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

House Calendar No. 38

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 155

[Report No. 105–107]

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration

of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 21, 1997

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect

to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the

Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule

2 XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported before May 23, 1997, providing for consideration

6 or disposition of any of the following measures:
2

HRES 155 RH

1 (1) A concurrent resolution on the budget, an

2 amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or

3 an amendment reported in disagreement from a con4 ference thereon.

5 (2) The bill (H.R. 1469) making emergency

6 supplemental appropriations for recovery from natu7 ral disasters, and for overseas peacekeeping efforts,

8 including those in Bosnia, for the fiscal year ending

9 September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, an

10 amendment thereto, a conference report thereon, or

11 an amendment reported in disagreement from a con12 ference thereon.

House Calendar No. 38

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 155

[Report No. 105–107]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

tions reported from the Committee on Rules.with respect to consideration of certain resoluMAY 21, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
ISSUED ON 11:13 am, Jan 05, 2016 s/ Brian D. Karth, Clerk

Case 2:16-cv-00003-DJH Document 6-3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:16-cv-00003-DJH Document 6-3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2
SCWC

- 14

- 0000895

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

BRELIE GAIL BALON TUMANENG, Petitioner/Plaintiff

- Appellant,

vs.

BRIXON ANDRES TUMANENG, Respondent/Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 14

- 0000895; FC

- D NO. 12

- 1

- 7982)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J ., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff

- Appellant Brelie Gail Balon Tumaneng’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on January 22, 2016, is

hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard

in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to

Rule 34(c) of the Hawai  i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for

retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, March 3 , 2016.

Charles H. Brower /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Richard J. Diehl

for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0000895

03-MAR-2016

09:52 AM
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



                                   Exhibit 27



B&G FOODS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

     <ARTICLE>                                                       5
     <MULTIPLIER>                                                1,000

     <S>                                                 <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                                               9-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     JAN-01-2000
     <PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-03-1999
     <PERIOD-END>                                          OCT-02-1999
     <CASH>                                                      1,280
     <SECURITIES>                                                    0
     <RECEIVABLES>                                              27,021
     <ALLOWANCES>                                                 (475)
     <INVENTORY>                                                75,001
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          108,550
     <PP&E>                                                     42,305
     <DEPRECIATION>                                            (11,562)
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            474,154
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      45,080
     <BONDS>                                                   336,745
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
     <PREFERRED>                                                     0
     <COMMON>                                                        0
     <OTHER-SE>                                                 57,851
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              474,154
     <SALES>                                                   241,652
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          241,652
     <CGS>                                                     129,072
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                              87,426
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         21,187
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                             3,967
     <INCOME-TAX>                                                1,936
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         2,031
     <DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
     <CHANGES>                                                       0
     <NET-INCOME>                                                2,031
     <EPS-BASIC>                                                   0
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0





</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6901

ANTHONY DACRE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOCTOR CLEMITS; MS. COLEMAN, Medical Director

at Geo Inc. Private Entity for VA D.O.C.;

MAJOR REYNOLDS; EMPLOYEES OF VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; EMPLOYEES OF PRISON

HEALTH SERVICES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00166-JCC)

Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 3, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dacre, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dacre appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Dacre v. Clemits,

No. 1:07-cv-00166-JCC (E.D. Va. May 18, 2007). Additionally, we

deny Dacre’s motions for appointment of counsel and for injunctive

relief. 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
CFTC Ex. 94

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:610
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:611
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-3 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:612
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.90

                             ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Inland Real Estate Acquisitions, Inc., an Illinois
corporation ("Assignor") hereby sells, assigns and transfers to Inland Western
Spartanburg, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Assignee, all of
Assignor's right, title and interest in, to and under that certain purchase and
sale agreement dated November 7, 2003 as amended by that certain Amendment To
Contract ( collectively the "Contract") for the sale and purchase of the
approximately 386,894 net rentable square feet of the Dorman Center Shopping
Centre located on approximately 50 acres of land at Blackstock Road and W.O.
Ezell Road, Spartanburg, South Carolina and consisting of 5 phases known as the
Wal Mart Tract, Shop Tract 1, Shop Tract 2, Shop Tract 3 and Phase II.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Assignor has duly executed this Assignment as of
the 29th day of December 29, 2003.

