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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LIAM LEFEBVRE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 1:20-CV-04928

)

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, )

)

Defendant, )

MOTION OF DEFENDANT WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 

Defendant Washington University (the “University”) hereby moves pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) to dismiss Plaintiff Liam Lefebvre’s Complaint for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. The allegations in the Complaint fail to establish a prima facie case that the 

University, a private institution located and incorporated in Missouri, is subject to personal 

jurisdiction—either general or specific—in this forum.

In support of its Motion, the University files herewith and incorporates herein by 

reference its Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Washington University respectfully requests that its Motion to 

Dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 15 Filed: 09/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:59
Dated: September 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

By: /s/ Bruce M. Lichtcsien_________ 

Bruce M. Lichtcsien 

HINKHOUSE WILLIAMS WALSH LLP

180 N. Stetson, Suite 3400

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 784-5431 

blichtcsien@hww-law.com

HAAR & WOODS, LLP

Robert T. Haar (pro hac vice)

Lisa A. Pake (pro hac vice)

Matthew A. Martin (pro hac vice)

1010 Market Street, Suite 1620

St. Louis, MO 63101

(314) 241-2224

roberthaar@haar-woods.com

lpake@haar-woods.com

mmartin@haar-woods.com

Attorneys for Defendant Washington 

University

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 15 Filed: 09/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that on September 18, 2020, I caused the 

foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ELF system, which 

will send notification of filing to Plaintiff's counsel. 

/s/ Bruce M. Lichtcsien 

Bruce M. Lichtcsien, Attorney 

for Washington University

Case: 1:20-cv-04928 Document #: 15 Filed: 09/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:61
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4047

To require the National Park Service to make necessary safety improvements 

to the Statue of Liberty and to reopen the Statue to the public. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2004

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To require the National Park Service to make necessary 

safety improvements to the Statue of Liberty and to 

reopen the Statue to the public.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Save the Statue of Liberty Act’’. 

6 (b) REQUIREMENT FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.—

7 Not later than September 1, 2004, the Secretary of the 

8 Interior, acting through the National Park Service and 

9 using funds available to the Secretary for this purpose, 

10 shall commence necessary safety and other related im-
2

•HR 4047 IH 

1 provements to the Statue of Liberty so that it may be re2 opened to the public.

Æ
#### *A.*Devit *v.*J. K. Wilson, etc.

Execution — Purchaser’s Bond — Insolvency of Surety.

The fact that the surety on the bond given toy the purchaser of land at an execution sale was insolvent is immaterial, where the judgment plaintiff has acknowledged satisfaction of the judgment.

APPEAL. PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

December 8, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The judgment of the 29th of November, 1869, directing a sale of the realty in controversy in satisfaction of Wilson’s debt and appointing Asken the court’s commissioner td make the sale, has already been passed upon and approved by this court in the appeal of *Devit v. Redwitz and Wilson,*decided April 25, 1872. The exceptions as to these matters are not therefore to be now inquired into.

The sale seems to have been properly advertised and was made on the first day of a court for Mercer county.

It does not matter that the surety on the bond given by the purchaser was. insolvent, inasmuch as Wilson, the plaintiff in the judgment, has acknowledged its satisfaction. Nor ought the sale to have been set aside because of inadequacy of price.

The plaintiff and purchaser offered to waive all claim to the land if appellant would pay the judgment, and the court proposed to open the bidding if Devit would procure a well-secured bid of ten per cent, advance on that accepted by the commissioner. Appellant refused to avail himself of either of these offers. The court therefore did right in confirming the sale.

*56
      *J. B. Thompson, appellant.*

Devit had no interest in the rents accruing whilst he was contesting the confirmation of the commissioner’s sale, and can not prosecute an appeal to have the action of the court reviewed as. to that matter.

Judgment *affirmed.*

-, *for appellee.*
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Robert E. Weil,certify that:

1.               I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAIR Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended September 30, 2004;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.               The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

a.               Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.              Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 15, 2004

 
| /s/ ROBERT E.  WEIL |
|---------------------|

 

Robert E. Weil

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

----
### NUMBER 13
- 1 4 - 00 519
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ELSA HOUSING AUTHORI TY , A ppellant ,

v. ROSA SAENZ , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes , an d Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Elsa Housing Aurhority , filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CL

- 12

- 0253

- E

. Appellant ha s filed an unopposed motion to withdraw the appeal on grounds the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s u nopposed
motion to withdraw the appeal , is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will
issue forthwith.
PER CURIAM
De livered and filed the 5t h day of February , 20 1 5

.
9638.

