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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NO. 1:12-CV-04069

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPEAL BOND

GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHEMEIER, 

STEPHEN PARKES, and REGINA STONE, 

individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., ECONOMIC 

STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY 

GROUP, INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, 

THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC. and VACATION 

OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC., 

 Defendants
1

Freedom Home Care, Inc., respectfully submits this Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Appeal Bond.

Freedom Home Care obviously disagrees with class counsels’ position that the appeal is 

unlikely to succeed or that bond is necessary for appeal. Nor does it believe class counsels’ 

improper ad hominem attacks, their go-to argument in defending excessive fees, should be given 

any weight. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, Freedom Home Care submits that 

to the extent this Court determines that a bond is appropriate, $5,000 is not an inappropriate 

amount in this case. Thus, to the extent this Court orders the posting of a bond, Freedom Home 

Care does not oppose the amount of $5,000, and will post a bond in that amount.

Dated: May 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher A. Bandas 

Christopher A. Bandas

BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

(361) 698–5200 (tel)

(361) 698-5222 (fax)

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Robert W. Clore

BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

500 North Shoreline, Suite 1020

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

(361) 698–5200 (tel)

(361) 698-5222 (fax)

Jonathan P. Novoselsky

JONATHAN NOVOSELSKY, P.C. 303 W. Madison, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 286-8429 (tel)

(872) 228-8085 (fax) 

Attorneys for Objector Freedom 

Home Care, Inc.
2

Certificate of Service

The undersigned certifies that today he filed the foregoing Docketing Statement on ECF 

which will send electronic notification to all attorneys registered for ECF-filing. 

DATED: May 22, 2017 /s/ Christopher A. Bandas _ 

 Christopher A. Bandas
(7) Conditions for reinstatement of a loan after a total and permanent disability 

discharge. (i) The Secretary reinstates a borrower's obligation to repay a loan that 

was discharged in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section if, within 

the lookback period the borrower receives a new TEACH Grant or a new loan 

under the Perkins or Direct Loan programs, except for a Direct Consolidation Loan 

that includes loans that were not discharged. 

The lookback period is defined as three years after the date the Secretary granted 

the discharge or the end of five years from the determination of total and 

permanent disability by a physician, nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, or 

psychologist, whichever ends sooner.
Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Name                                                 State of Formation
------------------------------------------------     ------------------
Connecticut Storage Fund........................         California
Diversified Storage Venture Fund................         California
PS Co-Investment Partners.......................         California
PS Insurance Company, Ltd.......................          Bermuda
PS Orangeco Holdings, Inc.......................         California
PS Orangeco, Inc...............................          California
PS Partners IV, Ltd.............................         California
PS Partners VIII, Ltd...........................         California
PS Partners, Ltd................................         California
PSA Institutional Partners, L.P.................         California
PSAC Development Partners, L.P..................         California
Public Storage Properties IV, Ltd...............         California
Public Storage Properties V, Ltd................         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund...............         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund II............         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund III...........         California
Public Storage Institutional Fund IV............         California
Public Storage Pickup & Delivery, L.P...........         California
Stor-RE Mutual Insurance Corporation............           Hawaii
Storage Trust Properties, L.P. .................          Delaware

Note: This schedule excludes 15 other wholly-owned subsidiaries which were
excluded in accordance with Reg. S-K, Item 601. All of the entities above
conduct substantially all of their business activities under the name "Public
Storage".
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF INCOME, AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      629
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,432
<PP&E>                                          57,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,183
<BONDS>                                         35,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,759
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,161
<SALES>                                          9,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,846
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    598
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                598
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       598
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Robert Blair

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02637

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Devry, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 14, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Initial status hearing reset

for 7/11/2012 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice(tsa, )

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: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 11 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:44
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 1:31 PM 

To: Edwards, Brenda 

Subject: Actions as a ballast manufacturer in order to comply with new DOE efficiency rules 

Hello Brenda,

I work for a ballast manufacturer, located in Canada, inwhich we manufacturer our products in China & Taiwan.

