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

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
v. No. 12 CR 166
) Judge Gary Feinerman
MUSTAFA MOHD SHAIKH }

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Upon the government’s agreed motion for a protective order, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:

1. All materials produced by the government in preparation for, or in connection with,
any stage of the proceedings in this case (and all copies of such materials) may be utilized by the
defendant and his counsel solely in connection with the defense of this case and for no other purpose
and in connection with no other proceeding. The materials and any of their contents shall not be
disclosed either directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than the defendant, defendant’s
counsel, persons assisting in the defense, persons who are interviewed or consulted during the course
of the investigation of this case or such other persons as to whom the Court may authorize
disclosure. Any notes or records of any kind that defense counsel or the defendant may make
relating to the contents of materials provided by the government shall not be disclosed to anyone
other than the defendant’s counsel, and persons employed to assist the defense, or such other person
as to whom the Court may authorize disclosure, and all such notes and records shall not be disclosed
except as provided by this Order.

2. The materials shall not be copied or reproduced except so as to provide copies of the

material for the use by each defense lawyer and defendant and such persons as are employed by them



to assist in the defense and such copies and reproductions shall be treated in the same manner as the
original matter.

3. Defendant’s counsel may provide copies of the materials to the defendant. However,
the defendant may not photocopy any of these materials, and may not share or disclose the materials
or any verbatim contents of those materials except as provided by the first paragraph of this Order.
Upon conclusion of the trial or the earlier resolution of charges against the defendant, defendant shall
return all such materials to his attorneys.

4, The restrictions set forth in this order do not apply to documents that are public
record, including but not limited to, trial transcripts, documents that have been received in evidence
at other trials, or documents that are otherwise in the public domain.

5. Intentional violation of this Order is punishable as a contempt, and may result in the
imposition of civil and criminal sanctions. However, nothing contained in this protective order shall
preclude any party from applying to the Court for further relief or for modification of any provision
hereof.

fa

bof penn
PT ~

Hon. GARY FEINERMAN
United States District Judge

f
ame

“p . 2 v
dN i. 20}

DATE
1532.006-3 Responsibilities. ( a ) EPA shall use the procedures in FAR 32.006-4 when determining whether to reduce or suspend further payments to a contractor when there is a report from the Remedy Coordination Official finding substantial evidence that the contractor's request for advance, partial or progress payments is based on fraud and recommending that the Agency reduce or suspend such payments to the contractor.
( b ) [Reserved]
[65 FR 37292, June 14, 2000]
1837.110-70 NASA solicitation provision and contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-70, Emergency Evacuation Procedures, in solicitations and contracts for on-site support services where emergency evacuations of the NASA installation may occur, e.g., snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or other emergencies.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.237-71, Pension Portability, in solicitations, contracts or negotiated contract modifications for additional work when the procurement officer makes the determination in 1837.170(a)(2).
[62 FR 4472, Jan. 30, 1997, as amended at 62 FR 36721, July 9, 1997; 62 FR 58688, Oct. 30, 1997]
1602.170-16 Large Provider Agreement. ( a ) *Large Provider Agreement* means an agreement between— ( 1 ) An FEHB carrier, at least 25 percent of which total contracts are FEHB enrollee contracts, and
( 2 ) A vendor of services or supplies such as mail order pharmacy services, pharmacy benefit management services, mental health and/or substance abuse management services, preferred provider organization services, utilization review services, and/or large case or disease management services. This representative list includes organizations that own or contract with direct providers of healthcare or supplies, or organizations that process claims or manage patient care. A hospital is not considered to be a vendor for purposes of this chapter. ( i ) Where the total costs charged to the FEHB carrier for a contract term for FEHB members, including benefits and services, are reasonably expected to exceed 5 percent of the carrier's total FEHB benefits costs, or
( ii ) Where the total administrative costs charged to the FEHB carrier for the contract term for FEHB members are reasonably expected to exceed 5 percent of the carrier's total FEHB administrative costs (applicable to agreements where the provider is not responsible for FEHB benefits costs).
( 3 ) As used in this section, the term “carrier” does not include local health plans that serve under an umbrella arrangement with an FEHB carrier.
( b ) The FEHB Program Annual Accounting Statement for the FEHB Plan for the prior contract year will be used to determine the 5 percent threshold under Large Provider Agreements.
( c ) Large Provider Agreements based on cost analysis are subject to the provisions of FAR 52.215-2, “Audit and Records-Negotiation.”
( d ) Large Provider Agreements based on price analysis are subject to the provisions of 48 CFR 1646.301 and 1652.246-70.
[70 FR 31379, June 1, 2005. Redesignated at 76 FR 38285, June 29, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-KSB of American Metals Service,  Inc. for the year ended August 31, 1996
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000319016
<NAME>                        AMERICAN METALS SERVICE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         2,090
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,090
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       20
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,090
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  81
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                54
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            54
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   54
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### Easton Langham, Respondent, v. H. K. Porter Co., Inc., Respondent. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, the Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., a witness (which is not a party to the action), appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 17, 1962, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order, dated August 9, 1962, and which directed it: (a) to submit as a witness to pretrial examination by the defendant; and (b) to permit the respective parties to the action to discover, inspect and photograph the crane involved in the accident together with its cable and other appurtenances, and to take and test certain portions of the cable. Order of September 17, 1962 modified by adding a provision directing that, within 20 days after the discovery and inspection shall have been had, the defendant shall furnish to the appellant and to the plaintiff copies of the reports and photographs made by its (defendant’s) experts. As so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs. The pretrial examination and the discovery and inspection shall proceed at the witness’ plant on 10 days’ written notice or at such other time and place as the parties may mutually stipulate. In the court below the witness, in effect, consented to the examination and to the discovery and inspection, provided that defendant shall furnish it with a copy of its expert’s report. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1631.205-10 Cost of money.

