alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 299 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 299

  Expressing support for the States in adopting challenging academic 
                      standards in core curricula.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 31, 1997

Mr. Etheridge (for himself, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. McGovern, Mr. 
 LaFalce, Mr. Clement, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Price of 
 North Carolina, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Furse, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. 
Boswell, Mr. Roemer, Mrs. Tauscher, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Neal 
  of Massachusetts, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. 
  Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. 
Dingell) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for the States in adopting challenging academic 
                      standards in core curricula.

Whereas we must improve student achievement in core educational curricula;
Whereas as a Nation we need to expect more of our students and provide strong 
        schools with clear and high standards of achievement and discipline;
Whereas raising education standards in the core curricula has gained momentum in 
        States and local districts throughout the country;
Whereas many States are beginning to use academic standards to make clear what 
        students should learn and what teachers should teach;
Whereas standards help teachers and principals make decisions about developing 
        their instructional programs without interfering with local curriculum 
        decisions;
Whereas a standard measure of excellence can assist parents to hold schools 
        accountable for improved performance, help teachers and principals 
        improve curriculum and instruction, and give students a guide for 
        charting their own progress; and
Whereas the Department of Education is developing tests in fourth grade reading 
        and eighth grade mathematics through a consensus process: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Members of the United States House of 
Representatives support the 50 States adopting challenging academic 
standards in core subjects, and the development of rigorous tests to 
measure student achievement.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachael Whitefield","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rachaellwhitefield-2-2-2\/","title":"NASA Astronaut Nichole Ayers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nzU0qvsVTb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/nasa-astronaut-nichole-ayers\/\">NASA Astronaut Nichole Ayers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/nasa-astronaut-nichole-ayers\/embed\/#?secret=nzU0qvsVTb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronaut Nichole Ayers” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nzU0qvsVTb\" 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\/2021\/12\/astronaut_candidate_nichole_ayers.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
#### HORSMAN DOLLS, INC., PROSECUTOR, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Argued January 16, 1945

Decided April 13, 1945.

Before Justices Paeicee and Colie.

For the prosecutor, *Samuel Kaufman.*

For the defendants, *Herman D. Ringle.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The writ brings up for review “a certain order” rendered on July 14th, 1944, by the Unemployment Compensation Commission of the State of New Jersey in relation to the matter entitled “In the Matter of Horsman Dolls, Inc., then pending before William C. Nowels, Referee of the State of New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Commission.” The reasons filed are twenty-four in number but need not be reproduced at length. The history of the ease shortly stated is, that the Compensation Commission, in the execution of its duties under the statute *(Pamph. L.*1936, *ch.*270; *R. S.*43 :21), established a contribution rate for the prosecutor corporation for 1942. Prosecutor protested the rate and applied for a hearing in the usual manner, and the Commission, pursuant to its own regulations, sent the matter to a “referee.” The statute does not seem to provide for a “referee” by that name, but does provide for a “salaried examiner:” and the power to make such appointment is not the subject of any attack here. Idle question for decision *12seems to be 'whether in cases like the present one, a reference to the referee is irrevocable. We answer it in the affirmative. Eor the defendants, reference is made to the Commission’s “Regulations and Rules relating to Referee and Commission Hearings” which contains ' this sentence: “The Executive Director or the Commission may remove to himself or itself for determination, any proceeding before a Referee.” The question then arises, whether the statute has endowed the Commission with power to make that regulation. We answer it in the negative. If such power exist it must be derived from *R. 8.*43:21-6 (e), a paragraph too long to be reproduced here at length, which empowers the board of review to remove to itself * * * the proceedings on any *claim*(italics ours) pending before an appeal tribunal. But we think that clearly this language, and indeed the whole of paragraph 6 (e) refer only to claims for benefits filed by employees and have no application to the fixation of contribution rates for employers. The order under review will therefore be set aside, but without costs, the defendant Commission being a state agenc}’, and the individual defendants being the members of the Commission. *Tenement House Board*v. *Schlechter,*83 *N. J. L.*88; *Rayner*v. *Benjamin, 88 Id.*83, 86; *Manufacturers Land Co.*v. *Board, 98 Id.*638; *Kearny*v. *State Board,*103 *Id.*541.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         579,214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,955,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,876,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,312,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,090
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,312,631
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            47,630,842
<CGS>                                       25,628,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,757,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             719,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,872,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                   299,433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   427,530
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03




</TABLE>
No. 14,580.

#### Dixon, Sheriff, et al. *v.*Aldrich et al.

*Widow.*— Award.—May *be Claimed owl of Property Levied on in Husband’s Lifetime.*— The right of the widow to the five hundred dollars allowed her by section 2269, R. S. 1881, is not defeated by a levy made by the sheriff on the property of her deceased husband in his lifetime.

From the Posey Circuit Court.

*E. D. Owen,*for appellants.

*W.*P. *Edson,*for appellees. -

Elliott, J.

The question presented by this record is this: Can a widow secure the five hundred dollars allowed her by statute where the property of her deceased husband is held under a levy made by the sheriff before the husband’s death ?

