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

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

Eastern Division

Dominique Freeman

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−01834

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

MAM USA Corporation

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, May 2, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The summary judgment

motion [142], class−certification motion [110], and motion [172] to exclude remain

pending. The tracking status hearing of 05/03/2024 is reset to 05/31/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but

to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Emailed

notice (mw, )

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-01834 Document #: 213 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:7477
**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 amended annual report of American Cordillera Mining Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended November 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight Weigelt, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 8, 2015

|  

By:

/s/ Dwight Weigelt

 

 

Dwight Weigelt

 

 

CFO, Secretary, Treasurer, Director |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PARK RIDGE SPORTS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 20 C 2244

v. )

) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán 

PARK RIDGE TRAVEL FALCONS, )

TIMOTHY WALBERT, JAMES PURCELL, )

JEFFREY KILBURG, and LOU KARNEZIS, ) 

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff, Park Ridge Sports, Inc. (“Park Ridge Sports”) filed objections to Magistrate Judge 

Cole’s Report and Recommendation of January 5, 2022, in which Judge Cole recommended denial 

of plaintiff’s second motion for a preliminary injunction. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72(b)(3), the Court must conduct a de novo determination of the portions of Judge Cole’s Report 

and Recommendation to which plaintiff objects. The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” and “may also 

receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court conducted a careful de novo review of the portions of Judge Cole’s Report and 

Recommendation to which Park Ridge Sports objects (the vast majority of the ruling). In one of 

its objections, Park Ridge Sports argues that Judge Cole erred by not holding an evidentiary 

hearing. Plaintiff points out that this Court referred the motion to Judge Cole “for the purpose of 

conducting proceedings.” (ECF No. 99.) But the term “proceedings” comprehensively refers to 

judicial business; it is not synonymous with “evidentiary hearing,” so that language did not require 

any particular type of proceeding. Furthermore, a court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing 

“unless one is called for as a result of a fact issue created by the response to a motion for a 

preliminary injunction.” Dexia Crédit Local v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 884 (7th Cir. 2010). This 

Court agrees with Judge Cole’s evident conclusion that the parties’ submissions did not call for 

such a hearing in this instance. And, although plaintiff at this stage expressly urges this Court to 

hold an evidentiary hearing on its motion, as a practical matter the issue is moot because this case 

is on the eve of trial. As for plaintiff’s remaining objections, none of them convince the Court that 

there is any error in Judge Cole’s findings or conclusions. The Court is not persuaded by plaintiff’s 

contentions that the Report and Recommendation rested on or was “taint[ed]” by several “incorrect 

assumptions,” (ECF No. 124, Pl.’s Objs. at 1-11), or that the irreparable-harm analysis was flawed. 

This Court agrees with Judge Cole’s thorough analysis. Accordingly, the Court overrules 
2

plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report and Recommendation [121], and denies plaintiff’s second 

motion for a preliminary injunction [96]. 

DATE: March 25, 2022

Hon. Ronald A. Guzmán

United States District Judge
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6848** 

DONALD RAY CLINE, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. MICHAEL BALL , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 00040

- FDW )

Submitted : September 29 , 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donald Ray Cline, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Ray Cline , Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certif icate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea sonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently revi ewed the record and conclude that Cline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Cline’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 238 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 94
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 238

                          [Report No. 105-263]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2209) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 1997

   Mr. McInnis, 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. 2209) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2209) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived.
                                     





                                                  House Calendar No. 94

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 238

                          [Report No. 105-263]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2209) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 23, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
Exhibit
23.2










CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PETROLEUM ENGINEER







As
independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-146485 and No.
333-157955) of Index Oil and Gas Inc. of our reports and sensitivities to such
reports relating to the proved oil and gas reserves of Index Oil and Gas Inc.
and to the information derived from such reports and sensitivities, which appear
in this Form 10-K, to such registration statement.






Houston,
      Texas
                      By:
                      /s/ Ancell
      Energy Consulting, Inc.July
      10, 2009
                      
                      Ancell
      Energy Consulting, Inc.Independent
      Petroleum Engineer
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

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

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

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 &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’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 8.6.&§1746, this 

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

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

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

Revised 8/1/2015

Illinois Republican Party et al. v. 

