alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Department ofthe Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Washington , D .C. 20240

http://www.blm .gov 

## JUN 0 6 2016 In Reply Refer To: 3465 (280)

Memorandum
To:

From: Environmental Protection Agency, Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov

Subject: Acting Assistant Director, Resources and



# Planni**~d ~**  Notice ofOpportunity to Provide Information on Existing Programs that Protect Water Quality from Forest Road Discharges, 80 Fed. Reg. 69, 653 (Nov. 10, 2015) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0668
The Department ofthe Interior Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) submits the following information to supplement information previously provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to BLM's programs and tools that protect water quality from forest roads discharges. This document summarizes BLM ' s information related to EPA' s , Federal Register Notice request for information related to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the BLM has in place and the effectiveness ofthose BMPs as they relate to storm water discharges from forest roads. The BLM has solicited input from the BLM state offices , summarized the information below, and attached documents sent by BLM state offices for reference material.

• Included in the materials are links to applicable BLM guidance documents such as manuals, handbooks and policies that contain BMP's addressing storm water runoff. There are links to existing agreements, i.e. Memorandum ofUnderstanding's, with state and federal agencies used to cooperatively address water quality, specifically in Colorado, Idaho, Montana (MT), Oregon (OR) and Utah (UT).
• Included is a reference to the watershed restoration guidance from the Western Oregon Resource Management Plans (1995) as well as a discussion ofthe BLM' s Land Health Watershed Assessments and examples ofeffectiveness monitoring ofBMP's from MT, ID and OR.Ifyou have any questions on the submitted material, please contact McKinley-Ben Miller, Deputy Division Chief, Environmental Quality & Protection at (202) 912-7165 , or by email at mbmiller@blm.gov

. Attachment 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GABRIEL REYES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 12 C 1075

)

Chicago Police Officer JOSEPH SIMONI, ) Judge Thomas M. Durkin

Star # 5123; Chicago Police Officer )

JENNIFER PUTNEY, Star # 8580; and the )

CITY OF CHICAGO, )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

NOW COMES Joseph Simioni, Jennifer Putney, and the City of Chicago (collectively 

“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, and hereby moves this Honorable 

Court to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor. In support thereof, Defendants state as follows:

1. On February 11, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel leave to withdraw as 

counsel for Plaintiff for the reasons set forth in counsel’s motion to withdraw. As part of that 

February 11 Order, this Court continued this matter to February 18, 2014 for status and warned 

that Plaintiff’s failure to appear personally on that date would “result in this action being 

dismissed for want of prosecution.” See Docket no. 72.

2. On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff failed to personally appear at the status hearing. 

Therefore, this Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s action with prejudice for want of 

prosecution and terminated the civil case. A true and correct copy of the Order, Dkt. no. 73, is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. While the action was dismissed and the civil case was terminated, this Court 

inadvertently neglected to enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Where dismissal with 
2

prejudice for want of prosecution is granted, entry of judgment for Defendant is appropriate. 

See James v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02 C 2791, Dkt. no. 34 (Kennelly, J.); Vito & Nick’s Inc. v.

Barraco, et al., No. 05 C 2764, Dkt. 103 (Nolan, Mag. J.). 

4. Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an order of judgment in 

Defendants’ favor.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joseph Simioni, Jennifer Putney, and the City of Chicago, 

respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting judgment in Defendants’ 

favor.

Dated: March 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH SIMIONI, JENNIFER

PUTNEY, and CITY OF CHICAGO

By: s/ Eileen E. Rosen

 One of their attorneys

Eileen E. Rosen

Stacy A. Benjamin

Silvia Mercado Masters

ROCK FUSCO & CONNELLY, LLC

321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, Illinois 60654

(312) 494-1000

erosen@rockfuscoconnelly.com
Exhibit B

Rule 384 Motion

Case: 1:12-cv-00385 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:324
Case: 1:12-cv-00385 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:325
Case: 1:12-cv-00385 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:326
Case: 1:12-cv-00385 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:327
Case: 1:12-cv-00385 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:328
Case: 1:12-cv-00385 Document #: 22-2 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:329
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent

Litigation

Case No. 1:11-cv-09308

Judge James F. Holderman

Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier This Document Relates To:

SonicWALL, Inc., v. Innovatio IP Ventures,

LLC, Case No. 12-cv-426 (originally 11-cv00920 (D. Del. 2011))

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Innovatio IP Ventures LLC (“Innovatio”) and Defendant

SonicWALL Inc.’s (“SonicWALL”) Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

Such motion is GRANTED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Subject to the terms of the Confidential License And Settlement Agreement between

Innovatio and SonicWALL, all claims here at issue between Innovatio and SonicWALL,

including all claims presented by Innovatio’s complaints and all of SonicWALL’s counterclaims,

shall be and are dismissed with prejudice; and

(2) Innovatio and SonicWALL each shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of December, 2013. 

