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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 

JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD., AND ) 

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 -against- ) 12 C 1446 

 ) 

MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT ) Judge Norgle 

 ) 

& BERGHOFF LLP, AND JOHN DOE ) Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys 

NOS. 1-10, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants, ) 

 ) 

 -and- ) 

 ) 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND ) 

TRADEMARK OFFICE, ) 

 ) 

 Intervening Defendant and ) 

 Counterclaim Plaintiff. ) 

 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Plaintiffs, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. and American Institute of Physics (the 

"Publishers") respectfully submit this response to the motion of Defendant McDonnell 

Boehnen, Hulbert and Berghoff LLP ("McDonnell") for entry of a protective order. 

 The Publishers request that the Court enter the protective order annexed as 

Exhibit A. Unlike the protective order McDonnell has proposed, this proposed protective 

order would allow in-house counsel and employees of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. to review 

confidential material. These persons are identified by name in paragraph 4.b. of the 

proposed protective order, and are the decision makers for John Wiley & Sons Ltd., a 

Case: 1:12-cv-01446 Document #: 66 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:620
2 

wholly-owned subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a public company. Each person 

will agree to be bound by the term of this protective order. Unless they are allowed to 

review confidential material in this action, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. will be prejudiced. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Annette M. McGarry

Annette M. McGarry (#6205751) 

amm@mcgarryllc.com 

Marianne C. Holzhall (#6204057) 

mch@mcgarryllc.com 

McGarry & McGarry, LLC 

120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(312) 345-4600 

/s/ William Dunnegan

William Dunnegan (Pro Hac Vice) 

Laura Scileppi (Pro Hac Vice) 

Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC 

350 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10118 

(212) 332-8300 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01446 Document #: 66 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:621
3 

Certificate of Service

 The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Response To 

Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order was served via the ECF system on the 

following counsel of record on December 4, 2012: 

Barry F. Irwin, P.C. 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

300 North LaSalle Street 

Chicago, IL 60654 

Dale Cendali 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Jason M. Koransky 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

300 North LaSalle Street 

Chicago, IL 60654 

Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. 

MCDONNEL BOEHNEN 

 HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 

300 South Wacker Drive 

32nd Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Katherine E. Beaumont 

Assistant United States Attorney 

219 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

John Fargo 

Director, Intellectual Property Staff 

Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

 

 

 s/Annette M. McGarry

 Annette M, McGarry 

Case: 1:12-cv-01446 Document #: 66 Filed: 12/04/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:622
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 71 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily allow expensing 

of certain costs of replanting citrus plants lost by reason of casualty. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 9, 2017 

Mr. NELSON (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily 

allow expensing of certain costs of replanting citrus 

plants lost by reason of casualty. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Citrus Dis5 ease Response Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 71 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPENSING OF CERTAIN COSTS OF REPLANTING 

2 CITRUS PLANTS LOST BY REASON OF CAS3 UALTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 263A(d)(2) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) SPECIAL TEMPORARY RULE FOR CIT8 RUS PLANTS LOST BY REASON OF CASUALTY.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of the 

10 replanting of citrus plants, subparagraph 

11 (A) shall apply to amounts paid or in12 curred by a person (other than the tax13 payer described in subparagraph (A)) if— 

14 ‘‘(I) the taxpayer described in 

15 subparagraph (A) has an equity inter16 est of not less than 50 percent in the 

17 replanted citrus plants at all times 

18 during the taxable year in which such 

19 amounts were paid or incurred and 

20 such other person holds any part of 

21 the remaining equity interest, or 

22 ‘‘(II) such other person acquired 

23 the entirety of such taxpayer’s equity 

24 interest in the land on which the lost 

25 or damaged citrus plants were located 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 71 IS

1 at the time of such loss or damage, 

2 and the replanting is on such land. 

3 ‘‘(ii) TERMINATION.—Clause (i) shall 

4 not apply to any cost paid or incurred 

5 after the date which is 10 years after the 

6 date of the enactment of the Emergency 

7 Citrus Disease Response Act.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to costs paid or incurred after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Michael Eskenazi, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Irving Eskenazi, Respondent, v. City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

In a proceeding by an infant pursuant to statute (General Municipal Law, § 50-e, sufod. 5), for leave to serve a late notice of claim for damages for personal injury, the New York City Housing Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 29, 1964, which granted the application. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. The time of the infant to serve the notice of claim is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur; Christ, J., concurs for affirmance by reason of the majority holding of this court in *Matter of Pandoliano*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.*(17 A D 2d 951), but adheres to the views expressed by him in the dissenting opinion in that case and to the views expressed by the majority in *Matter of Goglas*v. *New York City Housing Auth. (13*A D 2d 939, affd. 11 N Y 2d 680).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 14, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 14, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0532. COURTNEY THOMAS v. MICHELLE MUSGROVE . Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 16CV0904
# FFEL