Pritzker

1:20-cv-03489

Governor JB Pritzker, Defendant

Jeff VanDam

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

100 W. Randolph St., 11th Fl.

Chicago, IL 60601

6314182 (312) 814-1188

jvandam@atg.state.il.us

June 19, 2020

✔

✔

✔

✔

Jeff VanDam

Case: 1:20-cv-03489 Document #: 7 Filed: 06/19/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:46
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 30

Repealing rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating

to the statutory limit on the public debt.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1997

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. SHAYS, Mr.

HERGER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. SAXTON,

Mr. STEARNS, and Mr. METCALF) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Repealing rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the statutory limit on the public debt.

1 Resolved, That rule XLIX of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is repealed.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 2 3 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk June 2 3 , 2017

154358 (5 9 )

STEVEN ILIADES and JANE ILIADES,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

SC: 154358

v COA: 324726

Oakland CC: 12

- 129407

- NP

DIEFFENBACHER NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellant to file a sur

- reply

brief is DENIED

. The sur

- reply brief submitted by defendant

- appellant on June 19,

2017, is not accepted for filing.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Samuel Ward, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50162-PHX-SPL

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on February 7, 2017. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and has 

consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the 

Superseding Petition. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is not a serious flight risk. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 7th day of February, 2017. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cr-50162-SPL Document 31 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.2



Exhibit 10.2


	
BRITISH
	
Ministry of Energy and Mines, Energy and Minerals Division
	
Mineral Title Branch

	
COLUMBIA
	
RECORD OF 2 POST CLAIM
	 
	 	
Mineral Tenure Act, Section 27
	 
	 	 
	
Mining Division
	
LILLOOET
	
Tenure Number
	
406638

	
Gold Commissioner
	
/s/ Illegible
	
Date of Record
	
OCTOBER 31, 2003






PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY


APPLICATION TO RECORD A 2 POST CLAIM


I, Gerard Gallissant, 783 MacCleave Ave., Penticton, B.C. V2A 3C4, (604) 492-2759, Client Number 109141, hereby apply for a record of a 2 post claim for the location as outlined on the attached copy of mineral titles reference map No.92J 16W, in the Lillooet Mining Division.


ACCESS


Describe how you gained access to the location; include references to roads, trails, topographic features, permanent landmarks and a description of the legal post location.


The IP is located 200m West and 500m North of confluence of Shulaps Creek and Yalakom River.  Access was gained by driving up Yalakom River Road for approximately 10km.


GPS Co-ordinates taken of posts: Yes [ ] No [x] If yes, complete information chart on reverse.


TAG INFORMATION


I have securely affixed the portion of the metal identification tag embossed "INITIAL POST (No. 1)" to the post and impressed this information on the tag: 


TAG NO. 724521 M INITIAL POST (No. 1)


	
CLAIM NAME
	
Red Eagle 2
	
CLAIM NAME
	
Red Eagle 2

	
LOCATOR
	
G. Gallissant
	
LOCATOR
	
G. Gallissant

	
AGENT FOR
	
Self
	
AGENT FOR
	
Self

	
DATE COMMENCED
	
October 31, 2003
	
DIST. FROM I.P.
	
500m

	
TIME COMMENCED
	
3:46 pm
	
DATE COMPLETED
	
October 31, 2003

	
DIR. TO F.P.
	
315 degrees
	
TIME COMPLETED
	
4:01 pm

	
METERS TO RIGHT
	
500
	 
	
METERS TO LEFT
	 	 
	 	
I have securely affixed the portion of the metal identification tag embossed "FINAL POST (No. 2)" to the final post (or the witness post) and impressed this information on the tag:

	
"Direction" means a bearing measured between 0 degrees and 360 degrees, where 0 degrees is the bearing of true north.
	
If witness post placed for final post: Bearing and distance from the witness post to the true position of the final post, exactly as written on the witness post:__ degrees, ___ meters.






	
I have complied with all the terms and conditions of the Mineral Tenure Act and Regulation pertaining to the location of 2 post claims and have attached a plan of the location on which the positions of the initial and final posts (and witness post if applicable) are indicated. The tag information supplied above is the identical information that I impressed upon the respective tags affixed to the applicable post when located this claim, and this information is true and correct. 
	 
