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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

PACIFIC CENTURY ) 

INTERNATIONAL, LTD., ) CASE NO. 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge: 

 v. ) Magistrate: 

 ) 

JOHN DOE, ) [Case pending in the U.S. District Court 

 ) for the Eastern District of California, 

 Defendant. ) No.2:11-CV-03479] 

 ) 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA 

Plaintiff PACIFIC CENTURY INTERNATIONAL, LTD. respectfully moves this Court, 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c)(2)(B), to enter an Order directing 

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC (“Comcast”) to comply with the subpoena 

duces tecum issued January 20, 2012, and to produce documents or information described therein 

in the matter captioned above and pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. Plaintiff seeks to obtain identifying information associated with internet service 

account subscribers including name, current (and permanent) address, telephone number, e-mail 

address, and Media Access Control address pursuant to lawful subpoenas issued to Comcast and 

served on January 24, 2012. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2, after consultation by telephone and good faith attempts to 

resolve differences, the parties resolved one objection by Comcast. The undersigned counsel for 

Pacific Century International, Ltd. and John D. Seiver, counsel for Comcast held a telephone 

consultation on February 13, 2012 at or around 3:00 p.m. Good faith attempts by the parties were 

Case: 1:12-cv-01088 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1
able to resolve one of the objections raised by Comcast, but the parties were unable to reach an 

accord on the remaining objections.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an order compelling Comcast to comply 

with the subpoena.

Respectfully submitted, 

PACIFIC CENTURY INTERNATIONAL, LTD. 

DATED: February 15, 2012 

 

By: /s/ Paul Duffy 

 Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

 Prenda Law Inc. 

 161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200 

 Chicago, IL 60601 

 Telephone: (312) 880-9160 

 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677 

 E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01088 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 15, 2012, copies of the foregoing 

document were served via First Class Mail, Postage Paid to: 

 John D. Seiver 

 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

 Suite 800 

 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

 Washington, D.C. 20006-3401 

 Attorney for Comcast Cable Communications LLC 

 

 By: /s/ Paul Duffy 

 Paul Duffy 

Case: 1:12-cv-01088 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3
| **Exhibit                32**  **Certification                of****Chief                Executive Officer****and                Chief Financial Officer****Securities                Exchange Act Rules 13(a) and 15(d)****As                Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**  In                connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Metwood, Inc.                (“the                Company”) for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2006, as filed                with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the                Report”), each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief                Financial Officer of the Company certifies, to the best knowledge                and                belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.   |

| Date:                May 5, 2006 |   | */s/                Robert M. Callahan*Robert                M. CallahanChief                Executive Officer |
|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 5, 2006 |   | */s/                Shawn Callahan*Shawn                CallahanChief                Financial Officer |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1246.101-70 Additional definitions. As used in this subpart— *At no additional cost to the Government* means at no increase in price for firm-fixed-price contracts, at no increase in target or ceiling price for fixed price incentive contracts (*see* FAR 46.707), or at no increase in estimated cost or fee for cost-reimbursement contracts.
*Defect* means any condition or characteristic in any supplies or services furnished by the contractor under the contract that is not in compliance with the requirements of the contract.
*Major acquisition* means an acquisition or for supplies or services that requires submission of an OMB Exhibit 300 (Capital Asset Plan/Business Case) in accordance with OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, and for information technology or information technology related acquisitions, compliance with the Department Chief Information Officer (CIO) Policy (CIOP). A major acquisition typically has one or more of the following characteristics— ( 1 ) Life-cycle costs of $150 million or more;
( 2 ) Is a financial system, e-gov system, or e-business system with a life-cycle cost of $500,000 or more; or
( 3 ) An acquisition that does not meet the dollar thresholds of paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition but— ( i ) Is mission-critical;
( ii ) Requires special management attention because of its importance to an OA mission;
( iii ) Plays a significant role in the administration of OA programs, processes or other resources; or
( iv ) Directly supports the President's Management Agenda.
*Performance requirements* means the operating capabilities, maintenance, and reliability characteristics of a system that are determined to be necessary for it to fulfill the requirement for which the system is designed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11301]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation. I also conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the following are additional aliases of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases): ISIS-Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham—Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham—Sinai Province, ISIS-SP, and Wilayat Sayna.

Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained. Additionally, pursuant to Section 219(b) of the INA, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(b)), I hereby amend the designation of the aforementioned organization (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization to include the following new aliases: ISIS-Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham—Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham—Sinai Province, ISIS-SP, and Wilayat Sayna.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 22, 2020.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00600 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,158,245
<SECURITIES>                                   707,008
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,269,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,659,230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,224,191
<PP&E>                                       3,410,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,676,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,795,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       504,979
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,676,595
<SALES>                                      3,298,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,298,980
<CGS>                                        2,884,391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,884,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               493,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,596
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,596
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       39,596
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALWANNA KNIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 11

)

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alwanna Knight (“Knight”) has filed a document that she captions: MOTON [sic] FOR

RECONSIDERATION VACATE ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT DUE TO ERROR, AND

OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF CASE BEFORE THE COURT, RESET HEARING DATE,

APPOINT COUNSEL. Unfortunately Knight has again failed to understand the basis for this

Court’s actions in her case. This Court had no knowledge whatever of the litigation involving

her godson Joe Louis Lawrence, who appeared in her absence at the scheduled May 16 1

hearing, and a copy of whose filing in the Court of Appeals she has attached as Group Ex. A to

her current filing. Instead this Court’s references to Knight’s lawsuit, both before and during the

May 16 hearing, have always been reflective of her submissions in this action.

To avoid having to reinvent the wheel, this Court attaches copies of its January 5 and

February 1 memorandum orders and its March 5 memorandum, all entered in this action. It is

Knight’s own initial filing that failed the requirement of the assertion of a non-frivolous claim (in

the legal sense) that is a precondition to the granting of in forma pauperis treatment under

Seventh Circuit law. This Court did not order Knight to pay the $350 filing fee as she asserts –

Indeed, this Court was unaware of the godson relationship until it received Knight’s current 1

filing.
it is rather that this Court applied this Circuit’s principle that in the absence of a grant of in forma

pauperis status a plaintiff can proceed with litigation only upon such a payment.

Meanwhile, on March 22 the Court of Appeals dismissed Knight’s attempted appeal for

nonpayment of the required docketing fee, eliminating any jurisdictional block to this Court’s

jurisdiction. This memorandum order therefore turns to Knight’s most recent filing.

As before, Knight’s current submission is littered with assertions and arguments that are

wholly beside the mark. Because she has not shown any rational ground for reconsideration,

Knight’s motion for reinstatement of her Complaint and for reconsideration of her motion for

appointment of counsel are denied. And because she has made no effort toward payment of

the filing fee in this District Court, this action is dismissed (as the January 5 memorandum order

had warned.)

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 30, 2012

2
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Annual Reports provide summary statistics, by principal office, of the activities conducted in the administration of the FOIA Program. 

#### 2023 Report

                - Chief FOIA Officer Report  PDF  (775KB)

#### 2022 Report

                - Annual FOIA Officer's Report  PDF  (922K) |  XML  (826KB) |  XLSX  (raw data) (443KB)
                - Chief FOIA Officer Report  PDF  (774KB)

#### 2021 Report

                - Annual FOIA Report  PDF  (1,200KB) |  XML  (833KB) |  XLSX  (raw data) (444KB) 
                - Chief FOIA Officer's Report  PDF  (743K)

#### 2020 Report

                - Annual FOIA Report  PDF  (1.4MB) |  XML  (863KB) |  XLSX  (raw data) (444KB) 
                - Chief FOIA Officer's Report  PDF  (752K)

#### 2019 Report

                - Annual FOIA Report  PDF  (2MB) |  XML  (827KB) |  XLSX  (raw data) (498KB) 
                - Chief FOIA Officer's Report  PDF  (428K)

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
Exhibit
32.1





Provectus
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


Section
906 Certifications








Pursuant
to 18
U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  enacted  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-204), the undersigned, H. Craig Dees,
Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Provectus
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and
Peter R. Culpepper, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
that:





1.   The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.





This Certification is signed on March
30, 2009.








