alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50131

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FACUNDO BALDERAS-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(DR-01-CR-402-1)

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

January 8, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The government appeals from the sentence imposed on Facundo

Balderas-Sanchez for his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry

into the United States after deportation. Specifically, the

government challenges the district court’s holding that BalderasSanchez’s prior Texas conviction for simple possession of marijuana

did not warrant an eight-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because it did not constitute an “aggravated
2

felony.” This issue is reviewed de novo. See United States v.

Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 1997).

The government’s challenge is supported by our recent holding

in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, __ F.3d __, 5th Cir. Nov. 14,

2002, No. 02-20751), 2002 WL 31521599. In that case, we affirmed

the district court’s imposition of an eight-level adjustment under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for the defendant’s prior Texas

conviction for simple possession of marijuana. 2002 WL 31521599,

at *7-11. In doing so, we referenced the district court’s holding

in the instant case and expressly disagreed with it. Id. at *8.

Accordingly, Balderas-Sanchez’s sentence is VACATED and the

case is REMANDED for resentencing in conformity with our holding in

Caicedo-Cuero.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit No. 99.1

                         TRUSTEE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

I, David J. Kolibachuk, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank Trust National Association
(the "Trustee"), hereby certify that the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations
as trustee under the trust agreement, dated May 20, 2004, between Corporate
Asset Backed Corporation, as depositor, and the Trustee, with respect to the
CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) during the period from
January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006.

Date: January 26, 2007

                                        U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                        as Trustee of

                                        CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman
                                        Sachs Capital I)


                                        By: /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: David J. Kolibachuk
                                        Title: Vice President
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

United States of America, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) Case No. 20-cr-50003

v. )

 ) Magistrate Judge Lisa A. Jensen

Nicole Smith, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to Nicole Smith (3): It being that Defendant Nicole 

Smith has successfully complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement to defer 

prosecution, it is this Court’s Report and Recommendation that the Government’s oral motion to 

dismiss without prejudice all counts of the indictment against Defendant Nicole Smith be granted 

and that the indictment therefore be dismissed without prejudice only as to Defendant Nicole 

Smith. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a). Any objection to this Report and Recommendation shall be 

filed by 11/12/2021. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See 

Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260 (7th Cir. 1989). Signed by the 

Honorable Lisa A. Jensen on 10/28/2021.

Date: 10/28/2021 By: ______________________

Lisa A. Jensen

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:20-cr-50003 Document #: 116 Filed: 10/28/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:280
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTONIO SPIZZIRRI, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PNC BANK, N.A. and SAFEGUARD 

PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-03839

Judge Sharon J. Coleman

Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, ANTONIO SPIZZIRRI, JR., and Defendants, PNC 

BANK, N.A. (“PNC”) and SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC (“Safeguard”) 

(collectively, “the Parties”) have reached a global settlement and are in the process of consummating 

the settlement. The Parties intend on filing a joint stipulation of dismissal within 45 days. 

Dated: May 16, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

ANTONIO SPIZZIRRI, JR.

/s/ Mohammed O. Badwan 

Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 

Phone: (630) 575-8180 

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-03839 Document #: 84 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:392
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on May 16, 2022 a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically via CM/ECF with the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, which will be sent to all attorneys of record.

/s/ Mohammed O. Badwan 

Case: 1:20-cv-03839 Document #: 84 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:393
#### David Snider, etc., *v.*John Ranchnbush.

Alteration of Instruments — Presumption—Burden of Proof.

Where it is apparent upon the face of a note that it has been changed since its execution, it will be presumed that the alteration was made without the consent of the pbligor, and the burden of proof is on the holder to establish the fact that it was made by the obligor or with his consent.

APPEAL FROM BRECKENRIDGE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 6, 1872.