________________________________

HON. JAMES F. HOLDERMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
### §1753. Joint United States-Canada projects for alternative inspections services

#### (a) In general

United States border inspections agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, acting jointly and under an agreement of cooperation with the Government of Canada, may conduct joint United States-Canada inspections projects on the international border between the two countries. Each such project may provide alternative inspections services and shall undertake to harmonize the criteria for inspections applied by the two countries in implementing those projects.

#### (b) Annual report

The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare and submit annually to Congress a report on the joint United States-Canada inspections projects conducted under subsection (a).

#### (c) Exemption from Administrative Procedure Act and Paperwork Reduction Act

Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 (commonly referred to as the "Administrative Procedure Act") and chapter 35 of title 44 (commonly referred to as the "Paperwork Reduction Act") shall not apply to fee setting for services and other administrative requirements relating to projects described in subsection (a), except that fees and forms established for such projects shall be published as a notice in the Federal Register.

(Pub. L. 107–173, title IV, §404, May 14, 2002, 116 Stat. 560.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Harold Miller, Petitioner, v. Joseph P. Kelly, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss proceeding granted; proceeding dismissed. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
### §1556. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section transferred to section 1353d of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Allan Clark, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered June 29, 1977, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from 5 to 20 years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 0 to 15 years. As *988so modified, judgment affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, O’Connor and Lazer, JJ., concur.
### §606. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section transferred to section 1421l of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. That section was later repealed. See section 1407 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

TOTAL-TEL USA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Exhibit 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 
MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF 
OPERATIONS FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         349,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,068,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,969,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,698,300
<PP&E>                                      15,878,200
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,129,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,502,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,352,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     8,293,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (7,567,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,502,600
<SALES>                                      3,156,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,156,800
<CGS>                                        2,742,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,742,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               628,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (230,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (230,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (230,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        



</TABLE>
### §2321. Establishment

There is hereby established in the Department of Agriculture an office to be known as the Plant Variety Protection Office, which shall have the functions set forth in this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title I, §1, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1542; Pub. L. 96–574, §1, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3350.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–574 substituted "an office" for "a bureau".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §141, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1558, provided that: "This Act [this chapter] shall take effect upon enactment [Dec. 24, 1970]. Applications may be filed with the Secretary and held by him until the Office of Plant Variety Protection is organized and in operation".

#### Short Title of 1994 Amendment

Pub. L. 103–349, §1(a), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3136, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 2327, 2330, 2353, 2354, 2357, 2401, 2402, 2404, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2442, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2482, 2483, 2486, 2501, 2504, 2532, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2561, 2566, 2567, 2568, and 2570 of this title, repealing sections 2463, 2502 and 2503 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 2401 of this title] may be cited as the 'Plant Variety Protection Act Amendments of 1994'."

#### Short Title of 1992 Amendment

Pub. L. 102–560, §1, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4230, provided that: "This Act [enacting section 2570 of this title and section 296 of Title 35, Patents, amending section 2541 of this title and section 271 of Title 35, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 2541 of this title] may be cited as the 'Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act'."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §145, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1559, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter, section 1611 of this title, and sections 1545 and 2353 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, amending section 1562 of this title and sections 1338 and 1498 of Title 28, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] may be cited as the 'Plant Variety Protection Act'."
#### Alfred S. Gangloff et al., Respondents, v. Donald H. Brown, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying defendant’s motion for a new trial and to vacate the judgment in favor of plaintiff and restrain plaintiffs from proceeding on said judgment.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Iselin-Jefferson Financial Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Makel Textiles, Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 1.) Iselin-Jefferson Financial Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Makel Textiles, Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

