alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. H. Poston *v*J. E. Mercer.

Landlord and Tenant — Attornment—Forcible Detainer.

Tke appellant having entered and held the land, in dispute, as the appellee’s tenant in' 1869, and during that year verbally negotiated for a renewal of his lease for 1870, but on the first day of that year refused to execute the new contract, and openly disclaimed to hold under the appellee and asserted claim to the possession exclusively as the tenant of another, refusing to make restitution of the premises to appellee, he was liable to the proceedings by warrant for forcibly detaining the possession.

APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT.

March 27, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

It does not appear that the attempted partition of land between Caldwell and the -appellee was made effectual by any confirmatory of final adjudication at the time of the alleged forcible detainer, but that decision, never satisfied, seems to have beeen soon afterwards set aside by the court. Whatever right Caldwell’s joint interest in the entire tract of land may have given him as to the control of the possession of each parcel of it, jointly or in common with the appellee, if there had been *566no separate holding of the different farms or improvements it seems to us that the appellant having entered and held the land in the dispute as the appellee’s tenant in 1869 and during that year verbally negotiated for a renewal of his lease for 1870, but on the first day of that year, refused to execute the new contract, and openly disclaimed to hold under the appellee and asserted claim to the possession exclusively as the tenant-of Caldwell, refusing to make restitution of the premises to the appellee, he was liable to the proceedidngs by warrant for forcibly detaining the possession, and the jury in the county and the circuit court on the traverse properly so decided. Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

*Bigger & Moss, for appellant.*

*White and Bishop, Rodman, Corbett, for appellee.*
Exhibit 12.1
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Fixed Charges:Interest expensed & capitalized
    
    $
    45,870
    
    
    $
    20,515
    
    
    $
    19,326
    
    
    $
    26,486
    
    
    $
    22,973Amortized premiums, discounts, &
capitalized expenses related to
indebtedness
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Estimate of interest within rental expense
    
    
    14,024
    
    
    
    13,635
    
    
    
    13,175
    
    
    
    12,757
    
    
    
    12,173Preference security dividend requirements
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    59,894
    
    
    $
    34,150
    
    
    $
    32,501
    
    
    $
    39,243
    
    
    $
    35,146Earnings:Pretax (loss) income
    
    $
    (55,005
    )
    
    $
    (177,164
    )
    
    $
    (10,802
    )
    
    $
    (5,451
    )
    
    $
    8,677Fixed Charges
    
    
    59,894
    
    
    
    34,150
    
    
    
    32,501
    
    
    
    39,243
    
    
    
    35,146Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Co. share of pre-tax losses of equity
investees for which charges arriving from
guarantees are included in fixed charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Subtotal
    
    
    4,889
    
    
    
    (143,014
    )
    
    
    21,699
    
    
    
    33,792
    
    
    
    43,823Interest capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Preference security dividend requirements
of consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Minority interest in pre-tax income of
minority subsidiaries that have not
incurred fixed charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total
    
    $
    4,889
    
    
    $
    (143,014
    )
    
    $
    21,699
    
    
    $
    33,792
    
    
    $
    43,823Ratio(1):
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.2
 
 (1)
    
    For purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, this calculation is not
performed for periods with a net loss before income taxes, since the ratio is not meaningful.
H. Res. 155

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 22, 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 any resolution reported before May 23,

1997, providing for consideration or disposition of any of the

following measures:

(1) A concurrent resolution on the budget, an

amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or an

amendment reported in disagreement from a conference

thereon.

(2) The bill (H.R. 1469) making emergency supplemental appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for overseas peacekeeping efforts, including

those in Bosnia, for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1997, and for other purposes, an amendment thereto, a
2

•HRES 155 EH

conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in

disagreement from a conference thereon.

Attest:

Clerk.
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 B&G Foods,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  April 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
C. Cantwell,  Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

              (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/ Robert C. Cantwell
-----------------------
Robert C. Cantwell
Chief Financial Officer
April 19, 2004
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TAMACA BELL, individually and on 

behalf of all similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, and 

SODEXO AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

)

No. 20-cv-03181

Hon. Sara L. Ellis

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Tamaca 

Bell (“Plaintiff”) hereby voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice.