We sell our products to many of the major fixture OEM’s in the USA & Canada. I was sent document 10 CFR Part

430  for review and to provide our organization with a direction of actions to be taken for compliance. Up to

know, the only requirements that we have had for selling products into the USA is listing some of our HID ballasts

to “Appliances@energy.state.ca.us” for Title 24 compliance, reporting that they meet the minimum 88%

efficiency requirement and that the products meet the requirements of UL 935 & 1029. UL compliance allows us

to attach a cULus marking on our products sold in Canada & the USA. We certify some of our products here in our

Canadian lab, under the UL “WTDP” (Witness Test Data Program). This is where we perform the UL tests, submit

the test data documentation to UL & then a UL engineer comes in and witness the tests in accordance of our

submitted data.

We have testing facilities in our Canadian lab to perform ballast BF & BEF measurements. We believe that we

have capabilities to perform BLE measurements as well.

I have been asked to review the document 10 CFR Part 430 (Vol. 76,No.219) and advise what we are required to

do with regard to comply with the new rulings. After reading this document, I am  a bit confused as to where I am

to obtain the final rulings, test procedures etc.,  as a ballast manufacturer, in order to comply with these rules. We

want to act as soon as possible in order to comply with these new rules. It would very much appreciated for you

can help to provide me with guidance, as to what documents, we are to read and actions to take in order to

comply with these new rules.

I assume that I need “10 CFR Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430 ‐ Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts”. Basically need to know the test procedure to measure “BLE”.

Would like to know,

1) When do we have to submit the test data?

2) Whom to submit the test data too?

3) Who is eligible/qualified/accepted to perform the ballast testing?

4) When the rules take effect?

5) Are we required to submit testing samples and to whom?

6) Product labeling requirements?

Thank you

Rick Savas

Commercial Technician

Ultrasave Lighting Ltd.

140 Amber St,Unit 12, Markham,Ont,L3R‐3J8

905‐940‐0888x3010, Toll Free: 866‐733‐9217

Fax:905‐940‐0338, Toll Free Fax: 866‐733‐8831
Fourth Addendum to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 FOURTH ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS FOURTH
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Fourth Addendum”) is made effective as of the 14th day of October, 2009, by and between Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, a Maryland corporation (“Anworth”), and Heather U. Baines (the
“Executive”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H : 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and Anworth Mortgage Advisory Corporation (the “Company”) entered into an employment agreement dated
January 1, 2002, which was subsequently assumed by Anworth, and the Executive and Anworth have since entered into a number of addendums to such agreement (as amended to date, the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, Anworth and the Executive desire to further modify the terms of the Executive’s employment under the Agreement. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Effective Date. This Fourth Addendum shall become effective on the date hereof. 
 2. Payments Under 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan. Section 7(b)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the
second sentence within such section and replacing it with the following: 
 “Such amounts shall be paid in cash no less
than quarterly in accordance with the terms of the 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan.” 
 3. Remaining Terms
Unchanged. The parties agree that all terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified by this Fourth Addendum), including, but not limited to, all provisions pertaining to compensation, termination, choice of law and arbitration, shall
remain in full force and effect as modified hereby. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Addendum to Employment Agreement is executed as of the day
and year first above written. 
  

	
	 Executive

	
	 /s/ Heather U. Baines

	 Heather U. Baines


  

			
	 Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation

		
	By:	 	/s/ Thad M. Brown
	 	 	Name: Thad M. Brown
	 	 	Title:   Chief Financial Officer

  

 2
Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 190-1 Filed: 05/01/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1891

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 190-1 Filed: 05/01/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:1892

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 190-1 Filed: 05/01/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:1893

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 190-1 Filed: 05/01/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:1894

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 190-1 Filed: 05/01/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:1895

Case: 1:12-cv-05598 Document #: 190-1 Filed: 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:1896
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company and its
subsidiaries.
 /s/  Michael H. GoldbergMichael H. GoldbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)July 30, 2008/s/        Scott F. StephensScott F. StephensVice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) July 30, 2008
Exhibit 32



Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd.



