alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Robotic Search and Rescue Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Y713EukjVZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/robotic-search-and-rescue-challenge\/\">Robotic Search and Rescue Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/robotic-search-and-rescue-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=Y713EukjVZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Robotic Search and Rescue Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Y713EukjVZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/zach-roberts-and-drone-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":438}
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

June 27, 2017

d0619t 

# Order

Clerk June 27, 2017

154002 & (14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154002

COA: 331573

Wayne CC: 09

- 002410

- FC

VICTOR LEON WILSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 6, 2016 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the d efendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to

remand is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/  Carlos E. AgüeroCarlos E. AgüeroChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Peter Paul, Plaintiff, v. Henry Duke, Defendant.

Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Second District,

March 17,1926.

Assignments for benefit of creditors — action by landlord to recover rent from assignee for benefit of creditors of plaintiff’s tenant — evidence shows defendant made no promise to be personally liable for rent for time he occupied premises as assignee — complaint dismissed.

Defendant, assignee for the benefit of creditors of plaintiff’s tenant, is not liable to said plaintiff for the rent of premises occupied by said assignee, notwithstanding the fact that defendant took possession on December fifth, under a lease under which the rent for the month was due on the first thereof, for the reason that there was no direct promise on defendant’s part to be personally liable for the rent for the time he occupied the premises as assignee; the plaintiff is not in a better position with relation to the estate assigned to the assignee than any other creditor.

Action by landlord to recover rent from assignee for benefit of creditors of tenant.

*Carlyle Finkelstein,*for the plaintiff.

*Stephen A. Machinsky,*for the defendant.

Panken, J.

The defendant in this case is assignee for the benefit of creditors of Joseph Liebowitz. Liebowitz, the assignor, was in possession of the premises Nos. 239-241 Grand street, borough of Manhattan, city of New York, under the lease in evidence. The defendant herein took possession of the premises on the 5th day of December, 1925. From a reading of the agreed state of facts and the lease in evidence, the rent for the month of December, 1925, was due on the first of December.

The defendant herein made no promise to pay the rent for the premises for the time he occupied the same as assignee.

The plaintiff in this case was a creditor to the extent of the monthly rent due him for the month of December. The rent accrued on the first of December, and the defendant herein was an assignee for his benefit as much as he was for the benefit of the other creditors. In the absence of a direct promise on the part of the assignee to be personally hable for the rent during the time he occupied the premises, he cannot be held. The assignee for the benefit of creditors is hable under the lease to the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff, however, is not in a,better position with relation to the estate assigned to the assignee than any other creditor.

It has been said in the case of *Prince*v. *Schlesinger*(116 App. *735Div. 500): “ An assignee for the benefit of creditors who enters under his assignment into the possession of property leased to his assignor is liable upon the covenants of the lease during the period of his occupation because of the privity of estate created by such entry.”

The defendant in this case had surrendered the premises on the twenty-fifth of December, during the month for which the rent accrued prior to the assignment made to him.

0It follows, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6013

FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GETTIER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-93)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fredrick Lynwood Foley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Foley v. Gettier, No. CA-95-93 (W.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

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 t he direction of the Court.

April 3, 2018

s0326 

# Order

Clerk April 3, 2018

155052(60)(61)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 15 5052 COA: 334768 St. Clair CC: 16-000731-FH SHANE MICHAEL MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration i s GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 20, 201 8 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was ent ered erroneously.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 209 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 209

  Amending the rules of the House of Representatives to take away the 
 power of the Committee on Rules to report rules or orders waiving the 
                        germaneness requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 1997

 Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the rules of the House of Representatives to take away the 
 power of the Committee on Rules to report rules or orders waiving the 
                        germaneness requirement.

    Resolved, That the last sentence of clause 4(b) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting before 
the period at the end the following: ``; nor shall it report any rule 
or order waiving the germaneness requirement of clause 7 of rule XVI''.
                                 <all>
```
9256.

#### International Cotton Mills *v.*Carroll.

Decided March 13, 1918.

Action lor damages; from city court ol LaGrange—Judge Harwell. September 38, 1917.

*A. H. Davis,*lor plaintiff in error. *Hatton Lovejoy,*contra.

Wade, C. *3.*

1. Under the allegations' of her petition, when the plaintiff, 15 years of age, was wiping off a spinning-frame, in the discharge of her duties as an employee of the defendant, her hand was caught in one of the gears at the end of the frame, and the first joint of the little finger on her right hand was mashed off. The gear which inflicted the injury was partly covered, and thus protected, but an open and unguarded part of it was left on the opposite side of the frame from the plaintiff, and this defect was unknown to her and could not have been known by the exercise of ordinary care, and she believed that the guard provided was sufficient to protect the entire gear, and did not discover the contrary until the injury was inflicted. Negligence was charged, in that the master failed to provide safe machinery, and did not inspect and discover the hidden danger and warn the servant thereof.

(a) Upon the master rested the duty of furnishing reasonably safe machinery, and of inspecting to find latent defects and dangers therein, and the servant was not bound by law to detect latent defects, or such as would be, disclosed only by a positive and careful investigation and would not be manifest to a person of ordinary intelligence or experience in the line of work in which the servant was engaged. *Duke*v. *Bibb Manufacturing Co.,*120 *Ga.*1074 (48 S. E. 408).

(5) *“A*servant assumes the obvious risks of the business about which he is engaged, but this does not ordinarily impose upon him the burden of ' ascertaining by positive investigation if the place where he is directed to work is safe, or make him responsible for what such an investigation might reveal, but generally he assumes such risks only as would be obvious to a person of ordinary intelligence and familiar, with the business. In the absence of anything to suggest that the place where he is working is dangerous, he has the right to rely upon the performance by the master of the duty to furnish a reasonably safe place and to properly inspect it and preserve such safety.” *City of Atlanta*v. *Trussell,*21 *Ga. App.*340 (3) (94 S. E. 649).

(c) Questions of diligence and negligence being peculiarly for a jury, the court should decline to determine them on demurrer, except where the proper solution is evident and unmistakable.

2. The petition as amended set forth a cause of action good as against a general demurrer, and the court did not err in so ruling.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
** **

**EXHIBIT 11**

**COMPUTATION OF PER SHAREEARNINGS**

 
|                                 |   | **Three  months ended  December 31,** |      |
|--------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|-----------|
|                                 |   | **2001**                              |      | **2000** |   |
| Net  Income                     |   | $                                     | 1,423,000 |   | $ | 941,000 |   |
| Average shares outstanding           |   | 1,532,504                             |      | 1,709,033 |   |
| Basic earnings per share             |   | $                                     | 0.93      |   | $ | 0.55 |   |
|                                 |   |                                  |      |   |   |
| Net Income                           |   | $                                     | 1,423,000 |   | $ | 941,000 |   |
| Average shares outstanding           |   | 1,532,504                             |      | 1,709,033 |   |
| Net effect of dilutive stock options |   | 96,376                                |      | 62,907 |   |
| Total shares outstanding             |   | 1,628,880                             |      | 1,771,940 |   |
| Diluted earnings per share           |   | $                                     | 0.87      |   | $ | 0.53 |   |
|                                 |   |                                  |      |   |   |   |   |

 

 
|                                 |   | **Nine months  ended  December 31,** |      |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|-----------|
|                                 |   | **2001**                             |      | **2000** |   |
| Net Income                           |   | $                                    | 3,864,000 |   | $ | 2,604,000 |   |
| Average shares outstanding           |   | 1,592,410                            |      | 1,769,102 |   |
| Basic earnings per share             |   | $                                    | 2.43      |   | $ | 1.47 |   |
|                                 |   |                                 |      |   |   |
| Net Income                           |   | $                                    | 3,864,000 |   | $ | 2,604,000 |   |
| Average shares outstanding           |   | 1,592,410                            |      | 1,769,102 |   |
| Net effect of dilutive stock options |   | 92,743                               |      | 37,022 |   |
| Total shares outstanding             |   | 1,685,153                            |      | 1,806,124 |   |
| Diluted earnings per share           |   | $                                    | 2.29      |   | $ | 1.44 |   |

 

1

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Garrett Shea","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/garrett-shea-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Meet Tracy Hudspeth: Communications Specialist at NASA Office of Small Business Programs","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mX0IwCSu6f\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/osbp\/meet-tracy-hudspeth-communications-specialist-at-nasa-office-of-small-business-programs\/\">Meet Tracy Hudspeth: Communications Specialist at NASA Office of Small Business Programs<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/osbp\/meet-tracy-hudspeth-communications-specialist-at-nasa-office-of-small-business-programs\/embed\/#?secret=mX0IwCSu6f\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Meet Tracy Hudspeth: Communications Specialist at NASA Office of Small Business Programs” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mX0IwCSu6f\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/osbp-tracy.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":790}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00260

Honorable Andrea R. Wood

Timothy O'Donnell

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 22, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood as to Timothy O'Donnell:

Sentencing held on 6/22/2022. Judgment Order to follow. Mailed notice (dal, )

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: 1:20-cr-00260 Document #: 95 Filed: 06/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:391
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2







INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors
Navistar Financial Retail Receivables Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion that Navistar Financial Corporation (the
"Company") has complied as of and for the year ended October 31, 2004, with its
established minimum servicing standards described in the accompanying
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance dated January 31, 2005, for the
servicing of the receivables for the Navistar Financial 2001-B Owner Trust. The
Company's management is responsible for compliance with those minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with its minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with its minimum
servicing standards.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with the
Company's minimum servicing standards. The Company was noncompliant with the
requirement that custodial bank accounts and related bank clearing accounts are
reconciled within 45 days after the cutoff date as specified in item I.1.b in
the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, except for the noncompliance described in the preceding
paragraph, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended October
31, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects based on the criteria set
forth in Appendix I.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Chicago, IL


January 31, 2005