For the purposes of FAR 31.205-10(b)(3), the estimated facilities capital cost of money is specifically identified if it is identified in the prior year's Annual Accounting Statement or, for new experience-rated carriers, the supplemental information supporting submitted costs (such as the Supplemental Schedule of Administrative Expenses).

[70 FR 31391, June 1, 2005]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Nick Pearson, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07972

Honorable James B. Zagel

Target Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, May 16, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: Motion hearing held. Plaintiffs'

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement [74] is granted. The Court provisionally

certifies the Settlement Class. Leave is granted to answer the second amended complaint.

Fairness hearing set for 9/4/13 at 11:00 a.m. Mailed notice(ep, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 83 Filed: 05/16/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:601
Mr. Ramie H. Griffin Opinion ~No. WW-737 

CFimin&District Attorney 

Beaumont, Texas Re: Whether a sheriff receiving 

notificatiooby letter from 

another law enforcement officer that there is a warrant 

outstanding for a certain 

person, has ~authority to arrest said person ,before he 

receives the outstanding warrant or before it is .trahsmitted to him by telegram as 

provided in ArtideS 225, 227, 

Dear Mr. Griffin: 228, and 229, C.C.P. 

You ask the following question: 

"If the Sheriff of Jefferson ,County receives 

notification by letter from the Sheriff of another 

County, or any other law enforcement agency, in 

another County, in the State of Texas, that there 

is a warrant outstanding for a certain person (giving the warrant number,,and description.of the of- 

,fense),,does the Sheriffof Jefferson County have 

authority to.arrest the person described in such 

notice,before he receives the outstanding warrant 

or before the warrant is transmitted to him by 

telegraph~asprovided in Articles 225, 227, 228 

and 229, c.c.P.V 

There are two types of arrests, arrest under a warrant and,&- 

rest without a warrant. Your question and this opinion are only concerned 

with an attempted arrest under a warrant. 

Article 243, Texas Code of CriminalProcedure reads as follows: 

'3 executing a warrant of arrest, it shall always be made knownto the accused under what authority the arrest is made; and, if requested, the warrant 

shall be exhibited to him. O.C. 231 (Emphasis added) 

The Court of Criminal Appeals, in Cartes v. State, 161 S.W.2d 495, 

498 (19421, said of this provision: 
Mr. Rainie H. Griffin, Page 2. (WW-737) 

"It occurs to us ,that where the evidence fails 

to show that this provision of said article was 

complied with, the presumption obtaihs that the arrest was illegal; . . .' 