*149
      *Drain, Haswell, for appellant.*

*Kinchloe, Eskridge, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

It does not appear to us that the appellants established any valid cause of action on their counterclaim, and there was no error in dismissing it; but on ithe special plea of *'non est factum*the judgment must be reversed. An inspection of the original note now before us, and the variance between- it, in its terms, and the description of it in the lease simultaneously executed furnished strong presumptive evidence that the words “with a lien on their crop for the within amount” were interpolated in the note after its execution; and this alteration being apparent the burden was on the holders of proving it was made either by the obligors or with their authority or consent, according to principles well settled. There is not sufficient evidence on this question to repel the presumption of the unauthorized alteration of the note. The testimony of. Stallman, the only witness examined on the subject, proves nothing more than a dispute between Snider and Manning as to the alteration 'in the note having been inserted by consent, after the.note was given, and rather involves an admission on the part of Manning that he made the alteration and claimed to have been authorized to do so, Which Snider denied. We see no reason why Manning was not a competent witness on- the question, which it was so important to solve on the part of the appellees for whom he acted as agent, yet he was not examined. We regard the alteration as materially changing the terms of the note, and must, therefore, conclude that the note as altered-is not the act and deed of the appellants. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the causé remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition but without prejudice to any cause of action the appellees may have for such founded on an express or implied agreement to pay for the use of the land.
EXHIBIT 11


                             NB CAPITAL CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                           (in thousand of US dollars)




                                        Three-month period    Three-month period
                                              ended                  ended
                                          March 31, 2004        March 31, 2003



Net income                                   $  8,440             $   9,197
Deduct: Senior preferred stock
        and series A preferred
        stock dividends                         6,267                 6,267
                                            -----------           -----------
                                (A)          $  2,173             $   2,930
Common share outstanding        (B)               100                   100

Earning per share             (A/B)          $     22             $      29
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

T & E Chicago LLC,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20 C 4001

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

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) The Cincinnati Insurance Company

and against plaintiff(s) T & E Chicago LLC

.

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

other:

This action was (check one):

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

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

decided by Judge Harry D. Leinenweber on a motion to dismiss [12]. 

Date: 11/19/2020 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Melanie A. Foster, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-04001 Document #: 26 Filed: 11/19/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:908
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 2

Electing officers of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. ARMEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing officers of the House of Representatives.

Resolved, That the Senate be informed that a quorum of

the House of Representatives has assembled; that Newt

Gingrich, a Representative from the State of Georgia, has

been elected Speaker; and Robin H. Carle, a citizen of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, has been elected Clerk of the

House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fifth

Congress.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

ARKANSAS, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03837

Judge Manish S. Shah

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

377 Amai store

310 Decoration My Car Store

311 DSYCAR Direct Store

312 DSYCAR Global Store

154 Fansmore

380 Ulouquton

240 Shop1752349 Store

DATED: August 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03837 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:5976
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on August 24, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03837 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:5977
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 492 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 24, 1998.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services: Mr. Goode of Virginia.
    Committee on National Security: Mrs. Tauscher of California and Mr. Brady of 
Pennsylvania.
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Peter Stokes, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Macquarie Infrastructure Company Trust and
Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the registrant);2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors:  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: March 24, 2005 /s/ Peter Stokes
Peter Stokes
Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles JONES, a/k/a Nicholas Warner Jones, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mary Ann SAAR, Maryland State Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; John Snowden, Lieutenant; Julius Williams, Sargeant, Defendants—Appellees, and Dante Green, Prison # 309110; Donald White; Darryl Taylor, Prison #299166, Defendants.

