alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ASIF J. POONJA, individually and on 

behalf of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-CV-04388

Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Hon. Magistrate Mara Valdez

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Plaintiff Asif J. Poonja, through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this notice 

of supplemental authority to inform the Court of the recent decisions in: McCurley v. Royal 

Sea Cruises, Inc., No. 17-cv-00986, 2021 WL 288164 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021) (attached 

hereto as Exhibit A); Less v. Quest Diagnostics, No. 20-cv-2546, 2021 WL 266548 (N.D. 

Ohio Jan. 26, 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit B); Stoutt v. Travis Credit Union, No. 20-

cv-01280, 2021 WL 99636, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan 12, 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit C);

and Rieker v. National Car Cure, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-cv-5901, 2021 WL 210841, at 

*1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2021) (attached hereto as Exhibit D). These decisions were all 

published after Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. 29) and in each of these decisions the district court

rejected the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff’s TCPA claims should be dismissed 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Barr v. American Ass’n of Political 

Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04388 Document #: 31 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:186
2

Dated: February 5, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

ASIF J. POONJA, individually and on 

behalf of a class of similarly situated 

individuals, 

By: /s/ Eugene Y. Turin 

 One of His Attorneys

Eugene Y. Turin

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 

55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Tel: (312) 893-7002 

eturin@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

Case: 1:20-cv-04388 Document #: 31 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:187
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 5, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Plaintiff’s Notice of Supplemental Authority with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system. A copy of said document will be electronically transmitted to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Eugene Y. Turin

Case: 1:20-cv-04388 Document #: 31 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:188
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Pierre, Jean, 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.Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 3, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and, in effect, granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action based upon plaintiff's assignor's alleged eligibility for workers' compensation benefits, to the extent of providing that if plaintiff failed to file proof, within 90 days, showing that it had filed the claims underlying those causes of action with the Workers' Compensation Board, those causes of action shall be dismissed.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and, in effect, granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action based upon plaintiff's assignor's alleged eligibility for workers' compensation benefits, to the extent of providing that if plaintiff failed to file proof, within 90 days, showing that it had filed the claims underlying those causes of action with the Workers' Compensation Board, those causes of action shall be dismissed.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant had ever received the claims underlying the third and fourth causes of action; thus, the Civil Court correctly denied the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on these causes of action.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Compas Med., P.C., as Assignee of Pierre, Jean v American Tr. Ins. Co. </i>(___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-1830 Q C], decided herewith), we find that the remainder of the order, insofar as appealed from, was also correctly <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>decided.</p><p>In light of the foregoing, plaintiff's remaining contentions are academic.</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: September 15, 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>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69526-69527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27722]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-14-039]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission

TIME AND DATE: November 26, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none
    2. Minutes
    3. Ratification List
    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-524-525 and 731-TA-1260-1261 
(Preliminary) (Certain Welded Line Pipe from Korea and Turkey). The 
Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determinations on December 1, 2014; views of the Commission are 
currently scheduled to be completed and filed on December 8, 2014.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: November 19, 2014.


[[Page 69527]]


    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-27722 Filed 11-19-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30510

JOSEPH ONCALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES INCORPORATED; JOHN LYONS; DANNY PIPPEN; BRANDON JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

April 30, 1998 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before SMITH, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: This matter is before the Court on remand from the Supreme Court. IT IS ORDERED that Appellees’ motions for this Court to establish a briefing schedul e and to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is hereby remanded to the Unit ed States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court herein.
December 13, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WINSTON LEON HENDRICKS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00673

- CV V.
SHARON KAYE (BERWICK ) BARKER
, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE INDEPENDENT EXECUTRI X OF THE ESTATE OF J AMES LUTHER BERWICK , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the “Order of Dismissal” signed August 7, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the trial court’s ruling . We order the ruling of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Winston Leon Hendricks, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-1869

___________________________

 

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

John Rick Winer

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________

Submitted: February 6, 2023

Filed: February 9, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

John Rick Winer scammed investors out of millions of dollars. He asks us to 

reverse his wire-fraud, money-laundering, and conspiracy convictions, 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1343, 1349, 1512(c)(2), (k), 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h), but his arguments are 

conclusory and discuss no legal authority. See Cox v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 

Inc., 685 F.3d 663, 674 (8th Cir. 2012) (declining to consider an argument when the 
-2-

party “fail[ed] to provide a meaningful explanation . . . and citation to relevant 

authority”); see also United States v. Hansen, 791 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir. 2015) 

(explaining that an intent to defraud “can be shown by circumstantial evidence” 

(quotation marks omitted)). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district 

court.1

______________________________

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the 

District of South Dakota.
EXHIBIT 10.3


 


TETON
ENERGY CORPORATION


 


CONFIRMATION
OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION


 


This
is to confirm that the following option grant (the “Option”) made to purchase
shares of Teton Energy Corporation (f/k/a Teton Petroleum Company) (the “Company”)
common stock (the “Common Stock”):


 


Participant:  H. Howard Cooper


 


Grant Date:  April 9, 2003


 


Vesting Commencement Date:  April 9, 2003


 


Option Price Per Share:  $3.48


 


Number of Option Shares:  574,554


 


Expiration Date:  April 8, 2013


 


Type of Option:  Incentive o / Non-Statutory
ý [check one]


 


Vesting Schedule:  The Option shall vest immediately.


 


Repurchase Right:  Not applicable.


 


Exercisability Upon Termination of Service:           5 years.


