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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA THORNLEY, DEBORAH )

BENJAMIN-KOLLER, and JOSUE )

HERRERA, individually and on behalf of )

all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. 20-cv-3843

v. )

) Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman

CLEARVIEW AI, INC., )

)

Defendant )

MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiffs Melissa Thornley, Deborah Benjamin-Koller, and Josue Herrera (“Plaintiffs”), 

through counsel, move pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) to remand this case to the Circuit Court of 

Cook County, Illinois, where it was originally filed.

Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against defendant Clearview AI, Inc. 

(“Clearview”) alleges a narrow claim of statutory aggrievement under §15(c) of Illinois’s

Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS §14/1 (2008), unaccompanied by any 

claim of actual injury. The sole relief sought in Plaintiffs’ Complaint is statutory damages (and 

attorneys’ fees) based on defendant’s procedural violation of §15(c) of BIPA.

Plaintiffs’ claim of a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, does not 

satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III, precluding a finding of standing and depriving 

this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case: 1:20-cv-03843 Document #: 27 Filed: 07/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:110
2

Dated: July 21, 2020

Daniel M. Feeney

Zachary J. Freeman

Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP

180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel. (312) 263-3700

Fac. (312) 263-3270

Email: dfeeney@millershakman.com

 zfreeman@millershakman.com

David S. Golub (pro hac vice)

Steven L. Bloch (pro hac vice)

Silver Golub & Teitell LLP

184 Atlantic Street

Stamford, CT 06901

Tel. (203) 325-4491

Fac. (203) 325-3769

Email: dgolub@sgtlaw.com

sbloch@sgtlaw.com

Respectfully submitted,

MELISSA THORNLEY 

DEBORAH BENJAMIN-KOLLER

JOSUE HERRERA

/s/ David S. Golub

One of their attorneys

Kevin M. Forde

Brian P. O’Meara

Kevin R. Malloy

Forde & O’Meara LLP

111 West Washington Street

Suite 1100

Chicago IL 60602

Tel. (312) 641-1441

Fac. (312) 641-1288 (

Email: kforde@fordellp.com

 bomeara@fordellp.com

 kmalloy@fordellp.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03843 Document #: 27 Filed: 07/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:111
Exhibit 3.1**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION****OF****AMH HOLDINGS, LLC**This Certificate of Formation of AMH Holdings, LLC is being executed and filed by the undersigned,as an authorized person, to form a domestic limited liability company under the Limited LiabilityCompany Act of the State of Delaware, 6 Del. C. § 18-101 et seq. (the “DLLCA”).1. The name of the limited liability company is “AMH Holdings, LLC” (the “Company”)2. The address of the registered office of the Company in the State of Delaware is c/o TheCorporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801. Thename of its registered agent at such address is The Corporation Trust Company.3. The purpose of the Company is to carry on any lawful business, purpose, act or activitypursuant to the DLLCA.4. The formation of the Company shall be effective at 4:01 p.m. (Delaware time) on the date onwhich this Certificate of Formation is filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.* * * * *IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of the Company this28th day of December, 2007.         By:                    /s/ CYNTHIA L. SOBE    Cynthia L. Sobe     Vice President
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50699

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUGO ORDONEZ-RAMIREZ, also known as Raul 

Villanuevas-Cardenas, also known as Rolando 

Hernandez-Jimenez, also known as Daniel Jostin, 

also known as Yonatan Palacios, 

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-108-ALL

--------------------

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hugo OrdonezRamirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25799]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

[145R5065C6, RR85818000, RX.59799806.1001001]


Notice To Extend the Public Comment Period for the Collection and 
Compilation of Water Pipeline Field Performance Data Information 
Collection Request

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation is announcing a 30-day extension of 
the public comment period for the Collection and Compilation of Water 
Pipeline Field Performance Data Information Collection Request (ICR). 
The current comment period for this ICR ends on October 31, 2014, and 
is being extended to December 1, 2014. This comment period was reopened 
through the publication of a Federal Register notice on October 1, 2014 
(79 FR 59291).

DATES: Submit comments on this ICR on or before December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Mr. Lee Sears, Materials 
Engineering Research Laboratory, 86-68180, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. 
Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225; or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9859a8c889b9aa99c9a8b9bc78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee829d8b8f9c9dae9b9d8c9cc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Sears at (303) 445-2392.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Disclosure Statement

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
Richard W. LaFond,
Chief, Civil Engineering Services Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-25799 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.67











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 on Form 10-Q of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott L. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.