#### Ashley-Price Lumber Company *v.*Henry.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Where counsel for either party in any. pase, civil or criminal, desires the trial judge to write out his charge and read it to the jury, a request therefor must be mad'e before argument begins. Penal Code (1910), § 1056; *Homer*v. *State,*6 *Ga. App.*667 (65 S. E. 701). ‘

(a) The charge so written out and read to the jury should be filed, as *94*soon as delivered,*with the clerk of the court. Civil Code (1910), § 4848.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Rehearing denied December 13, 1918.

'Action for damages; from Coffee superior court—Judge Summerall. February 9, 1918.

*J. W. Quincy, Levi O’Steen, F. Willis Dart,*for plaintiff in error.

*W.W. Bennett, Dickerson, Kelley & Roberts, Chastain & Henson,*contra.

(6) Failure of the trial-judge to hand his written charge, immediately after he has read it to the jury, to the clerk of the court to be filed, is reversible error, unless the evidence demanded the verdict returned. *Forrester*v. *Cocke,*6 *Ga,. App.*829 (65 S. E. 1063).

*(c)*Where a special ground of a motion for a new trial complains that the trial judge refused to write out his charge, after being requested to do so by counsel in the case, it must be affirmatively shown in 'the ground of the motion that the request was made before the argument began. However, where (as in the instant case) the complaint is, not that the judge refused the request of counsel to write out his charge and read it to the jury, but that the judge, *after complying with such request,*failed to hand' the charge at once to the clerk of the court to be filed, and retained it in his possession until the following day, when he filed it with the clerk, it will be conclusively presumed that the request was made in due time, unless the contrary is shown affirmatively in the motion or by a certificate of the trial judge.

*(d)*Where such a request had been made to the judge, no waiver of the right to have the charge reduced to writing and read to the jury, or to have it filed with the clerk of the court as soon as it had been read, resulted from the fact that the counsel who made the request informed the judge that he did not insist upon the judge’s writing out the charge in pen and ink, but that it would be perfectly satisfactory for the judge to dictate his charge to'the court reporter, have it typewritten, and read this typewritten charge to the jury; and that the judge adopted this suggestion.

2. In the instant case, instead of filing with the clerk of the court the typewritten charge as soon as it had been read to the jury, the judge retained it in his possession and did not deliver it to the clerk until the following day. This was reversible error, and a new trial, of the case is required. *'*

3. It is deemed unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022

- NCSC

- 65
No. 45A21
Filed 17 June 2022 FUND HOLDER REPORTS, LLC

v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 275 N.C. App. 470 , 854 S.E.2d 64 (2020), affirming a n order
entered on 26 November 2019 by Judge Vinston Rozier in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in th e Supreme Court on 9 Ma y 202 2

.
Stam Law Firm, PLLC, by R. Daniel Gibson, for petitioner

- appellant. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Ryan Y. Park, Solicitor General, Marc X. Sneed, Special Deputy Attorney General, S. Luke Morgan, Fellow, Office of the General Counsel, and Samuel W. Magaram, Solicitor General Fellow , for respondent

- appellee.

PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. Justice MORGAN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Number: Assigned/Issued By: 

Judge Name: Designated Magistrate Judge: 

FEE INFORMATION

Amount Due: $400.00 $46.00 $5.00

IFP No Fee Other 

$505.00

Number of Service Copies Date:

(For Use by Fiscal Department Only) 

Amount Paid: Receipt #: 

Date Payment Rec’d: Fiscal Clerk: 

ISSUANCES

Summons Alias Summons

Third Party Summons Lis Pendens 

Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment 

Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons 

Citation to Discover Assets 

Writ 

(Type of Writ) 

(Victim, Against and $ Amount) 

Original and copies on as to

(Date)

5HY

20CV3974 KL

FEINERMAN MCSHAIN

✔

1 1 10/15/2020 SANSUMAR, INC.