Unless the arresting officer,can produce evidence that he complied with Article 243, the arrest ~~111 be presumed illegal. The officer 

must have awarrant with him at the time he mkes the arrest. Mere notification ,that a warrant sexists is not sufficient as the arresting officer 

cannot then meet the requirements of Art. 243, Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. 

SUMMARY 

A sheriff receiving notificatiohby letter 

from another law enforcement officer that 

there is a warrant outstand.ing for a certain person, has no authority to arrest 

said person under that warrant before he 

receives the outstanding warrant or before 

it is transmitted to him by telegram as 

provided in Articles 225, 227, 228,and 229, 

C.C.P. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WIISON 

.Attorney General of Texas 

Cecil Cammack, Jr. 

Assistant 

CC:aw 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMlTl'ER: 

Riley Eugene Fletcher, Chairman 

Marvin Brown 

Charles D. Cabsniss 

Iola.Wilcox 

Robert Walls 

RRVIRWED FORTREAlTORNEX GENERAL 

BY: 

W.V. Geppert
# December 2022 FOIA Log
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Nick Pearson, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07972

Honorable James B. Zagel

Target Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, October 4, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James B. Zagel: In court hearing and motion

hearing held. Further hearing set for 11/20/13 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(ep, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 136 Filed: 10/04/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2808
#### Anthony Esposito, Respondent, v. Elizabeth Brien, Appellant, and Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Intervenor-Appellant.

Order of Appellate Term, entered on November 17, 1960, affirming final order in favor of landlord in summary proceeding in the Municipal Court, unanimously reversed, on the law, and final order directed to be entered in favor of tenant dismissing the petition, without costs. The “ escalator clause ” in the lease provided: *“*The tenant further agrees to pay as additional rent such amount as may be fixed by order of the Temporary State Housing Rent Commission for increased services or equipment, pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Rent and Eviction Regulations.” The- Rent Administrator never approved a rent increase for increased services or equipment with respect to an apartment subject to an unexpired valid lease. Consequently, the provision of the lease providing for escalation did not become operative. An unconditional increase authorized by the Rent Administrator might have invoked the operation of the clause. Settle order on notice. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6729-6730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01276]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11330]

Notice of Department of State Sanctions Actions on Hong Kong 
Normalization

SUMMARY: The Secretary of State has imposed sanctions on fourteen 
individuals pursuant to Executive Order 13936, the President's 
Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization.

DATES: The Secretary of State's determination regarding the fourteen 
individuals identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section was 
effective on December 7, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Ruggles, Director, Office of 
Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: 
(202) 647-7677, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 4(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 
13936 the

[[Page 6730]]

Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, 
or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State may authorize blocking of all property or interests in property 
that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United 
States, or that are in or hereafter come within the possession or 
control of any United States person, of any foreign person upon 
determining that the person is or has been a leader or official of any 
entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose 
members have engaged in, developing, adopting, or implementing the Law 
of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in 
the Hong Kong Administrative Region (the ``National Security Law'').
    The Secretary of State has determined, pursuant to section 
4(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13936, that Wang Chen, Cao Jianming, Zhang 
Chunxian, Shen Yueyue, Ji Bingxuan, Arken Imirbaki, Wan Exiang, Chen 
Du, Wang Dongming, Padma Choling, Ding Zhongli, Hao Mingjin, Cai 
Dafeng, and Wu Weihua, are or have been leaders or officials of an 
entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose 
members have engaged in, developing, adopting, or implementing, the 
National Security Law, and has approved the Department of Treasury 
adding them to the Specially Designated and Blocked Persons List (SDN 
List). All property and interests in property subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction of these individuals are blocked, and U.S. persons are 
generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

Peter Haas,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-01276 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AE-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01342]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice: Cancellation of Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  86 FR 2415, 
January 12, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: January 15, 2021 at 
1:00 p.m. ET.
SUMMARY: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is issuing this 
notice to cancel the audio-only conference scheduled to be held at 1:00 
p.m. on January 15, 2021.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Rachel V. See, Acting Executive 
Officer, (202) 921-2545.