                                  ASSIGNOR:

                                  INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS,
                                  INC., an Illinois corporation


                                  By:   /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        G. Joseph Cosenza - President

                      ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT

     The undersigned, Inland Western Spartanburg, L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company, Assignee, hereby accepts the foregoing Assignment of Contract
and assumes all obligations of the buyer thereunder.

Dated: December 29, 2003

                                  ASSIGNEE:

                                  INLAND WESTERN SPARTANBURG,
                                  L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

                                  By:   Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., a
                                        Maryland corporation, its sole member

                                  By:   /s/ Debra A. Palmer
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Debra A. Palmer
                                        Assistant Secretary
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41745 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID LEON-SANCHEZ, also known as Carmelo Reina-Deleon, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-373-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David Leon-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United Statesafter deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. LeonSanchez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. Heargues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. LeonSanchez thus contends that his sentence should not exceed theNo. 02-41745 -2- maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Leon-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

SUPERHYPE TAPES, LTD.,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

AANSTORE, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-01589

JUDGE ELAINE E. BUCKLO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUNIL R. HARJANI

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule “A” of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

330 Chicken Wings Store

169 orkojewelry_istanbul

252 xiangguilin

227 tawe-potc

134 lovelyshoponline

Dated: July 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alison Carter

Ann Marie Sullivan

Alison Carter

AM Sullivan Law, LLC

1440 W. Taylor St., Suite 515

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Telephone: 224-258-9378

E-mail: ams@amsullivanlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on July 15, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

system, which will automatically send an email notification ofsuch filing to all registered attorneys 

of record.

/s/ Alison Carter

Alison Carter
Exhibit 10.6
 BIOMED REALTY TRUST, INC.
 2009 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF THE
2004 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD GRANT NOTICE AND
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 Company Plan Participant Shares Exhibit A Restricted Stock Agreement
 Participant:Grant Date:Total Number of Shares of Restricted
Stock:Vesting Schedule:
    
    [Description of Vesting Schedule],
provided that the Participant
continues to be an Employee,
Independent Director or Consultant
on each such date.
  BIOMED REALTY TRUST, INC.
    
    
    
    PARTICIPANTBy:
    
    
    
    
    
    By:Print Name:
    
    
    
    
    
    Print Name:Title:Address:
    
    17190 Bernardo Center Drive
    
    
    
    Address:San Diego, CA 92128




---



##### 



Dated: , 2009Signature of Spouse




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD GRANT NOTICE
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 Grant Notice Agreement Company Plan
 ARTICLE I  ISSUANCE OF SHARES
 Issuance of Shares Shares
 Issuance Mechanics Exhibit B Stock Assignment
 ARTICLE II
FORFEITURE AND TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS
 Forfeiture Restriction Forfeiture Restriction Exhibit B
  A-1




---



##### 



Release of Shares from Forfeiture Restriction Unreleased Shares
 Transfer Restriction
 Escrow
 Rights as Stockholder
 Ownership Limit and REIT Status
    A-2




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
TAXATION REPRESENTATIONS
     ARTICLE IV
RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS AND STOP-TRANSFER ORDERS
 Legends
  Refusal to Transfer; Stop-Transfer Notices
  A-3




---



##### 



Removal of Legend
 ARTICLE V
MISCELLANEOUS
 Governing Law
 Entire Agreement; Enforcement of Rights
 Severability
 Notices
 Counterparts
 Successors and Assigns
  A-4




---



##### 



Conformity to Securities Laws
 NO RIGHT TO CONTINUED SERVICE
  A-5




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
 TO RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD GRANT NOTICE
 STOCK ASSIGNMENT
 
 
 Dated: ,Name:
 INSTRUCTIONS
  B-1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BRABUS GmbH, )

) Case No. 20-cv-3720

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Charles R. Norgle

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff BRABUS GmbH 

hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following Defendants 

identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

150 quickdrying

151 racingcar

The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 12, 2020 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

BRABUS GmbH

Case: 1:20-cv-03720 Document #: 24 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2368
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on August 12, 2020.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-03720 Document #: 24 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2369
Drone Forensics and other new 

additions to CFReDS

Ben Livelsberger

Information Technology Laboratory
Computer Forensics Reference 

Datasets (CFReDS) Overview

• The CFReDS project provides documented sets 

of simulated digital evidence.

