alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2334

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −3)

On April 16, 2012, the Panel transferred 3 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2012). Since that time, 5 additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable Joan B Gottschall.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to

Judge Gottschall.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of April 16, 2012, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joan B Gottschall.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:151
IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2334

SCHEDULE CTO−3 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

MINNESOTA

MN 0 12−01309 Reyes v. JTH Holding, Inc. et al

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:152
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 12 CR 165

) Judge Amy J. St. Eve

)

MOHAB DARALQADI )

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.

Hon. AMY J. ST. EVE

United States District Judge

September 10, 2012

DATE
Exhibit 10.2
                                  ------------

                     AMERICAN BINGO ANNOUNCES TEXAS CONTRACT
                     ---------------------------------------

     American Bingo & Gaming  Corporation  (NASDAQ Sm Cap - BNGO) announces that
it has  entered  into a  contract - through  wholly  owned  subsidiaries  - with
Prepaid Elite,  LLP of Austin,  Texas to provide phone card dispensing  machines
with a sweepstakes promotional game at all of its eleven bingo halls in Texas.

     Prepaid  Elite  is  responsible for providing all machines, installation of
the  machines,  maintenance  and  servicing of all machines.  Prepaid Elite paid
American  Bingo  a  $100,000 non-refundable security deposit as a credit against
future  earnings  for  American  Bingo  and its wholly owned subsidiaries.  This
amount is an approximation of the quarterly earnings estimated to be received by
American  Bingo's  wholly  owned  subsidiaries.

     In  making this decision, American Bingo relied upon the representations of
Prepaid  Elite  and  an  opinion issued by the State of Texas Attorney General's
Office opining as to the legality of this type of machine in the State of Texas.
American  Bingo  has  an  option  to  acquire  these  machines  at  any  time.

     In  commenting  upon  the  new agreement, Jeffrey L Minch, the President of
American  Bingo  said:

     "THE NEW  CONTRACT  WITH  PREPAID  ELITE WILL BE  PROFITABLE  FOR  AMERICAN
     BINGO'S WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES.  WE EXPECT TO SHARE THIS REVENUE IN PART
     WITH OUR CHARITY PARTNERS."

     American  Bingo  is  engaged in the development and operation of charitable
bingo  halls.  Qualified  charities  are  able  to  fund  their worthy causes by
offering  consumers entertainment in the form of bingo games - subject to strict
regulatory  oversight  -  for which the charities pay rent to American Bingo for
the  use  of  the  facility subject to long standing leases.  American Bingo has
relationships  with  over  60  such  charities.

     Charities playing in American Bingo halls received approximately $3,200,000
in  1999  to  fund  their  noble  causes.


                                        6
<PAGE>
     American  Bingo  is  the  only  public  company attempting to strategically
consolidate  this  $12,000,000,000  arcane,  niche industry and is currently the
largest  public  company  operating charitable bingo halls in the United States.
American  Bingo  operates  twenty  (20)  bingo halls in Texas, Alabama and South
Carolina  and  is  currently  developing two (2) new bingo halls in Alabama that
will  commence  operations  in  2000.


                                        7
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 1 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res.1

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                            Joint Resolution

 
   Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the 
  members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of 
           Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, provides 
  that the location of a commemorative work in Area I, as depicted on 
  the map entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs'', 
  numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, shall be deemed to be 
  authorized only if a recommendation for the location is approved by 
  law not later than 150 calendar days after the date on which Congress 
  is notified of the recommendation;

Whereas section 3093 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 
  8903 note; Public Law 113-291) authorized the National Desert Storm 
  Memorial Association to establish a memorial on Federal land in the 
  District of Columbia, to honor the members of the Armed Forces who 
  served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or 
  Operation Desert Shield; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of the 
  determination of the Secretary of the Interior that the memorial 
  should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the location of a 
commemorative work to commemorate and honor the members of the Armed 
Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm 
or Operation Desert Shield authorized by section 3093 of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; Public Law 113-291), within Area 
I, as depicted on the map entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC 
and Environs'', numbered 869/86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, is 
approved.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### 223.7404 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.223-7009, Prohibition of Procurement of Fluorinated Fire-Fighting Agent for Use on Military Installations, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, relating to fire-fighting on military installations.