	 	
[FILE STAMP]

	
/s/ Gerard Gallissant
	 
	
Signature of Locator
#### Elizabethtown & Paducah Ry. Co. *v.*Daniel Klinglesmiths.

Eminent Domain — Measure of Damages — Enhanced Value — Instructions.

As appellees are entitled to be paid the value of the land taken, notwithstanding any enhancement in the value of those not taken, by reason of the construction of appellants’ road, the jury should have been instructed, that in estimating the value of the land taken, the enhanced value, if any, to the entire tract should not be allowed to enter into their estimate at all.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.

April 20, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay.

There was no error upon the part of the county court in admitting or refusing to admit testimony. Nor can we determine that it did not exercise a sound discretion in regulating the introduction of evidence and the argument of the cause.

The instructions given the jury, however, do not conform to the views of this court or to the law of the case, as expressed in the opinion delivered at this term in the case of this appel*95lant vs. Helm’s Heirs. As appellees are entitled to be paid the value of the land taken, notwithstanding any enhancement in the value of those not taken, by reason of the construction of appellant’s road, the jury should have been instructed that in estimating the value of those taken, the enhanced value if any to the entire tract should not be allowed to enter into their estimate at all.

*Brown & Murray, Pindell, for appellants.*

*Wintersmith, for appellees.*

The instructions as given allowed the jury to charge the railroad company with the value. The proposed construction of its road may have added to the land taken, and in this respect they were prejudicial to the party complaining in this court.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial upon the principles herein indicated.

The questions in controversy between Wintersmith and the Klinglesmiths can not be settled upon this appeal. One appellee can not prosecute a cross appeal against another. Wintersmith must prosecute an original appeal, which may be done upon this record, but there must be service of process.
Exhibit 15.39  
 [Letterhead of Deloitte & Touche LLP]
 November 2, 2010
  
 Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.
 5330 East 31st Street
 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
   We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, as indicated in our report dated November 2, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.
  We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-79603, No. 333-89189, No 333-33144, No. 333-33146, No. 333-50800, No. 333-128714, No. 333-152401 and No. 333-161509 on Form S-8, and No. 333-161027 on Form S-3.
  We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.
  Yours truly,
 
 /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
#### Commonwealth *v.*Page's Assignee and Bank of Kentucky.

Officers — Auditor of Public Accounts — Defalcation—Settlement by Sureties —Right to Money on Deposit.

Upon the discovery of the auditor’s defalcation the state might have asserted claim to the balance remaining in the bank to his credit, but the state waived this right and proceeded against his sureties.

Held, that it was manifestly wrong, after the sureties of the auditor had been compelled to account for all the money unlawfully appropriated by him, for the state then to compel the surrender of this money.

Banks and Banking — Notei—Surety—Deposit Appropriated to Note— Statute of Limitations.

The hank did not within seven years after the cause of action accrued on the note of Moorehead, on which Page was surety, appropriate this balance to the payment of the note. The plea of the statute of limitations was a bar.

October 25, 1871.

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Page was not the legal custodian of the public moneys of the State of Kentucky. The funds received by him from the collecting officers of the State and deposited in the bank of Kentucky to his credit as auditor he neither received nor held in pursuance to law. Upon the discovery of his defalcations the State might have asserted claim to the balance remaining in the •bank to 'his credit, not because it was deposited L> his credit as auditor, but because such balance was the remainder of funds unlawfully received and appropriated by him. It was, however, within, the power of the State to waive this right, and proceed directly against his official sureties. This remedy it elected to pursue, and treated the money in the bank as having been converted by Page to his own use.

It would be manifestly wrong after the sureties of Page had been compelled to account for all monies unlawfully received and appropriated by him, for the State then to compel the surrender of such monies, as is being attempted in this case.

The bank did not within the seven years after the cause of *191action accrued on the note of Moorehead, on which ^Page was surety, appropriate this balance to the payment of that note.

*Rodman, for appellant.*

*Lindsay, James, for appellee.*

The plea of the statute of limitations was, therefore, a bar to the claim asserted in its cross-petition in this action.

Page’s assignee was entitled to recover the amount in controversy and the judgment in his favor must be affirmed.

Chief justice did not sit in this case.