• Uses for Data Sets

• Tool Testing

• Training

• Proficiency Testing

• Sourced from

• NIST

• Non-NIST (LE, forensic labs, conferences)
Types of Datasets

• Tool Testing / Computer Forensics Tool 

Testing

• Windows Registry Forensics

• String Search

• Metadata-based Deleted File Recovery

• File Carving (graphic and video files)
Types of Datasets

• Multi-skill sets of simulated digital evidence

• Hacking Case – Law Enforcement

• Data Leakage Case - NIST

• Rhino Hunt - DFRWS
Types of Datasets

• Misc. special purpose sets

• Create a reference drive - NIST

• DCFL control image - DCFL

• Container Files - NIST

• Mobile Device Images - NIST

• Memory Images – ManTech 

• Basic Mac Images - NIST

• Russian Tea Room - NIST
New and Coming Soon

• Drone Images - VTO Labs - NEW

• JTAG & Chip Off images of smart phones -

NIST+LE - COMING SOON

• More multi-skill sets - DFRWS - COMING SOON
Drone Forensics

• Drone – unmanned areal 

vehicle

• Crop dusting

• Photo/videography

• Mapping/surveying

• What do you do when 

it’s part of your crime 

scene?

Photos courtesy of www.drone-world.com, 

www.pobonline.com, www.suasnews.com, & 

www.wellbots.com
VTO Labs Drone Dataset

• 63 drones, 25 models

• DJI, Parrot, SenseFly, Yuneec, Skydio, Ryze, Sky 

Viper, ArduPilot & Aion

• Forensic images

• VTO Labs, funded by Department of 

Homeland Security Science and Technology 

Directorate
Creating the Dataset

• ~3 drones of each 

model

• Establish baseline 

data

• Acquire contents of:

• Drone storage areas

• Controller

• Mobile devices and 

computers

Photo courtesy of VTO Labs
Dataset Contents

• Images for each drone

• Drone research results 

reports:

• Where and when drone 

was flown

• Data storage areas

• Instructions & photos 

for disassembly

• Data acquisition 

methods Photo courtesy of VTO Labs
What Data Can You Retrieve?

• Serial numbers

• Flight paths

• Flight speed and bearing

• Launch and landing locations

• Photos, videos

• Log of actions user made from the drone 

controller
Applications

• Practice recovering data

• Training

• Proficiency testing

• Research 

• Forensic tool development
Contacts

Ben Livelsberger

benjamin.livelsberger@nist.gov

www.cfreds.nist.gov

cftt@nist.gov

Jim Lyle, CFReDS Project Leader

James.lyle@nist.gov
#### Tomlinson and Others *v.*Collett and Another, in Error.

IF the general issue be pleaded in an action of assumpsit against partners, the plaintiff must prove the partnership.

Partners may be liable for goods purchased for them by their agent, although the agent, at the time of the contract, mention the name of only one of his principals.

The declarations of an agent, at the time of making a contract for his principal, may be proved to show the character in which the contract was made, but they are not evidence to prove the agency; nor are the agent’s declarations, made subsequently to the contract, admissible as evidence for any purpose. Paley on Agency, 207 (1).

In an action against the principal for the price of goods bought for him by an agent, the delivery of the goods to the agent may be proved, without calling him as a witness, or accounting for his absence.

A person whom a man puts in his place to transact his business of a particular kind, is a general agent; and such authority empowers the agent to bind the employer by all acts within the scope of his employment; and that power cannot be limited by any private order or direction, not known to the party dealing with the agent. Paley on Agency, 163.

The agent of a company of persons engaged in digging for salt water, who has the general superintendence of their works, may contract debts in their name which will be binding upon them, for such articles as may be suitable for the boarding and clothing of the hands employed at the works.

*437*S. Judah*and *J. Law,*for the plaintiffs.

J. *Whitcomb*and *J. Farrington,*for the defendants.

(1)

 “The confessions of an agent are not evidence to bind his principal; nor is his subsequent account of a transaction to his principal, evidence. But his acts, within the scope of his powers, are obligatory upon Ms principal, and those acts may be proved in the same manner as if dono by the principal. The agent, acting within his authority, is substituted for the principal in every respect; and his statements, which form apart of the *res gestie,*maybe proved.” *United States*v. *The Brig Burdett,*9 Peters, 689.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         238,937
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,015,222
<PP&E>                                          24,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,039,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          437,793
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,237
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,039,325
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  818,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             270,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,087,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,087,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,087,165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>