1. On May 29, 2020, Defendants SDH Services West, LLC and Sodexo America, LLC 

(“Defendants”) removed this action to this Court from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. 

(Dkt. 1).

2. On July 10, 2020, Defendants filed their Motion to Stay this case pending resolution

of several appeals before the Illinois Appellate Court. (Dkt. 17).

3. On August 27, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Stay. (Dkt. 22).

4. On August 4, 2022, the Court lifted the stay. (Dkt. 47).

5. On July 21, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkts. 52-53).

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 56 Filed: 07/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:780
2

6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss 

an action without court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves either an 

answer or motion for summary judgment. Defendants have neither answered Plaintiff’s Class 

Action Complaint nor served a motion for summary judgment.

7. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice as 

to all claims asserted by Plaintiff and the putative class.

Dated: July 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

TAMACA BELL

By: /s/ Timothy P. Kingsbury 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Timothy P. Kingsbury

Andrew T. Heldut

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.

55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel: (312) 893-7002

tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

aheldut@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 56 Filed: 07/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:781
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on July 28, 2022, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal of Action Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to be electronically filed with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. A copy of said document will be electronically 

transmitted to all counsel of record.

/s/ Timothy P. Kingsbury

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 56 Filed: 07/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:782
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

                    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and                           ( print page 67196)                        evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.                

These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

                    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the                     **Federal Register**                    . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site:                     *http://www.nsf.gov/​events/​.*                     This information may also be requested by telephoning, 703/292-8687.                

Dated: November 6, 2014

Suzanne Plimpton,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-26697 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                       Quarter Ended March 31,
                                                  ---------------------------------
                                                      2002              2001
                                                  --------------   ----------------
<S>                                                <C>              <C>
Diluted net loss per share:
   Net loss to common shareholders                 $   (581,000)    $  (4,791,000)

   Average number of shares outstanding              10,269,665        10,507,313
   Net effect of dilutive stock options
       based on treasury stock method                    22,500                 -
   Net effect of dilutive put option agreements
       based on the reverse treasury method             243,413                 -
                                                  --------------   ----------------
   Total average shares                              10,535,578        10,507,313
                                                  ==============   ================

   Diluted net loss per share                      $      (0.06)    $       (0.46)
</Table>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 32 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 32