# Sheet1
#### Frances Starka, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Hellmuth Kalenscher, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff Frances Starka as a result of her fall down cellar stairs in the office of the defendant, a physician, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 2, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of said plaintiff. The said female plaintiff was in defendant’s office by reason of having accompanied her sick husband who had come to defendant for treatment. The husband’s cause of action for loss of services was discontinued at the trial by reason of his death prior thereto. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In the interests of justice a new trial is required for at least two reasons: (1) The charge to the jury bearing upon the issue of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was in part self-contradictory and confusing. (2) The plaintiff’s testimony, given through a Russion interpreter, was unclear and difficult to comprehend. The reason for this difficulty is disclosed by the record: The interpreter spoke to the plaintiff in Russian and she responded in the same language. She is a Lithuanian, however, and she spoke the Lithuanian language well but had limited knowledge of Russian and an equally limited capacity for comprehension and expression in that language. On the other hand, the interpreter spoke Russian well but had little or no knowledge of the Lithuanian language. The result, as indicated by the record, is that at critical times during the trial there was little rapport or mutual understanding between them and that, in consequence, it was difficult to frame proper questions or to obtain responsive answers. Under all the circumstances, a new trial should be had. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

●

● ●

●
### §239. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Aug. 19, 1950, ch. 759, 64 Stat. 464; Mar. 19, 1951, ch. 9, 65 Stat. 6, relating to admission of alien spouses and minor children of members of armed forces, expired by its own terms on Mar. 19, 1952.
#### 1501.105 Issuance.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 566 

To withdraw certain land in Okanogan County, Washington, to protect the 

land, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain land in Okanogan County, Washington, 

to protect the land, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Methow Headwaters 

5 Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. METHOW VALLEY, WASHINGTON, FEDERAL LAND 

7 WITHDRAWAL. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF MAP.—In this Act, the term 

9 ‘‘Map’’ means the Forest Service map entitled ‘‘Methow 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 566 IS

1 Headwaters Withdrawal Proposal Legislative Map’’ and 

2 dated May 24, 2016. 

3 (b) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid existing rights, 

4 the approximately 340,079 acres of Federal land and in5 terests in the land located in the Okanogan-Wenatchee 

6 National Forest within the area depicted on the Map as 

7 ‘‘Proposed Withdrawal’’ is withdrawn from all forms of— 

8 (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 

9 public land laws; 

10 (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

11 laws; and 

12 (3) disposition under the mineral leasing and 

13 geothermal leasing laws. 

14 (c) ACQUIRED LAND.—Any land or interest in land 

15 within the area depicted on the Map as ‘‘Proposed With16 drawal’’ that is acquired by the United States after the 

17 date of enactment of this Act shall, on acquisition, be im18 mediately withdrawn in accordance with this section. 

19 (d) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Map shall be kept 

20 on file and made available for public inspection in the ap21 propriate offices of the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

22 Land Management. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
162 So. 56

#### PEEPLES v. LAND.

No. 32976.

May 27, *1935.*

*501E. M. Heath, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Stirling Parkerson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

ODOM, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering defendant to pay alimony. Plaintiff sued her husband for separation from bed and board on June 7, 1933. Defendant excepted to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materi® and ratione person®. These exceptions were overruled and plaintiff answered, but the suit was never tried on its merits.

On April 9, 1934, plaintiff ruled her husband to show cause why he should not pay alimony pendente lite. Defendant again excepted to the jurisdiction of the court on the same grounds, which exceptions were also overruled. On April 26, 1934, defendant was ordered to pay his wife alimony in the sum of $100 per month “until the further orders of the court.” Defendant appealed from the judgment on the rule.

Pending the appeal, and before the suit for separation from bed and board was tried on its merits, defendant applied to this court for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition in the separation case, which were granted. It was held - that the exception to the jurisdiction of the court ratione materi® was well founded, and it was maintained. Plaintiff’s suit for separation was dismissed. Peeples v. Land, 181 La. 925, 160 So. 631.

The holding in that case disposes of the issue involved in this one. As the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for separation, it had none to entertain the rule for alimony.

For the reasons assigned in Peeples v. Land, supra, it is now ordered that the judgment of the trial court overruling the exception to the jurisdiction ratione materi® filed in the rule for alimony be reversed, and that the rule be dismissed, at plaintiff’s costs.

LAND, J., recused.
### §511g. Placing of grade on warehouse tickets, etc.; form

Warehousemen shall provide space on warehouse tickets or other tags or labels used by them for showing the grade of the lot covered thereby as determined by an authorized tobacco inspector under this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe, by regulation, the form in which such certification of grade shall be shown, and may require that a copy of such warehouse ticket, tag, or label shall be furnished to the Secretary.

(Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 623, §8, 49 Stat. 733.)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Andrew P. Blocher, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |                                                                                                          
|------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|June 25, 2009 |  | /s/ Andrew P. Blocher                                                                                    
|              |  | Andrew P. Blocher,                                                                                       
|              |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)
```

[Federal Register: June 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 113)]
[Notices]               
[Page 33613-33614]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jn10-48]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

 
Notice of the Carbon Sequestration--Geothermal Energy--Science 
Joint Workshop

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of the Carbon Sequestration--Geothermal Energy--Science 
Joint Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The DOE Geothermal Technologies Program, Office of Science-
Geosciences Program and Office of Fossil Energy-Carbon Sequestration 
Program will be holding a joint workshop on Common Research Themes for 
Carbon Storage and Geothermal Energy, June 15-16, 2010. Experts from 
industry, academia, national labs, and State and Federal geological 
surveys will discuss geosciences research needs for subsurface 
reservoir characterization, development, and management. The resulting 
report will provide the collaborating offices with information key to 
coordinating high priority research in common areas. Further 
information, including the final report, when available, can be found 
on the Geothermal Technologies Program Web site--http://www.geothermal.energy.gov.

DATES: The Carbon Sequestration--Geothermal Energy--Science Joint 
Workshop will be held June 15, 2010, from 7:30 a.m.-7:30 p.m. EDT and 
June 16, 2010, from 7:30 a.m.-7:30 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: The Carbon Sequestration--Geothermal Energy--Science Joint 
Workshop Conference will be held at the Hilton Washington, DC/Rockville 
Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, in Rockville, MD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison LaBonte, AAAS Science and 
Technology Policy Fellow, via e-mail at alison.labonte@ee.doe.gov. 
Further information on DOE's Geothermal

[[Page 33614]]

Technologies Program can be viewed at http://www.geothermal.energy.gov/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Advance registration is required. If you 
would like to register, please contact Lee-Ann Talley via e-mail at 
Lee-Ann.Talley@orise.orau.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2010.
Steven Chalk,
Chief Operating Officer, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-14257 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
### §612c–1. Authorization for appropriations to increase domestic consumption of surplus farm commodities

On and after December 30, 1963, such sums (not in excess of $25,000,000 in any one year) as may be approved by the Congress shall be available for the purpose of increasing domestic consumption of any farm commodity or farm commodities determined by the Secretary of Agriculture to be in surplus supply, such authorization not to restrict authority in existing law, of which amount $11,000,000 shall remain available until expended for construction and equipping of research facilities determined to be needed as a result of a special survey.

(Pub. L. 88–250, title I, §101, Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 826.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which comprises this chapter.
#### 1426.7103-1 Statutory basis.

Paragraph 105 of CERCLA requires the President of the United States to consider the availability of qualified minority business enterprises in awarding contracts under the Act and report annually to Congress on the extent of such awards, including the efforts made to encourage the participation of such firms in programs carried out under the act. The Environmental Protection Agency has delegated responsibility for preparing the report, which includes contracts for Superfund hazardous waste clean-up awarded by other agencies.
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

Raymond J. Carey v Foley & Lardner LLP 

DocketNo. 321207 

LC No. 13-013005-CK 

Amy Ronayne Krause 

Presiding Judge 

Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

Cynthia Diane Stephens 

Judges 

The Court orders that the Plaintiff-Appellee's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

The Court orders that the Defendant-Appellant's motion for reconsideration is 

GRANTED, and this Court's opinion issued March 15, 20 16, is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is 

attached to this order. 

Gleicher J. concurs with denial of plaintiff motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs request for 

reconsideration centers on the contention that Wisconsin law, rather than Michigan law, governs his 

contract. This choice of law question was not raised on appeal and in my v iew plaintiff has waived this 

issue. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

AUG 0 9 2016 

Date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Flores, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 19, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed the record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Evans and Lupiano, JJ.
### §415b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 17, 1928, ch. 602, §1, 45 Stat. 593, authorized appropriations of funds for purposes of former section 415c of this title, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
#### In the Matter of Donald D. Harrington, Respondent, v. Alleghany Corporation, Appellant, and Chemical Bank New York Trust Company, Respondent.

Order entered on December 14, 1960, granting petitioner’s application for an order directing respondent-appellant and its transfer agent, Chemical Bank New York Trust Company, to furnish him with copies of the stock list of respondent-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Consultation on Proposed Navajo Generating Station BART Determination

Monday, August 27, 2012   

12:30 PM ‐  2:00 PM

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality  

1110 W. Washington St., Phoenix AZ. 85007

Room 3175 A and B

      

AGENDA

I. Introductions  

II. Brief Background including Multi‐Agency Discussions

III. NGS Proposal   

IV. Proposal Process and Tribal Participation  

V. Adjourn

Additional Federal Agency Representation:

 US Department of Interior
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Federal Screw Works (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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




                                    /s/ Thomas ZurSchmiede
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and
                                    Chief Executive Officer of
                                    Federal Screw Works

Dated: November 12, 2004