alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PENSION FUND OF CEMENT MASONS’ 

UNION LOCAL UNION NO. 502, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

INDEPENDENT PAVING CO., INC., an 

Illinois corporation, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 20-CV-4187

JUDGE: GETTLEMAN

MAG. JUDGE: GILBERT

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

NOW COME the Plaintiffs, the PENSION FUND OF CEMENT MASONS’ UNION 

LOCAL UNION NO. 502 et al., (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, JOHNSON & 

KROL, LLC, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hereby 

submit this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are the PENSION FUND OF CEMENT MASONS’ UNION LOCAL UNION 

NO. 502; CEMENT MASONS’ INSTITUTE LOCAL 502 WELFARE TRUST FUND; 

CEMENT MASONS’ LOCAL 502 AND PLASTERERS AREA 5 ANNUITY FUND; 

CEMENT MASONS’ LOCAL NO. 502 RETIREE WELFARE FUND; CEMENT 

MASONS’ ROCK ASPHALT AND COMPOSITION FLOOR FINISHERS LOCAL 

UNION NO. 502 A.F.L-C.I.O. SAVINGS FUND; CEMENT MASONS’ UNION LOCAL 

502 APPRENTICE EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING TRUST; CEMENT MASONS’ 

LOCAL UNIONS 502, 803 AND 11 AREAS 161, 362 AND 638 LABOR 

MANAGEMENT COOPERATION TRUST FUND; and CEMENT MASONS’ UNION 

LOCAL NO. 502 PLASTERERS AREA 5.

Case: 1:20-cv-04187 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:56
Page 2 of 3

2. Defendant is INDEPENDENT PAVING CO., INC.

3. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to recover alleged unpaid liquidated damages 

and interest from the Defendant.

4. As of today’s date, the Parties have resolved their disputes in the lawsuit. 

5. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that “the Plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order 

by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or motion 

for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

6. Defendant has yet to serve an Answer or Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiffs hereby dismiss this matter without prejudice. 

Respectfully Submitted,

PENSION FUND OF CEMENT MASONS’ 

UNION LOCAL UNION NO. 502 et al.

/s/ Lucas J. Habeeb - 6329755

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys 

JOHNSON & KROL, LLC 

311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1050 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 757-5472

habeeb@johnsonkrol.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04187 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:57
Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on today’s date, July 28, 2020, he served a copy of 

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal to the Defendant via Electronic Mail at the addresses 

listed below.

Mr. Frank Angelillo Ms. Katherine Hochstatter

Independent Paving Co., Inc. Independent Paving Co., Inc.

615 Eastern Avenue 615 Eastern Avenue

Bellwood, Illinois 60104 Bellwood, Illinois 60104

Email: indepavfrank@aol.com Email: khoch2456@gmail.com

/s/ Lucas J. Habeeb - 6329755

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys 

Case: 1:20-cv-04187 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/28/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:58
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69097-69098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27415]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of 
Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended; 
the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant 
InfraRed Imaging Systems, Inc. (INRIS), a corporation of the State of 
Ohio, having a place of business at 22718 Holycross Epps Road, 
Marysville, Ohio 43040.

DATES: The Air Force intends to grant a license for the patent and 
pending applications unless a written objection is received within 
fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of publication of this Notice.

[[Page 69098]]


ADDRESSES: Written objection should be sent to: Air Force Materiel 
Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm 101, Wright-Patterson 
AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, 
AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm 101, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; 
Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An exclusive license in any right, title and 
interest of the Air Force in:
    U.S. Patent No. 6,230,046, entitled ``System and method for 
enhanced visualization of subcutaneous structures,'' by Robert L. 
Crane, Byron P. Edmonds, Charles C. Lovett; Walter E. Johnson, claiming 
priority as a Continuation-In-Part filed 28 of U.S. Serial No. 08/
442,041 filed 16 May 1995 (related and previously licensed);
    U.S. Patent No. 7,917,193, entitled ``Determining inserted catheter 
end location and orientation'', by Robert L. Crane;
    U.S. Patent No. 8,548,572, entitled ``Determining Inserted Catheter 
End Location and Orientation'', by Robert L. Crane;
    U.S. Patent No. 8,649,848, entitled ``Synchronization of 
Illumination Source and Sensor for Improved Visualization of 
Subcutaneous Structures'', by Robert L. Crane and Michael P. Buchin;
    U.S. Serial No. 10/421,270, entitled ``Method for Detection and 
Display of Extravasation and Infiltration of fluids and Substances in 
Subdermal of Intradermal Tissue'', by Robert L. Crane and David M. 
Callard;
    U.S. Serial No. 14/175,156, entitled ``Synchronization of 
Illumination Source and Sensor for Improved Visualization of 
Subcutaneous Structures'', by Robert L. Crane and Michael P. Buchin.

Henry Williams,
Civ, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-27415 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
Mio-m

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 01-13-00077-CR OFFENSE: 22.021 (Agg SexAssault w/Child)

Jared Len Cruse v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Liberty

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AS MODIFY TRIAL COURT: 75th District Court

DATE: 07/22/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: cr29782

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Jared Len Cruse v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: mo-m

PRO SE Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

fe, /u* eJ JUDGE:

DATE: ^n Hj *Zd/V

JUDGE: y^O

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Exhibit 3.Q.