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 1997

 Mr. Boehner submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committees:
    Committee on Banking: Mr. LaTourette to rank following Mr. 
Sessions.
    Committee on Education and the Workforce: Mr. Paul, Mr. Bob 
Schaffer of Colorado, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Upton, Mr. Deal 
of Georgia, Mr. Hilleary, and Mr. Scarborough, all to rank in the named 
order following Mr. Norwood of Georgia.
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Mr. Barr of Georgia 
to rank following Mr. Snowbarger.
    Committee on International Relations: Mr. Brady to rank following 
Mr. Moran of Kansas.
    Committee on Resources: Mr. Crapo to rank following Mr. Gibbons.
    Committee on Science: Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Fawell, Mrs. Morella, Mr. 
Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Barton of 
Texas, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Weldon of 
Florida, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Davis, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ewing, 
Mr. Pickering, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Brady, and Mr. Cook.
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Combest, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Manzullo, 
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs. Smith of Washington, Mr. LoBiondo, Mrs. 
Kelly, Mr. Jones, Mr. Souder, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Ryun, Mr. Snowbarger, Mr. 
Pappas, Mr. English, Mr. McIntosh, and Mrs. Emerson.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
Bilirakis, Mr. Spence, Mr. Everett, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Bachus, 
Mr. Stearns, Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. 
Cooksey, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hayworth, and Mrs. Chenoweth.
                                 <all>
```
From: Johnson Anthony 

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 8:03 AM

To: privacyframework 

Subject: Department of the Treasury - Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) Privacy 

Framework Comments/Recommendations

Good Morning,

On behalf of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), the Privacy Compliance 

Program under the CIO/Office of Critical Infrastructure and Information Technology 

Security (OCIITS) submits the following comments/recommendations in response to the 

Privacy Framework Request for Information (RFI) for your consideration:

1) The framework should provide broader approaches to implementing practices

and procedures for smaller/resource-challenged agencies. For example,

procedures that DHS/DOD can manage effortlessly may over-burden the Patent

and Trademark Office or BEP (e.g. entering hundreds of privacy or security

controls for low-risk or non-sensitive PII systems);

2) Provide a robust description (or a list) of privacy harms aside from

financial/credit-related harms (e.g. embarrassment, reputation, movement or

location tracking, etc.). This will assist personnel in assessing, recognizing, and

mitigating non-financial risks to data/PII managed by NextGen/emerging

technologies or programs;

3) Provide a roadmap that helps agencies reallocate resources (whether human

or financial) to more significant risks areas and away from lower risk systems or

data;

4) Provide as much guidance as possible regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) or

machine-learning systems and how they may enhance and/or erode privacy;

and

5) Provide a recommendation or procedures directly to OMB on how to

streamline compliance documentation for low-risk systems or data collections.

Thank you for providing the opportunity for agencies to provide recommendations.
#### John L. Zeigler and Wife *v.*George N. Brown and Others.

Actions — Cross-Petitions—Summons on Before Judgment.

No judgment can be rendered on a cross-petition until service of summons on the defendants therein, either actually or constructively.

APPEAL PROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

March 5, 1872.

*Zeigler, Prichard, Ireland, for appellants.*

*Brown, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

There was no service of process on Susan W. Zeigler upon the cross-petitions of either George N. Brown and James M. Rice, or George N. Brown and C. Cecil, assignees of Hodges, or Over-ton Price. Yet a general judgment subjecting Mrs. Zeigler's estate to1 the payment of their claims as well as that of appellee Means was rendered.

According to the provisions of Section 125, Civil Code, none of these parties were entitled to judgment on their cross-petitions until the defendants therein has been first summoned, either actually or constructively.

The judgment must be reversed as to all the plaintiffs on cross-petitions. No appeal is prosecuted from the judgment in favor of Means. It should not, however, be enforced until the claims of said plaintiffs shall have been finally disposed of, or until reasonable time has been given them to prepare their cross-actions for trial.

The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20156

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROSA MAIGUALIDA MARANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CR-333-1

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Rosa Maigualida Marana appeals her guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroine and

importation of heroin. Marana argues that the district court

clearly erred in refusing to grant her request for a two-level

“minor role” reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). She argues that

the evidence showed that she was merely a courier and that a

“recruiter” was responsible for her conduct. 
No. 04-20156

-2-

The district court’s refusal to grant Marana a two-level

reduction for being a minor participant was not clearly erroneous.

See United States v. Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d 276, 296 (5th Cir.

2001). The large quantity of heroin that Marana was transporting

strongly supports the denial of a reduction for being a minor

participant. See United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1409-10

(5th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the district court was not required

to accept Marana’s account of her role in the drug trafficking

scheme. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th

Cir. 1989). Lastly, this court has held that “couriers are an

indispensable part of drug dealing networks.” Id. 

For the first time on appeal, Marana maintains that the

sentencing schemes of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 are unconstitutional

in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).

As Marana concedes, her argument is foreclosed by this court’s

decision in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.

2000). She raises the issue only to preserve it for possible

further review. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
NO. 12-15-00272-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLANT

V.

DERON BOWLDS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 123RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, the State of Texas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. No decision has 

been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered November 18, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 18, 2015

NO. 12-15-00272-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

V.

DERON BOWLDS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 123rd District Court 

of Shelby County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 15-CV-33,300)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Brooke Boone

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02863

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Hospira Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTICE OF MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY

The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key

features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP)

Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all

parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing

Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery

obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).

Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents

(Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when

the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third−Party Complaint is served.