Order, entered on or about January 6, 1964, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, defendant’s motion to consolidate the actions denied, plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the “ set-off and counterclaim” contained in defendant’s answer in Action No. 2 granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant in *759Action No. 2 in the sum of $110,299.26, with interest from September 1, 1963, and costs. The substance of the counterclaims which are in issue is that Textilfoam, Inc., furnished goods and services to defendant, that the latter paid the price thereof to plaintiff, a factor to whom Textilfoam had assigned the accounts receivable arising from the transactions, that the goods were defective and the services improperly performed, and that defendant is therefore entitled to a refund from plaintiff. *McMullen Leavens Co.*v. *Van Buskirk Co.*(275 App. Div. 701, affd. 299 N. Y. 784) and *Matter of Kaufman (Iselin & Co.)*(272 App. Div. 578) establish that defendant’s remedy is exclusively against Textilfoam, rather than against its assignee. The allegations that defendant’s payments were the result of a mistake are no more than a statement that defendant would not have paid for defective goods and services had it known of the defects — a circumstance present and deemed irrelevant in the cases cited. No inference that plaintiff knew or should have known of Textilfoam’s deficient performance can be drawn from the statement in the affidavit of defendant’s treasurer that plaintiff was aware of Textilfoam’s “ deteriorating financial condition.” Since liability for the full amount sued for in Action No. 2 is not denied, dismissal of the counterclaims requires entry of judgment in that action in favor of plaintiff and renders consolidation of the actions without purpose. Settle order on notice. Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §27b. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §725(g)(1)(A), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1694

Section, Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title IV, §404], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–459, related to exclusion of certain identified banking products offered by banks after Dec. 5, 2000.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle A (§§711–754) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle A, see section 754 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 1a of this title.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

SHIRLEY MACK on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL 

COMPANY, INC. f/k/A AMERICREDIT 

CORP., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-9008 

Judge Kim (by consent) 

JURY DEMANDED 

 

Report of Conference of Parties

I. Electronically Stored Information “ESI” 

(a) Whether they anticipate discovery of ESI in the case. 

The parties do anticipate discovery of ESI in this case. Plaintiff anticipates that 

defendant’s call records and perhaps alleged records of consent may be electronically stored. 

Plaintiff served a document preservation demand along with the complaint. 

(b) What agreements they have reached regarding discovery of ESI. 

 The parties have generally discussed ESI, but have not made any formal agreements 

regarding such. 

(c) What areas of disagreement they have with regard to discovery of ESI. 

II. Pre-Discovery Disclosures: The parties suggest that Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures be made 

by March 7, 20102. 

III. Discovery Plan. The parties jointly propose to the Court the following discovery plan: 

(a) Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: 

Plaintiff will need discovery regarding defendant’s predictive dialing practices 

and procedures, such as the handling of demands to stop calling, the class members’ 

Case: 1:11-cv-09008 Document #: 16 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:36
2 

identities and number of calls, the nature of defendant’s dialing equipment (if defendant 

contends its equipment is not regulated by the TCPA) and any defenses, including prior 

express consent. 

Defendant will need discovery from plaintiff regarding her claims, and her ability 

to be an adequate class representative. 

(b) All non-expert fact discovery to be completed by October 31, 2012. 

(c) The parties do not currently anticipate any variations in the default discovery limits. 

(d) Reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) due from the party with the burden 

of proof as to the matters in the report by August 30, 2012; response by September 30. All 

retained expert depositions to be completed by October 31, 2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Alexander H. Burke /s/ Howard L. Teplinsky 

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 729-5288 

(312) 729-5289 (fax) 

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

www.BurkeLawLLC.com

Howard L. Teplinsky - 6197501 

Beermann Pritikin Mirabelli Swerdlove LLP 

161 N. Clark Street, No 2650 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 621-9700 

(312) 621-0909 (fax) 

hteplinsky@beermannlaw.com

Chad Fuller 

Goodwin Procter, LLP 

4365 Executive Drive, 3rd Floor 

San Diego, CA 92121 

CFuller@goodwinprocter.com

Case: 1:11-cv-09008 Document #: 16 Filed: 02/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:37
122 STAT. 2484 PUBLIC LAW 110–266—JULY 15, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4140: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–515 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Jan. 28, considered and passed House. 

June 24, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–266 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Port Angeles Federal Building in Port Angeles, Washington, as 

the ‘‘Richard B. Anderson Federal Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RICHARD B. ANDERSON FEDERAL BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 138 West 

First Street, Port Angeles, Washington, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Richard B. Anderson Federal Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 

reference to the ‘‘Richard B. Anderson Federal Building’’. 

Approved July 15, 2008. 

July 15, 2008 

[H.R. 4140] 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 for the fiscal quarter
ending August 23, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Environmental Tectonics Corporation (the "Company") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Duane D. Deaner, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of
         the Company.



                                 /s/ Duane D. Deaner
                                 -------------------------------
                                 Duane D. Deaner
                                 Chief Financial Officer

                                 October 15, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Dwight Peart, Appellant.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.