    Dated: January 15, 2021.
Rachel V. See,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2021-01342 Filed 1-15-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ) 

ARCHITECTURAL METAL ) 

AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL ) 

UNION NO. 27 WELFARE AND ) 

PENSION FUNDS, ) No. 11 C 7777 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Gettleman 

 ) 

 v. ) Magistrate Judge Cole 

 ) 

MGM GLASS, INC., ) 

an Illinois Corporation, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN SUM CERTAIN

 NOW COME the Plaintiffs, TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, ARCHITECTURAL 

METAL AND GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 27 WELFARE AND PENSION 

FUNDS, by and through their attorneys, and, in their Motion for Judgment in Sum Certain, state 

as follows: 

 1. On November 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant seeking 

an ERISA fringe benefit contribution audit, and judgment for any amounts determined to be due 

under the audit; 

 2. Plaintiffs’ auditor has completed his audit of Defendant, and determined the 

following amounts to be due: 

 a. $15,435.20 to the Pension Fund; 

 b. $23,563.20 to the Welfare Fund; 

 c. $1,435.20 to the Apprenticeship Fund; 

 d. $296.00 to the S.T.A.R. Fund; 

 e. $104.00 to the Local Political Committee; 

 f. $1,611.20 in Union dues; 

g. $630.00 in audit costs. See Ex. A. 
3. Defendant’s Collective Bargaining Agreement mandates the assessment of 

fifteen percent liquidated damages on delinquent contributions, which in this case total 

$6,382.32. 

 4. Defendant further owes Plaintiffs $627.26 in prior late payment assessments for 

the months of March 2010 and July 2011, and $296.00 for a discrepancy from July 2011. 

5. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter total $7,100.00. See Ex. B. 

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs pray for: 

A. The entry of judgment for Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of 

$57,584.38; 

B. Any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZIERS, 

 ARCHIECTURAL METAL AND 

 GLASS WORKERS LOCAL UNION 

 NO. 27 WELFARE AND 

 PENSION FUNDS 

 By: s/Andrew S. Pigott 

One of their Attorneys 

Donald D. Schwartz 

Andrew S. Pigott 

ARNOLD AND KADJAN 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1650 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(312) 236-0415
**U.S. Department of Education**

**Negotiated Rulemaking**

**1990 K St., NW, 8th Floor Conference Center**

**Washington, D.C.**

**Team III – Accreditation**

**March 4, 2009, 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm**

**March 5 & 6, 2009, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm**

**Agenda***

**Welcome**

**Introductions**

**Overview of the Negotiated Rulemaking Process**

**Review and Adopt Protocols**

# Petitions for Membership

**Overview of the Accreditation Issues**

**Review Agenda of Issues to be Negotiated**

**Workshop-Style Review of Issues**

1. Definitions of Distance Education and Correspondence Education 

2. Accreditation Team Members 

3. Student Achievement Standard

4. Operating Procedures – Transfer of Credit

5. Operating Procedures – Teach-out Plan Approval

6. Definition of Recognition

7. Demonstration of Compliance Within 12 Months and Recognition When Not

Fully Compliant

8. Recognition Procedures – Subparts C & D

9. Direct Assessment Program Definition

10. Distance Education and Correspondence Education

11. Monitoring of Institutions and Programs Throughout Period

12. Operating Procedures – Growth Monitoring

13. Substantive Change

14. Record Keeping and Confidentiality

15. Due Process and Appeals

16. Operating Procedures – Summary of Agency Actions

# Logistics

# Schedule of future meetings

# Identify additional information needs

**Next Steps**

Draft Regulatory Text

Agenda for Meeting 2: April 21 – 23, 2009

Meeting Summary

Other

*  Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting.

2/18/2009