No. 04-7674.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

Charles Jones, Appellant pro se. Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*293Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Charles Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 12.1
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  Year Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    Year EndedDecember 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    December 31,2009
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    2006
    
    2005Income (Loss) From Continuing
Operations Before Income Taxes
    
    $
    39,490,729
    
    
    $
    24,846,964
    
    
    $
    26,352,553
    
    
    $
    17,281,065
    
    
    $
    7,373,170Fixed Charges
    
    
    37,704,583
    
    
    
    42,490,151
    
    
    
    30,898,700
    
    
    
    10,835,045
    
    
    
    4,654,135Amortization of Capitalized Interest
    
    
    204,422
    
    
    
    204,422
    
    
    
    187,138
    
    
    
    73,279
    
    
    
    3⁄4Capitalized Interest
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    (1,335,413
    )
    
    
    (6,220,427
    )
    
    
    (3,107,965
    )Earnings
    
    $
    77,399,734
    
    
    $
    67,541,537
    
    
    $
    56,102,978
    
    
    $
    21,968,962
    
    
    $
    8,919,340Interest Expense
    
    $
    37,662,501
    
    
    $
    42,439,917
    
    
    $
    29,530,448
    
    
    $
    4,579,517
    
    
    $
    1,521,169Portion of Rent Related to Interest
    
    
    42,082
    
    
    
    50,234
    
    
    
    32,839
    
    
    
    35,101
    
    
    
    25,000Capitalized Interest
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    1,335,413
    
    
    
    6,220,427
    
    
    
    3,107,966Fixed Charges
    
    $
    37,704,583
    
    
    $
    42,490,151
    
    
    $
    30,898,700
    
    
    $
    10,835,045
    
    
    $
    4,654,135Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    3⁄4
    
    
    
    3⁄4Combined Fixed Charges and
Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    $
    37,704,583
    
    
    $
    42,490,151
    
    
    $
    30,898,700
    
    
    $
    10,835,045
    
    
    $
    4,654,135Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    2.05
    x
    
    
    1.59
    x
    
    
    1.82
    x
    
    
    2.03
    x
    
    
    1.92
    xRatio of Earnings to Combined Fixed
Charges and Preferred Stock
Dividends
    
    
    2.05
    x
    
    
    1.59
    x
    
    
    1.82
    x
    
    
    2.03
    x
    
    
    1.92
    xDeficiency
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2591

SYLVESTER JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, its Presidents, Chairmen, and Members of Board of Directors; its St. Louis, Missouri Branch; and others; CARDINAL RITTERINSTITUTE CORPORATION, its Chairmen, Presidents and Operating Manager; its St. John Neumann Apartment Building; its Manager, Travis Harris; Assistant Managers; Samull Brooks; "Bobby"; Emile, Albert Lenz, Coordinator, Cardinal Ritter Institute; "Larry" and AnnJackson, Secretary; SURBURBAN JOURNALS NEWSPAPERS COMPANY/CORPORATION, St. Louis, Missouri and New York, New York, Editors; Publishers; Managers; Owners; Keith Batey; Account Executive Robert M. Jelenic Chairman/ President and C.E.O.; Cynthia K. Williams, Advertising Manager; Frank O'Connell, Vice President and others; ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH NEWSPAPER COMPANY, its Presidents; Publisher;Editors; TIM BRYANT, Reporter; VIACOM BROADCASTING CORPORATION; VIACOM BROADCASTING OF MISSOURI, its "KMOV" TV Channel 4; Managers; Directors; and others; Anchors; Evening News; and its reporter; JAMMIE ALLMAN; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, its director, and St. Louis, Missouri Branchdirector; KNOWN UNNAMED TENANT, and its Apartment 305 8424 Lucas and Hunt Road-St. Louis Missouri; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EN BANC FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, EN BANC; CITY OF JENNINGS MISSOURI2 POLICE DEPARTMENT, its Chief Inspector and six(6) Police Officers; STATE OF MISSOURI, Department of Mental Health, its Director,Agent, and all other unknown named state officials; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Department of Veterans Health; B.J.C. HEALTH SYSTEM, its Christian N.W. Hospital, unknown named doctors, nurses, and other officials, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-99- 2435-AMD)
Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvester Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Sylvester Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissingthis action as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
Jones v. NAACP , No. CA-99-2435-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 8, 1999). We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED