alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Active Care Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Drumgold, Cheryl, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Daniel J. Tucker, Esq. (Netanel BenChaim, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered July 9, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's sole arguments on appeal, defendant's proof sufficiently established proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs (<i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

KALEB L. BASEY,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30196

D.C. No. 4:14

- cr

- 00028

- RRB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Kaleb L. Basey appeals pro se from the district court ’s orders granting his

motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) and

denying reconsideration . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we

affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Basey’s request for oral argument is denied. 

# FILED

JUL 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 30196

As an initial matter, we reject Basey’s assertions that the district court’s

order granting relief was an injunction or “coerced settlement

. ” T h e record reflects

that the district court properly granted Basey’s motion for return of property after

the government filed a notice of non

- opposition conceding that it had no legitimate

reason to retain the property at issue

. See United States v. Martinson , 809 F.2d

1364, 1369

- 70 (9th Cir. 1987) ( “ A district court has both th e jurisdiction and the

duty to return the contested property once the government ’ s need for it has ended. ”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Basey’s motions for reconsideration after ordering the

government to return Basey’s items and delete copies in its possession. See United

States v. Tapia

-

Marquez , 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of

review)

. Contrary to Basey’s contention s , the district court was not required to

treat the government’s notice of non

- opposition as a motion to dismiss, and neither

the district court nor this court need reach Basey’s claim that the property at issue

was illegally seize d

. See Martinson , 809 F.2d at 1369 (“[W] hen the property in

question is no longer needed for evidentiary purposes

. . . the legality of the search

and seizure is no longer an issue

. ”). Finally, no hearing on the motion was

required. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the gov ernment’s remaining

arguments.3 21

- 30196

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Basey’s m otion for reassignment to a different district judge i s denied as

moot.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

WESTERN DIVISION 

NICK GEORGEFF, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-50313 

 ) 

DON BORNEKE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

JOINT STATUS REPORT ON EXPERT DISCOVERY 

 The parties hereto, pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, hereby report on the 

status of expert discovery: 

 1. The Plaintiff has disclosed his expert witnesses in this matter and they have been 

deposed. 

 2. Defendant has now disclosed its expert witnesses. 

 3. The parties are coordinating to complete the depositions of these witnesses by 

the end of March. 

 4. The parties request a future status date in April to discuss further scheduling and 

potential mediation. 

s/ Charlie A. Terry 

Anesi, Ozmon, Rodin, Novak & Kohen, Ltd. 

161 North Clark | 21st Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312)372-3822 

CTerry@anesilaw.com

s/ Christian A. Sullivan 

Swanson. Martin & Bell, LLP 

2525 Cabot Drive, Suite 204 

Lisle, Illinois 60532 

(630) 799-6900 

csulliva@smbtrials.com 

 

Case: 3:20-cv-50313 Document #: 69 Filed: 01/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:175
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. )

) No. 20 CR 577-17

) Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

DOROTHY WILLIAMS, )

) 

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: AUSA Charles Mulaney U. S. Attorney’s Office, 219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th 

Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on June 6, 2022 at 9:15 a.m., the undersigned 

shall appear before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. via telephone, by calling the 

telephone number and code provided by Chambers, located at the U.S. Court House, 219 

S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and then and there present the 

undersigned’s Motion to Withdraw, a copy of which is attached and is hereby served 

upon you.

/s J. Clifford Greene, Jr. 

Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a copy of the foregoing Notice 

and Motion to be served upon the person to whom it is addressed in accordance with the 

General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF) and the associated Federal Criminal 

Rules and Local Rules relating to same, before the hour of 5:00 p.m., on Tuesday, May 

24, 2022.

/s J. Clifford Greene, Jr

Attorney for Defendant
May 24, 2022

LAW OFFICE OF

J.Clifford Greene, Jr.

55 East Monroe Street

Suite 3800

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Tel:(312) 212-4412

email: jcliffordgreene@msn.com
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| May 14, 2007   | By:    | /s/    David A. Wheat                                                                                       |   |
|----------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Date)

  |   | David A. Wheat

Director, Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

  |   |

 

 

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40336

Conference Calendar

 

ARNOLD AYALA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHEILA R. ALFORD ET AL.,

 Defendants,

MICHAEL J. MCCAULEY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-172

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arnold Ayala, #440313, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that excessive force

had been used against him by corrections officers. Following a

bench trial, the magistrate judge concluded that the use of force
No. 96-40336

- 2 -

was appropriate and dismissed Ayala’s complaint with prejudice. 

If the factfinder's account of the evidence is plausible,

this court may not reverse it; if two views of the evidence are

permissible, "the factfinder's choice between them cannot be

clearly erroneous." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S.

564, 573-74 (1985). This court will not disturb credibility

determinations on appeal. See Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc., 990

F.2d 228, 230 (5th Cir. 1993) (this court defers to the district

court if factual determinations are based upon credibility

determinations). Ayala has not demonstrated that the magistrate

judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. See Odom v.

Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993). The magistrate judge did

not err by dismissing Ayala’s complaint. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 15, 1998
                                                     Contact: Carroll D. McHenry
                                                    Chairman, President, and CEO
                                                                  (972) 633-4037


                  HEARTLAND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ANNOUNCES
             IT WILL NOT MAKE INTEREST PAYMENT ON 13% SENIOR NOTES

         Dallas, Texas - Heartland Wireless Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:
HART), America's largest wireless cable television company, today announced
that it will not make a semiannual interest payment of $7.5 million due today
on $115 million original principal amount of 13% Series B and C Senior Notes.

         "As we have previously indicated, the Company has retained the
investment banking firm of Wasserstein Perella & Co. to analyze all options
available to finance the Company's projected business plan and service its
existing debt.  In consultation with Wasserstein Perella, the Company intends
to begin discussions with debt holders regarding a restructuring of all of the
Company's debt, including the 13% notes and $125 million original principal
amount of 14% Senior Notes," said Carroll McHenry, Chairman and CEO of
Heartland.  "We remain confident in our business plan and in the long-term
viability of the Company, and that we will be able to complete a restructuring
which will allow the Company to achieve its ultimate potential," said Mr.
McHenry.

         Failure to make the interest payment on the 13% notes could permit the
holders to accelerate payment of these notes and could permit the holders of
the 14% notes to accelerate payment of the 14% notes as well.  The Company
currently does not have sufficient funds available to pay in full the
indebtedness outstanding under either the 13% notes or the 14% notes in the
event that any of this indebtedness is accelerated.  The Company noted that in
the event of any such acceleration, the Company would consider all available
alternatives at that time.

         Heartland Wireless Communications, Inc. is America's largest wireless
cable television company, currently servicing approximately 179,000 subscribers
in 57 markets.  Heartland holds wireless cable channel rights in 90 small to
mid-size markets located in the central United States.  In addition, Heartland
owns a 20 percent equity interest in Wireless One, Inc. (NASDAQ:  WIRL), the
largest rural wireless cable operator in the southeastern United States, and a
36 percent equity interest in CS Wireless Systems, Inc., one of the largest
wireless cable companies in the United States in terms of subscribers and
line-of-sight households.

                                      ###
Exhibit 4.1



Number                              VoIP, INC.                Cusip 928628 10 6

                INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

                                  COMMON STOCK

                                                                 See Reverse For
                                                             Certain Definitions

                                                                          SHARES



This certifies that







Is the owner of

  FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE OF
                                   VoIP, INC.

(hereinafter  called  the  "Corporation"),  transferable  on  the  books  of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney,  upon
surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate and the shares
represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of
the Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, and the Bylaws of the Corporation,
as amended (copies of which are on file at the office of the Transfer Agent), to
all of which the holder of this Certificate by acceptance  hereof assents.  This
Certificate  is not valid unless  countersigned  and  registered by the Transfer
Agent and  Registrar.  Witness the  facsimile  seal of the  Corporation  and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


Date:

Steven Ivester


President                 SEAL          Countersigned:
                                             SECURITIES TRANSFER CORPORATION
                                             P.O. Box 701628
                                             Dallas, Texas 75370
Steven Ivester

                                        By:
Secretary
                                             ___________________________________
                                             TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE




<PAGE>

                                   VoIP, INC.

                 TRANSFER FEE $20.00 PER NEW CERTIFICATE ISSUED

       A FULL STATEMENT OF THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, INTERESTS, PREFERENCES AND
          RESTRICTIONS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE
      CORPORATION TO ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST, WITHOUT CHARGE.

 For value received ___________________ hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto





________________________________________________________________  Shares  of the
Common Stock  represented by the within  Certificate  and do hereby  irrevocably
constitutes and appoints _______________________________________________________


Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation
with full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated: _______________, 20__

                                         Signature:


                                         X______________________________________


Signature Guarantee:
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CRT Properties, Inc.:  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 Company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; and  c.
    
    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 company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 the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  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; and  b.
    
    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. Dated: August 4, 2004
    /s/ Steven A. AbneySteven A. AbneyVice President, Finance and
Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
CRT Properties, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30346

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL SHORT, also known as Nate,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:96-CR-232-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Short, federal prisoner # 22355-034, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant 

to Amendments 591 and 607. He contends that the district court erroneously 

determined that Amendment 591 did not apply because he was not convicted 

of an offense referenced in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2. In addition, Short asserts that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30346 Document: 00514007168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2017
No. 16-30346

2

the district court did not follow the correct procedure in calculating his original 

advisory guidelines range.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to 

reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 

667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendments 591 and 607 did not have the effect of 

lowering Short’s guidelines range. Therefore, Short was not eligible for a 

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 

817, 826-27 (2010); United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 

2009); United States v. Wilson, 267 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, 

Short’s claims regarding the validity of his original sentence are not cognizable 

in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 

(5th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Short’s motion. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826-27.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-30346 Document: 00514007168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2017
<PAGE>


<TABLE>
                                     THE NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC COMPANY
                             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                              (SEC Coverage)
                                                (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>
                                                                Years Ended December 31,
                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1996       1995         1994      1993        1992
                                                  ----       ----         ----      ----        ----
<S>                                                <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
                                                                     (In Thousands)

Net Income                                      $22,954     $23,910     $14,589    $14,274     $21,052
----------

Add income taxes and fixed charges
----------------------------------
  Current federal income taxes                    6,918       7,212       1,020      2,183       4,608
  Deferred federal income taxes                   4,675       3,512       3,930      2,199       4,560
  Investment tax credits - net                     (498)       (503)       (508)      (508)       (507)
  Interest on long-term debt                     17,205      16,627      14,334     12,715      13,290
  Interest on short-term debt and other           2,883       3,663       2,897      2,074       1,277
                                                -------     -------     -------    -------     -------

Net earnings available for fixed charges        $54,137     $54,421     $36,262    $32,937     $44,280
                                                -------     -------     -------    -------     -------
Fixed charges:
  Interest on long-term debt                    $17,205     $16,627     $14,334    $12,715     $13,290
  Interest on short-term debt and other           2,883       3,663       2,897      2,074       1,277
                                                -------     -------     -------    -------     -------
        Total fixed charges                     $20,088     $20,290     $17,231    $14,789     $14,567
                                                =======     =======     =======    =======     =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 2.69        2.68        2.10       2.23        3.04
----------------------------------

</TABLE>