(NOTICE FILED)

Case: 1:20-cv-03974 Document #: 14 Filed: 10/15/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:38
10068.

#### Daniel *v.*The State.

Decided November 16, 1918.

Indictment for larceny; from Jefferson superior court—Judge Hardeman. August 6, 1918.

*Evans & Evans,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general,*contra.

Harwell, *J.*

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon objections to the admission of testimony being expressly disapproved by the trial judge, can not be considered.

2. The evidence connecting the defendant with the theft of the cow, as charged, together with the confessions, was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 13.1


                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of Ship Finance International Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the annual period ended  December 31, 2004, as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the "SEC") on or about the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, the Principal Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: Junel 30, 2005

/s/ Tor Olav Troim
------------------
    Tor Olav Troim
Principal Executive Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3997

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the New Hope Cemetery 

Association a small parcel of National Forest System land in the State 

of Arkansas for use as a cemetery. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2004

Mr. BOOZMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the New 

Hope Cemetery Association a small parcel of National 

Forest System land in the State of Arkansas for use 

as a cemetery.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF SMALL PARCEL OF NATIONAL 

4 FOREST SYSTEM LAND, POPE COUNTY, AR5 KANSAS. 

6 (a) CONVEYANCE ON CONDITION SUBSEQUENT.—

7 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

8 Act, subject to valid existing rights and the condition stat-
2

•HR 3997 IH 

1 ed in subsection (c), the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

2 through the Chief of the Forest Service (referred to in 

3 this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’), shall convey to the New 

4 Hope Cemetery Association (referred to in this section as 

5 the ‘‘association’’), for no consideration, all right, title, 

6 and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of 

7 land described in subsection (b). 

8 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land re9 ferred to in subsection (a) is the parcel of National Forest 

10 System land (including any improvements on the land) 

11 that—

12 (1) is known as ‘‘New Hope Cemetery Tract 

13 6686c’’; 

14 (2) consists of approximately 1.1 acres; and 

15 (3) is more particularly described as a portion 

of the SE 1⁄4 of the NW 1 16 ⁄4 of section 30, T. 11, 

17 R. 17W, Pope County, Arkansas. 

18 (c) CONDITION ON USE OF LAND.—

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—The association shall use the 

20 parcel conveyed under subsection (a) as a cemetery. 

21 (2) REVERSION.—If the Secretary, after notice 

22 to the association and an opportunity for a hearing, 

23 makes a finding that the association has used or 

24 permitted the use of the parcel for any purpose 

25 other than the purpose specified in paragraph (1), 
3

•HR 3997 IH 

1 and the association fails to discontinue that use, title 

2 to the parcel shall, at the option of the Secretary, 

3 revert to the United States, to be administered by 

4 the Secretary.

Æ
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 17P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 672

Motion by Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 May 1997. Petition by defendant (Gary Martin) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.    The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:               | /s/ GEOFFREY S.M.  HEDRICK |   |   |
|-------------------|----------------------------|--------|--------|
|              | GEOFFREY  S.M. HEDRICK     |   |   |
|              | CHIEF  EXECUTIVE OFFICER   |   |   |
|              |                       |   |   |
|              |                       |   |   |
|              | /s/ JOHN C. LONG           |   |   |
|              | JOHN C. LONG               |   |   |
|              | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    |   |   |
|              |                       |   |   |
|              |                       |   |   |
| May 05, 2010 |                       |   |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: /s/ Irvin E. Richter

Irvin E. Richter

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 11, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Keefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 31, 2006



/s/ David J. KeefeDavid J. KeefeChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-4069

___________ Roy Duane Reha; David Lee Waddell, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., sued as * [UNPUBLISHED] Hardee's Restaurants Inc., * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 21, 1999

Filed: April 22, 1999

___________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Roy Duane Reha and David Lee Waddell appeal the district court's order dismissing Reha's and Waddell's complaint after they failed to comply with the court's order directing them to submit an amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The district court warned Reha and Waddell that their complaint would be dismissed if they failed to comply with Rule 8(a), and having r eviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion. See Mangan v. Weinberger , 848 F.2d909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 1013 (1989). We affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.