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 Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, John W. A. McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Randy L. Denecky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.







by /s/ Randy L. Denecky

by /s/ John W. A. McDonald



Randy L. Denecky

John W. A. McDonald

Chief Financial Officer

President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:  November 8, 2004







The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Report solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), is not deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act (whether made before or after the date of filing of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in any such filing.
26.103 Procedures. ( a ) Contracting officers and prime contractors, acting in good faith, may rely on the representation of an Indian organization or Indian-owned economic enterprise as to its eligibility, unless an interested party challenges its status or the contracting officer has independent reason to question that status.
( b ) In the event of a challenge to the representation of a subcontractor, the contracting officer shall refer the matter to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Attn: Acquisition Management Director, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20191. The BIA will determine the eligibility and notify the contracting officer.
( c ) The BIA will acknowledge receipt of the request from the contracting officer within 5 working days. Within 45 additional working days, BIA will advise the contracting officer, in writing, of its determination.
( d ) The contracting officer will notify the prime contractor upon receipt of a challenge. ( 1 ) To be considered timely, a challenge shall— ( i ) Be in writing;
( ii ) Identify the basis for the challenge;
( iii ) Provide detailed evidence supporting the claim; and
( iv ) Be filed with and received by the contracting officer prior to award of the subcontract in question.
( 2 ) If the notification of a challenge is received by the prime contractor prior to award, it shall withhold award of the subcontract pending the determination by BIA, unless the prime contractor determines, and the contracting officer agrees, that award must be made in order to permit timely performance of the prime contract.
( 3 ) Challenges received after award of the subcontract shall be referred to BIA, but the BIA determination shall have prospective application only.
( e ) If the BIA determination is not received within the prescribed time period, the contracting officer and the prime contractor may rely on the representation of the subcontractor.
( f ) Subject to the terms and conditions of the contract and the availability of funds, contracting officers shall authorize an incentive payment of 5 percent of the amount paid to the subcontractor. Contracting officers shall seek funding in accordance with agency procedures.
[56 FR 41737, Aug. 22, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 20377, May 12, 1992; 61 FR 39211, July 26, 1996; 62 FR 40236, July 25, 1997; 64 FR 10532, Mar. 4, 1999; 81 FR 67781, Sept. 30, 2016]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 24, 2015

p1116

Order 

Clerk

November 24, 2015

149795

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149795

COA: 321556

Kent CC: 13-005106-FH

DAVID JAMES OVERHOLT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of February 3, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v 

Hartwick (Docket No. 148444) and People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). On order of 

the Court, the case having been decided on July 27, 2015, 498 Mich 192 (2015), the 

application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on 

leave granted, of whether the defendant, who sold, transferred, or delivered marijuana to 

a patient or caregiver to whom he was not connected through the registration process of 

the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., “may assert 

the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be 

dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in 

subsection (a).” MCL 333.26428(b). Cf., State v McQueen, 493 Mich 135, 156 ns 59 & 

60 (2013). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

 

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court of Appeals 

together with the case of People v Bylsma (Docket No. 148440), which we remanded to 

the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted by order of the same date, at 

such future session of the Court of Appeals as both cases are ready for submission.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
# C_2017099EN.01000901.xml

| 30.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/9

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2017/C 99/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/338/17 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/338/17 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)

EPSO/AD/338/17 — ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 99 A of 30 March 2017.

Official Journal of the European Union C 99 A

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
# C_2016398EN.01000601.xml

| 28.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 October 2016

(2016/C 398/08)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0927 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4376 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89158 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8150 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0838 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9858 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,23 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3292 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5038 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3845 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4339 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4605 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4741 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5296 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5211 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1421 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4082 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5010 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 240,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5846 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,985 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,6064 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,343 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4261 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4611 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,0135 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0927

JPY

Japanese yen

114,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4376

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89158

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8150

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0838

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9858

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,23

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3292

RON

Romanian leu

4,5038

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3845

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4339

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4605

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4741

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5296

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5211

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,16

ZAR

South African rand

15,1421

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4082

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5010

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 240,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5846

PHP

Philippine peso

52,985

RUB

Russian rouble

68,6064

THB

Thai baht

38,343

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4261

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4611

INR

Indian rupee

73,0135

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
ye

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MICHELE F. O’ BRYAN,

EASTERN DIVISION

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

ve ) Case No. 12 C 5305

)

POSTRACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
et al., )
)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court's January 8, 2013 memorandum order (“Order”)

directed PosTrack Technologies, Inc. (“PosTrack”) in its capacity

as counter-plaintiff “to file a submission on or before

January 17, 2013 that supports haling Virginia resident [Douglas

Spitz into this jurisdiction to address its claims against him.”

Because PostTrack has not done so, this Court--as the Order had

foreshadowed--dismisses Spitz as a third-party defendant.

Date:

January 30,

2013

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

es ee

aig ik

aoe

ay
"