[88 FR 67606, Sept. 29, 2023, as amended at 89 FR 20871, Mar. 26, 2024]
#### Latham Holding Co., Inc., Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 37351.)

*Per Curiam.*

Upon consideration of all the factors, including comparable sales and the purchase price, we find that the amount of the award was excessive and should be reduced to $17,000. Judgment modified, on the law and the facte, so as to reduce the award to $17,000, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 3.11

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                   CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF PREFERENCES
                                       OF
                   9.50% CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES D
                                       OF
                              PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.


                  The undersigned,  Harvey Lenkin and David Goldberg,  President
and Secretary,  respectively,  of PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., a California corporation
(the "Corporation"), do hereby certify:

                  FIRST:  Pursuant to and in accordance  with the  provisions of
Section  401(c)  of  the  California  Corporations  Code  and  the  Articles  of
Incorporation of the Corporation,  the Board of Directors of the Corporation has
duly  adopted the  recitals  and  resolutions  attached  hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference reducing the authorized number of shares of the
Corporation's 9.50% Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D, from 1,380,000 to 0.

                  SECOND:  There  are no  currently  outstanding  shares  of the
Corporation's 9.50% Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D.

                  We further  declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the State of California that the matters set forth in the foregoing  certificate
are true and correct of our own knowledge.

                  IN  WITNESS   WHEREOF,   the  undersigned  has  executed  this
certificate on February 15, 2005.



                                                        /s/Harvey Lenkin
                                                        ----------------
                                                        Harvey Lenkin
                                                        President

                                                        /s/David Goldberg
                                                        -----------------
                                                        David Goldberg
                                                        Secretary


<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT A

                      RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                       OF
                              PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.

               DECREASING TO 0 THE AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF SHARES OF
                   9.50% CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES D



         RESOLVED:  That,  pursuant to the  authority  conferred in the Board of
         Directors by Article III of the Restated  Articles of  Incorporation of
         this corporation and the resolutions  creating the corporation's  9.50%
         Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D, the number of shares constituting
         the  corporation's  9.50%  Cumulative  Preferred  Stock,  Series  D, is
         decreased from 1,380,000 shares to 0.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY W. DODD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:02-cr-00207-ALL; 2:05-cv-00634) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy W. Dodd, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy W. Dodd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Dodd that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Dodd failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see alsoThomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Dodd has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
209.571-7 Systems engineering and technical assistance contracts. ( a ) Agencies shall obtain advice on systems architecture and systems engineering matters with respect to major defense acquisition programs or pre-major defense acquisition programs from Federally Funded Research and Development Centers or other sources independent of the major defense acquisition program contractor.
( b ) *Limitation on Future Contracting.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, a contract for the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance for a major defense acquisition program or a pre-major defense acquisition program shall prohibit the contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from participating as a contractor or major subcontractor in the development or production of a weapon system under such program.
( 2 ) The requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this subsection cannot be waived.
( c ) *Exception.* ( 1 ) The requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of this subsection does not apply if the head of the contracting activity determines that— ( i ) An exception is necessary because DoD needs the domain experience and expertise of the highly qualified, apparently successful offeror; and
( ii ) Based on the agreed-to resolution strategy, the apparently successful offeror will be able to provide objective and unbiased advice, as required by 209.571-3(a), without a limitation on future participation in development and production.
( 2 ) The authority to make this determination cannot be delegated.
[75 FR 81913, Dec. 29, 2010]
#### 1032.770 Incremental funding during a Continuing Resolution.
# Pepperdine 10-2-08
#### In the Matter of Jedidah A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Marie A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jenica A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Marie A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jetney A., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Marie A., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[833 NYS2d 626]-

