the money necessary to enable appellant to pay the judgment in favor of Wilds. Upon the contrary, appellee conceded his indebtedness to appellant and induced Poore to renew his note to Wilds upon the idea that he would finally advance the necessary amount to pay the same in part satisfaction of the devise of his father to appellant.

*McKee, Dunlap, for appellant.*

*Owsley & Burdett, for appellee.*

Upon the whole case we are not inclined to think that the testimony preponderates in favor of the genuineness of the signatures to the disputed papers, and are of opinion that the injunction should have been dissolved except as to the balance due on the debts secured by the mortgage.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
**Exhibit 32.2**
 
 **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 Quarterly Report of American Fire Retardant Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy W. Betts, 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:
 
 (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 result of operations of the Company.
  **AMERICAN FIRE RETARDANT CORP**Date: November 12, 2004
By:
/s/ Randy W. BettsRandy W. BettsTitle: Chief Financial Officer
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 29,313

10 LESLIE AAGESEN,

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

13 Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge

14 Gary K. King, Attorney General

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 Ralph E. Trujillo, Assistant Attorney General

17 Albuquerque, NM

18 for Appellee

19 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender

20 Nancy M. Hewitt, Appellate Public Defender

21 Santa Fe, NM

22 for Appellant

23 MEMORANDUM OPINION

24 KENNEDY, Judge.
2

1 Defendant appeals the district court’s finding it lacked jurisdiction to review

2 Defendant’s conditions of probation. This Court issued a calendar notice assigning

3 the case to the summary calendar and proposing summary reversal on April 2, 2009.

4 The State has filed a response to our calendar notice and states it will not submit a

5 memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary reversal.

6 Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court for the reasons stated

7 in our calendar notice.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 ___________________________________

10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 ___________________________

13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

14 ___________________________

15 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Access Worldwide Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report), I, John Hamerski, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



/s/ John Hamerski

John Hamerski

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)

August 14, 2003
#### F. Y. Yager *v.*L. W. Sale et al.

Trials — Law and Facts Submitted to the Court — Judgment Will Not Be Disturbed.

Where the proof is conflicting, and the law and facts have been submitted to the court, the judgment will not be disturbed unless the judgment is palpably against the weight of the evidence.

APPEAL FROM JEFF COUNTY COURT.

February 8, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The proceeding in this case is by motion to recover of the appellee as constable for failing to collect an execution in favor of the appellant against Miller and Fowler. The only ground relied on in the motion is, that the defendants in the execution *326had amply property out of which the execution could have been made — the law and facts were submitted to the court — proof was introduced upon both sides in regal'd to the solvency of the debtors in the execution — the proof is conflicting and this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury, of the judgment of a court where a question of fact is submitted in a case like this, unless the verdict or judgment is palpably against the weight of evidence.

*Jeff Brown, for appellant.*

Judgment *affirmed,.*
#### James Adams *v.*James R. Brown, etc.

Counties — Appropriation—Sheriff Custodian — Funds Paid Out on Orders.

Where a sheriff holds the funds of a county and is the proper custodian of same, he has no right to pay them out except upon the order of the county court.

Same — Commissioner to Let Contract to Build Road — Duties.

It was the duty of the commissioner to let out the work, to receive it when completed hut they had no power to order the sheriff to pay the contractor.

February 12, 1872.

APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Lindsay:

A careful consideration of the facts presented in this case satisfies us that the judgment of the court below ought not to be reversed.

Wallace, the sheriff, held the funds in his hands as the custodian of the county, and had no right to pay them out except upon the order of the county court.

The order of that court, made December 8, 1868, goes no further than to appropriate or set apart $800 to pay the cost.of the work to be done on the Sand Lick road. It does not direct the sheriff to pay that sum over to the commissioners, nor authorize him to pay it out upon their order. They had the right to let out the work to the best bidder, to receive it when completed, and were bound to report their action to the court by which they were appointed. Having done this it then devolved upon that tribunal to order the sheriff to pay over to the contractor such amount out of the funds theretofore appropriated as might be due him.

If the court’s commissioners failed or refused to make the proper report, or the court to make the proper order, the appellants’ right of action accrued against his debtor, the county of Christian, and not against the mere agent of such debtor.

If the amount of his claim had been ascertained and fixed, he might, by writ of mandamus, have compelled the justices of the county court to order the sheriff to pay him such amount.

*33*Landis &*Clark, *for appellant.*

*R. & Bro. and.McP. & C., for appellee.*

Upon the other hand, if the commissioners had the right to control in the sheriff’s hands the amount set apart for the improvement of the Sand Lick road, then they should have been treated as quasi public officers, and compelled by mandamus to make the necessary orders upon the sheriff to secure the payment of such amount as may have been due to the appellant. Certainly no judgment for money can be rendered against them.

It may be that the circuit court misled appellant by overruling the demurrer to his petition. .This was not the result of any action upon the part of these appellees. They pointed out the defect of parties in their demurrer, and when it was overruled they excepted to the action of the court. Having given notice to appellant of this defect of parties, it would be manifestly unjust to burden them with the costs of a reversal of the judgment, to enable him to do what they all the while insisted he should have done. They are not responsible for the action of the circuit court, and did nothing to mislead appellant.

The judgment must be *affirmed.*
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Bruce Pickens,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz et al,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 1:20-cv-03470

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ ,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) Mercedes Benz USA LLC

and against plaintiff(s) Bruce Pickens

.

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other:

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Thomas M. Durkin on a motion to dismiss.

Date: 11/1/2021 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

E. Wall, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-03470 Document #: 57 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:780