 


Participant
understands and agrees that the Option is granted subject to and in accordance
with the express terms and conditions of the Teton Energy Corporation 2003
Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”).  Participant
further agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Option as set
forth in the Stock Option Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B.  Participant understands that certain terms
and conditions governing Option Shares purchased pursuant to the Option are set
forth in the form of exercise notice attached hereto as Exhibit C.


 


Participant
hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Plan in the form attached hereto
as Exhibit A.


 


No Employment or Service Contract. 
Nothing in this Notice of Grant, in the Option Agreement, or in the Plan
shall confer upon the Participant any right to continue in the Service of the
Company for any period of specific duration or interfere with or


 


1





















 


otherwise
restrict in any way the rights of the Company or the Participant, which rights
are hereby expressly reserved by each, to terminate Participant’s Service at
any time for any reason whatsoever, with or without cause.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  TETON
  ENERGY CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Participant

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Address:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Participant’s
  Spouse

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Address:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 


2
#### Robt. C. Alexander, etc., *v.*Joseph B. Newell.

Appeal — Reversal—Conflicting Evidence.

The Court of Appeals will not disturb a judgment upon conflicting evidence.

APPEAL FROM PULASKI 'CIRCUIT COURT.

December 21, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The evidence of the surveyor, Hamblin, who made the survey on file in this case, fixes, the boundary line between the lands of the *136parties to this oontroversey, as is claimed by the appellee. This line begins at the letter D, from thence to' the letter A, and on to’ (I) the maple at the bank of the river. The patents under which the appellee holds title include the land in dispute, but the Emerson patent under which the appellants claim embraces no part of it. The ancestors of the parties who. are now litigating owned these adjacent lands for many years and seem to have had no trouble in regard to this disputed territory. The proof, however, in regard to the possession of the land conduces to show an adverse holding for a longtime by the appellants and those under whom they claim’; still it is shown that old man Newell had the most of it in his actual possession many years ago and cultivated a crop of cotton upon it. In 1857 or 1858, according to the proof, the fence that Emerson had upon the land was removed, and up to that period he had held no possession for such a length, of time as would vest him with title. Whether the removal of the fence was intended as an abandonment of the land or not, does not certainly appear, but from that time until the institution of this suit in the year 1867 the appellee was in the constructive and actual possession of the land. His possession and claim> although the proof conduces to show that it was obtained from a party who entered under Emerson, was¡ of too- long standing to require a surrender of the possession in order to enable the appellee to maintain his ejectment. There is also a conflict of proof in regard to the question of possession, and to such an extent as precludes this court from disturbing the judgment.

*Jamies, for appellants.*

*Vanwinkle, for appellee.*

The judgment dismissing the petition and cross petition was the equitable view of the case. The judgment is *affirmed.*
Order entered April 19, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-16-00418-CV

IN RE MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB92-39325-M



### ORDER Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang, and Justice Brown

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We DENY as moot relator’s motion for suspensi on of the rules of appellate procedure

concerning the required number of copies of the petition that must be filed. We ORDER relator

to bear the costs of th is original procedure.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          55,026
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,070
<INVENTORY>                                    409,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               843,415
<PP&E>                                         456,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                 371,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 936,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          391,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,230
<OTHER-SE>                                     491,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   936,784
<SALES>                                      2,097,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,099,428
<CGS>                                        1,227,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,000,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (129,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (129,606)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (129,606)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.034)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.034)
        

</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

TIETEX INTERNATIONAL LTD., Appellant

v.

PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC., Appellee

______________________

2016

- 1748

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014

- 01248.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J AMAICA P. S ZELIGA
, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washing ton, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by N EIL C. J ONES
, Nelson Mullins Riley & Sc arborough, LLP, Gree nville, SC; J AMES R OBERTSON
, J.M. Robertson, LLC, Bi rm ingham, AL.

L YNNE A. B ORCHERS
, Sage Patent Group, PLLC, R aleigh, NC, argued for appellee. Also represented by P ETER D ANIEL S IDDOWAY

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK
, O’M ALLEY
, and W ALLACH
, Circuit Judg es ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 10, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3835 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3835

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                              in Michigan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2004

Mr. Dingell (for himself, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. 
    Kildee, and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                              in Michigan.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN MICHIGAN.

    Section 1860C-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
29(b)(2)), as added by section 241(a) of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) No part in michigan.--No part of the MSA is 
                in Michigan.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1  TEMPCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tempco, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Anthony Silverman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.  By:/s/ Anthony SilvermanAnthony Silverman
President and Chief Executive Officer  Dated:November 19, 2012
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2014

No. 04-13-00064-CR

Donald AEKINS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 403rd District Court, Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. D-1-DC-12-904056

Brenda Kennedy, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED. The Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule 9.3(b) is hereby GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1
       
<S>                               <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1998                     
<CASH>                            11,719
<SECURITIES>                      0         
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,012,440      
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                       11,220      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,532,740      
<PP&E>                            71,915           
<DEPRECIATION>                    (35,009)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,960,641     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             331,972
<BONDS>                           0            
<COMMON>                          215,000       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0   
<OTHER-SE>                        911,391  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,960,641
<SALES>                           1,026,672           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,026,672
<CGS>                             194,781     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     85,738   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  746,153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (97)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   730,089         
<INCOME-TAX>                      0             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               0
<DISCONTINUED>                    0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0   
<CHANGES>                         0        
<NET-INCOME>                      730,089          
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .28      
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .28        
        

</TABLE>