In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the *743Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated April 5, 2006, as, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, found that she had neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s finding of neglect based on the use of excessive corporal punishment is supported, as to each of the subject children, by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Joshua B.,*28 AD3d 759, 760-761 [2006]; *Matter of Joseph O.,*28 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]; *Matter of Sheneika V.,*20 AD3d 541, 542 [2005]; *Matter of Jonathan W.,*17 AD3d 374, 375 [2005]). Among other things, the out-of-court statements of the eldest child, Jetney, were sufficiently corroborated by the caseworker’s observations of her injuries, as well as by the out-of-court statement of Jedidah, the youngest of the subject children *(see Matter of Joshua B., supra*at 761). Although the Family Court erroneously found that the middle child, Jenica, made an out-of-court statement regarding prior incidents of corporal punishment, the record reflects that Jedidah had in fact made such a statement, telling the caseworker that all three of the subject children had been hit with a belt in the past. Viewing the record as a whole, and according great weight to the hearing court’s credibility determinations *(see Matter of Joseph O., supra*at 563; *Matter of Sheneika V., supra*at 542), we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court’s finding of neglect as to all three children *(see Matter of Joshua B., supra*at 761). Spolzino, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Ernestine Clifford, Individually and on Behalf of Her Infant Daughter, Lori Clifford, Petitioner, v Carmen Shang, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated June 23, 1977 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency discontinuing petitioner’s grant of aid to dependent children. Petition granted and determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to reinstate the grant retroactively, as of the date of its termination. Petitioner and her daughter *908are recipients of benefits in the aid to dependent children program. Their total public assistance grant is $353 per month. Out of that amount, they spend $260 per month for their apartment and $50 per month for food stamps. On April 1, 1977, the local agency informed petitioner that her public assistance would be terminated due to her failure to adequately explain how she is able to pay for all of her expenses with the assistance grant which she receives. Petitioner demanded a hearing to contest the decision. At the fair hearing the agency examiner testified that the foregoing financial information supported the discontinuance of aid. No evidence was presented that petitioner had either willfully withheld information from the agency or concealed her current available resources. After the fair hearing, the State commissioner affirmed the agency’s determination. We hold that the determination of the State commissioner is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Before a local agency may discontinue a public assistance grant, it has the duty and burden to explore, analyze and evaluate a recipient’s resources to determine whether they are essential to the recipient’s health, living requirements or production of income, and whether the sale of these resources could be applied to the recipient’s needs (see *Matter of Conway v D’Elia,*56 AD2d 888). No proof was presented at the hearing that the agency made such an analysis and evaluation in this case. In any event, public assistance to petitioner and her child could not be discontinued in the absence in the record of any showing of lack of need (see *Matter of Barksdale v D’Elia,*62 AD2d 1018; *Matter of Conway v D’Elia, supra; Matter of Rosa v Lavine,*50 AD2d 571). Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
NUMBER                                                             SHARES
                    n-GEN SOLUTIONS.COM, INC.
________  Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware  _________
          25,000,000 Authorized Shares $0.0001 Par Value

                                                    CUSIP _______________
                                                        SEE REVERSE
                                                  FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS



     THIS CERTIFIES THAT


     Is The Owner of

     FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF $0.0001 PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK OF

                    n-GEN SOLUTIONS.COM, INC.

     transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof
     in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
     certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate is not valid until
     countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

          WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
     signature of its duly authorized officers.

     Dated: _____________, 2000

_____________________    CORPORATE SEAL       ____________________
Michael V. Schranz,                           Robert D. Arnold,
Secretary                                     Chief Executive Officer

COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

American Securities Transfer & Trust, Inc.
P.O. Box 1898
Denver, Colorado 80201
By:_____________________________________
   Transfer Agent & Registrar
   Authorized signature




                           Exhibit 4.4