This question must be answered in the affirmative. The levy did not change the title to the property, that still remained in the husband. He was the owner notwithstanding the levy, and he might have successfully claimed an amount equal in value to six hundred dollars as exempt from execution. He had not parted with the title, nor surrendered ownership, so that the decisions in such cases as *Recker*v. *Kilgore,*62 Ind. 10, are not of controlling influence. The decision in *Quakenbush*v. *Taylor,*86 Ind. 270, is not unfavorable to the widow’s claim, although it is probable that some expressions in the opinion seem to be against it; but such expressions are not authoritative; especially do such expressions lack authority when, as is true of the case referred to, there are inconsistent statements in the opinion.

The statute which gives the widow the right to five hundred dollars is clear and comprehensive, and it expresses the intention of the Legislature to give her that sum out of property of which her husband died the owner, and which he might, if living, have exempted from sale on ex*297ecution. Section 2269, R. S. 1881. In the statute relating to executions is the following section : “ The death of a defendant, after the execution is placed in the hands of the sheriff to be executed, shall not affect his proceedings thereon, except that the amount of property allowed absolutely to the widow of the decedent shall be exempt from levy and sale under such execution.” Section 790, R. S. 1881. This provision must be read in connection with that which secures to the widow five hundred dollars; and, when thus read, it forbids a sale although there may have been a levy in the lifetime of the husband. It seems to us that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Legislature meant to secure to the widow five hundred dollars in all cases where the husband has not, in his lifetime, by a voluntary contract divested himself of ownership, or so encumbered the title as to destroy the right of exemption.

Filed Feb. 25, 1891.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 13,986.

#### The New Albany and Eastern Railway Company *v.*Meyers et al.

Filed Feb. 15, 1889.

From the Floyd Circuit Court.

*A. Dowling,*for appellant.

*C. L. Jewett*and *H. E. Jewett,*for appellees.

Elliott, C. J. —

Affirmed on the authority of *New Albany, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *Day, ante,*p. 337.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"Mary W. Jackson","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nGaFHpagKD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/mary-w-jackson-biography\/\">Mary W. Jackson<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/mary-w-jackson-biography\/embed\/#?secret=nGaFHpagKD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mary W. Jackson” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nGaFHpagKD\" 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\/2016\/11\/lrc-1977-b701_p-04106_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":466}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 118 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 16, 1997.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and that he is hereby, elected 
to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services: Mr. Torres.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:16-cv-00258-DKD Document 5 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:16-cv-00258-DKD Document 5 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

PUTCO, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARJAMZ COM INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-50109

District Judge Iain D. Johnston

Magistrate Judge Lisa A. Jensen

CARJAMZ’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

CONCERNING PUTCO’S 

UNDULY BURDENSOME, VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT 30(b)(6) TOPICS

Carjamz hereby moves this Court for a Protective Order Prohibiting Putco from 

taking a deposition of Carjamz on certain unduly burdensome, overly broad, vague, and 

irrelevant 30(b)(6) topics. For the reasons explained in the accompanying 

Memorandum in Support of this Motion, Carjamz hereby moves this Court to issue such 

an Order of Protection.

Date: January 18, 2021 By /s/ Konrad Sherinian______

An Attorney for Defendant

Attorneys for Defendant:

Konrad Sherinian

Depeng Bi

The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC

1755 Park Street

Suite #200

Naperville, IL 60563

Phone: (630) 318-2606

Fax: (630) 364-5825

Case: 3:20-cv-50109 Document #: 54 Filed: 01/18/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:695
2

Email: ksherinian@sherinianlaw.net

Email: ebi@sherinianlaw.net

Email: courts@sherinianlaw.net

Case: 3:20-cv-50109 Document #: 54 Filed: 01/18/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:696
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Konrad Sherinian, an attorney, hereby certify that on January 18, 2021, I served 

the listed documents in Case No. 3:20-cv-50109 (N.D. Ill.), otherwise known as Putco 

v. CarJamz via the Court’s CM/ECF system shortly after the filing of the listed 

documents to the Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Putco.

SERVED DOCUMENTS

• This Certificate of Service

• Carjamz’s Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Putco’s Unduly Burdensome, Vague and Irrelevant 30(b)(6) Topics

• Memorandum in Support of Carjamz’s Motion for a Protective Order Concerning 

Putco’s Unduly Burdensome, Vague and Irrelevant 30(b)(6) Topics and Exhibits 

Thereto

• Declaration of Steve Jergensen

/s/ Konrad Sherinian

Konrad Sherinian

Konrad Sherinian

THE LAW OFFICES OF KONRAD SHERINIAN, LLC

1755 Park Street

Suite # 200

Naperville, Illinois 60563

P: (630) 318-2606

F: (630) 364-5825

Email: ksherinian@sherinianlaw.net

Case: 3:20-cv-50109 Document #: 54 Filed: 01/18/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:697
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                       1,000

<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                             7,522
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     24,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        (466)
<INVENTORY>                                                       70,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 110,476
<PP&E>                                                            42,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   (17,449)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   468,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             54,787
<BONDS>                                                          317,346
<COMMON>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        58,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     468,084
<SALES>                                                          258,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 258,241
<CGS>                                                            133,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     95,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                26,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    1,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  777
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         777
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0





</TABLE>