/s/ H. Craig
Dees


H. Craig Dees, Ph.D.


Chief
Executive Officer


Provectus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.





/s/
Peter R. Culpepper


Peter R. Culpepper


Chief Financial Officer and


Chief Operating Officer


Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Provectus
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### In the Matter of Brooklyn Bar Association, Petitioner, v. Louis Fried, Respondent.

Application by respondent to vacate an order of this court, made January 10, 1936, which struck his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law. Application denied. Respondent now contends that since the Federal crime of which he was convicted did not in fact constitute a felony under the laws of the State of Hew York, this court lacked jurisdiction to render its 1936 order disbarring him without a hearing (see 246 App. Div. 817). Respondent’s contention must be rejected. It cannot be disputed that respondent was afforded every opportunity to request a hearing; that he defaulted in making such request; and that he never moved to open his default. Under the circumstances, it must be held that respondent has waived his right to a hearing—now belatedly asserted 28 years later. In any event, respondent did in fact have a plenary hearing. It appears that on a prior application by respondent for reinstatement he was accorded such a hearing before an Official Referee upon the issue as to whether, in the light of his entire course of conduct, including the crime for which he was convicted in the Federal court and his conduct subsequent to his conviction, he possessed the requisite character and fitness to be an attorney and counselor at law. After extensive hearings the Referee found that respondent did not possess such character because he had committed acts involving moral turpitude. After review, we confirmed the Referee’s finding and denied the application for reinstatement *(Matter of Fried,*14 A D 2d 920). Such application was denied in 1961. In any event, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by now according to the respondent a hearing *de novo.*Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 685

)

LANDSTAR RANGER, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Following the recent removal of this action from the Circuit

Court of Cook County to this District Court, this Court both

(1) issued a February 2 memorandum order requiring codefendant

Landstar Ranger, Inc. to correct errors in its responsive

pleading and (2) set a February 27 initial status hearing date.1

Now the other codefendant, J. Attarian Trucking Co.

(“Attarian”), has noticed up for that February 27 date its motion

to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”)

12(b)(6). Because that motion reflects a misconception of the

federal concept of a “claim,” this Court denies it and will

retain the February 27 status hearing date.

Attarian’s counsel peg their motion on the preemptive force

of the Carmack Amendment (49 U.S.C. §14706) as fatal to common

law causes of action such as Count I, in which plaintiff Ocean

 With removed cases, because it is unnecessary to allow 1

time for service of process and for the filing of responsive

pleadings (as is needed in cases originally brought in the

District Court), this Court customarily sets a much earlier

status hearing than in the parenthetically-described situation.
Beauty Seafoods, LLC (“Ocean Beauty”) asserts a breach of

contract, and Count II, which sounds in negligence. But there’s

the rub--those contentions are indeed “causes of action,” as

might have been expected of a Complaint filed in the state court

system as this one was.

Federal practice, however, does not follow the “cause of

action” model, which includes a theory of recovery as part of

what a plaintiff must plead. It must be remembered that 2

Rule 12(b)(6) speaks in terms of “failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted” (emphasis added)--and on that score

this Court commends to counsel a reading of Judge Easterbrook’s

pellucid opinion in NAACP v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d

287, 291-93 (7th Cir. 1992).3

What the matter boils down to is that if Ocean Beauty has a

claim against Landstar or Attarian or both under the Carmack

Amendment, it retains its place here in the federal court system. 

To be sure, its counsel will have to reframe the language of the

Complaint if Attarian’s total preemption point is correct, but

the congeries of facts alleged in the Complaint appears to state

a Carmack Amendment claim (Attarian’s motion gives no indication,

 Unsurprisingly, Attarian’s lawyer consistently employs 2

the incorrect “cause of action” vocabulary throughout the current

motion.

 That opinion is far from alone in making the distinction 3

spoken of here. It is simply, in this Court’s view, the most

articulate.

2
and this Court expresses no view, as to the possible existence of

any flaw in a claim under the Carmack Amendment). In the

interim, then, Attarian’s motion is denied.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 9, 2012

3
### §7490. Regulations

The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §581, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1083.)
#### 14.408 Award.