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The company does not file a classified balance sheet, therefore these not
provided: 5-02(9), 5-02 (21)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          41,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                       247
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         615,324
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 586,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        202,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     369,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   586,812
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,943
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    37
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                        17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,693
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
9655.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Newton.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Broyles, P. J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition as amended.

2. This court, under all the facts of the ease, can not hold that the verdict for the plaintiff ($1,519.17) was excessive.

3. This not being a case where the entire injury sued for was to the peace, happiness, or feelings of the plaintiff, it was reversible error for the court to instruct the jury that they should weigh “the worldly circumstances of the parties.” *Georgia Railroad*v. *Homer,*73 *Ga.*251 (1), 257; *Atlanta Consolidated Street Ry. Co.*v. *Hardage,*93 *Ga.*457 (3) (21 S. E. 100) ; *Southern Railway Co.*v. *Phillips,*136 *Ga.*282 (71 S. E. 414).

4. The plaintiff, in addition to suing for special elements of damage, such as lost time, doctor’s bills, and damage to an automobile, sued! for personal injuries and for pain and suffering. It was therefore reversible error for the court to charge the jury, in substance, that they had the right to add to any damages they might find for the plaintiff seven per cent, interest for such time as they saw proper to do so, taking into consideration the time of the injury, or the length of time that the damages had been withheld. *Western & Atlantic Railroad Co.*v. *Young,*81 *Ga.*397 (1), 412 (7 S. E. 912, 12 Am. St. R. 320).

5. Except as indicated above, no reversible error appears to have been committed upon the trial of the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*

*97Action for damages: from Jasper superior court—Judge Park. March 16, 1918.

*Harris, Harris & Witman, A. S. Thurman, Greene F. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel H. Sibley, Eugene M. Baynes,*contra.
#### Daryl Steven HOLLY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7435.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 23, 2004.

*891Daryl Steven Holly, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Daryl Steven Holly, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holly has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131947(73) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131947 

 COA: 260313 

Oakland CC: 2004-196540-FC 

TRACI BETH JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 28, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2406

FRANCISCA DE JESUS DURAN-DE-GARCIA,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 18, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Rosado, LAW OFFICES OF ROSADO & SOLTREN, P.C., 

Beltsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, 

Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 

Director, Kathryn L. Deangelis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Francisca De Jesus Duran-De-Garcia (Duran), a native 

and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal 

from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum 

and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the 

record, including the transcript of Duran’s merits hearing and 

all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence 

does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative 

factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Duran-De-Garcia, 

(B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 457 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 9, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2709) to impose certain sanctions on 
foreign persons who transfer items contributing to Iran's efforts to acquire, 
develop, or produce ballistic missiles, with the Senate amendments thereto, and 
to consider in the House a single motion offered by the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations or his designee that the House concur in 
each of the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
International Relations. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 
of the question.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### J. M. Shotwell *v.*Ellis J. Yelton.

Trials — Oral Instructions.

The court of appeals will not reverse on account of oral instruction where neither side objects.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 17, 1872.

*Handy, for appellant.*

*Richardson, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

The oral instruction given by the court to the jury was not objected to by either party when given.

The verdict of the jury cannot be said to be palpably against the weight of the evidence.

The evidence does not very clearly establish the specific contract sued on, nor the amount realized from the products of appellant’s forty acres of land during the year of 1869, but neither of these allegations are specifically denied by him.

We do.not feel authorized to disturb the finding of the jury.

Judgment *affirmed.*
No. 15,061.

#### Hoffman v. Harvey.

Filed June 13, 1891.

From the Porter Circuit Court.

*L. T. Michener,*Attorney General, *J. E. McDonald, J. M. Butler, A. H.*Snow and *C. N. Morton,*for appellant.

*W. Johnston*and *J. S. Slick,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

The sole question presented by this appeal is the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature entitled, “An act for the protection of the public health by promoting the growth and sale of healthy cattle- and sheep, making it a misdemeanor to sell the same without inspection-before slaughtering within this State, and to authorize cities to appoint inspectors.” Acts of 1889, p. 150 (Elliott’s Supp., section 359).

The appellee was prosecuted before a justice of the peace for a violation of the law and fined and committed to jail. He then filed his petition in the court below for a writ of *habeas corpus,*and was released, the court holding the law unconstitutional. The appellant is the sheriff of Porter county.

This same law has been held unconstitutional by this court in the case of *State*v. *Klein,*126 Ind. 68, on the authority of the case of *Minnesota v. Barber,*136 U. S. 313, involving the validity of a statute of Minnesota.

On the authority of these cases the judgment in this case is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,720
<SECURITIES>                                     3,908
<RECEIVABLES>                                  894,861
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,499
<INVENTORY>                                    418,944
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,399,064
<PP&E>                                       1,452,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                 540,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,389,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,289,496
<BONDS>                                      1,750,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           782
<OTHER-SE>                                   (496,844)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,389,962
<SALES>                                      2,882,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,882,568
<CGS>                                        2,167,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,167,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               709,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,947
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (96,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    50,302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (146,741)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (146,741)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000835541
<NAME> SOLECTRON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1997
<CASH>                                         113,947
<SECURITIES>                                   298,945
<RECEIVABLES>                                  523,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,913)
<INVENTORY>                                    590,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,581,652
<PP&E>                                         729,939
<DEPRECIATION>                               (351,740)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,010,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          640,330
<BONDS>                                        386,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                     979,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,010,024
<SALES>                                      1,136,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,136,820
<CGS>                                        1,013,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,013,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (136)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>