/s/ Scott L. Thompson


Scott L. Thompson


Chief Executive Officer


August 3, 2010














A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and will be retained by Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   JUN-30-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JUL-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                                        JUN-30-1998 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                               1 
<CASH>                                                                  600,231 
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            46,148 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            (35,588)
<INVENTORY>                                                               5,400 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      1,162,456 
<PP&E>                                                                  197,162 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           (8,458)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        1,831,243 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   585,292 
<BONDS>                                                                       0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0 
<PREFERRED>                                                           1,817,591 
<COMMON>                                                                  4,666 
<OTHER-SE>                                                             (653,431)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          1,831,243 
<SALES>                                                                       0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                              0 
<CGS>                                                                         0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           355,100 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        384,474 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        2,849 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (739,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                 50 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (739,624)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          (35,413)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0 
<CHANGES>                                                                     0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (769,923)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                             (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 0 
        

</TABLE>
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40598 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR RIOS-PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-17-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Oscar Rios-Pena has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rios-Pena has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 25 Filed: 09/22/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:181
#### Wm. Richards *v.*John C. Whitlock *&*McNichol.

Pleadings — Agreement to Abandon Appeal is Void.

Appellant was sued by appellees and he plead as a defense, that he had a right to retain the proceeds of the property sued for under and by a contract with appellees by which they agreed that if he would abandon the prosecution of an appeal from a judgment by which his property was confiscated, that they would make good an agreed proportion of his loss by reason of said judgment, which plea is void.

APPEAL PROM TRIGG CIRCUIT COURT.

January 11, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Richards, who was sued by Whitlock & McNichol for a balance of the net proceeds of three hogshead of tobacco, sold by him in New York, and which the appellees claimed were their property, plead that he had a right to retain the same under and by virtue of a contract with said Whitlock & McNichol by which they agreed that if he would abandon the prosecution of an appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Indiana, by which judgment two hogsheads of tobacco, the property of Richards, were confiscated, that they would make good an agreed proportion of his loss by reason of said judgment of confiscation.

Upon the trial all the evidence offered by Richards in support of his void plea was admitted by the court, and the instructions given to the jury at his instance were fully as favorable to him as the law and facts would admit.

But one instruction was given at the instance of Whitlock & McNichol and that was unobjectionable.

The specific objections to the certificates of the depositions taken and read by appellees are not pointed out. From a careful examination of said certificates, we conclude that whilst they are informal, they substantially comply with the requisitions of the code of practice.

The record shows that certain portions of said depositions deemed irrelevant or incompetent as testimony were not permitted to be read to the jury. As the bill of exceptions fail to *300show what portions were read we must presume that the court excluded all improper matter from the jury.

*Dulaney, Barnett, for appellant.*

The testimony of the witness who spoke of the premium on gold could not have been prejudicial to the appellant even though it may have been improperly permitted to go to the jury.

As there was no available error in the action of the court upon the trial, we are of opinion that the finding of the jury is not so flagrantly against the weight of evidence as to warrant the interference of this court.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Betty Adams, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03411

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Santander Consumer USA Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, March 1, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Pursuant to Stipulation

of Dismissal filed on 2/19/2021 [18], this case is dismissed with prejudice. Civil case

terminated. Mailed notice(vcf, )

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-cv-03411 Document #: 19 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:88
DISASTER Resilience Workshop

S A N D I E G O, C A • 2.18–19.15

February 18, 2015 Agenda

7:45 – 8:30 am Registration and Continental Breakfast–Salon C Foyer

8:30–9:00 am Opening Session–Salon C

Welcome and Introduction

9:00 am–10:15 am Plenary– Disaster Resilience Framework Overview–Salon C 

9:00 Introduction/Executive Summary

9:15 Social Institutions and Links to the Built Environment

9:30 Community Disaster Resilience for the Built Environment

9:45 Interdependencies

10:00 Tools and Metrics

10:15 – 10:30 am Break

10:30 am–12:15 pm Disaster Resilience Framework Overview continued–Salon C

10:30 Buildings 

10:45 Transportation

11:00 Energy

11:15 Communication

11:30 Water

11:45 Discussion

12:15 – 1:15 pm Lunch–Upper and Lower Courtyards

1:15 – 2:15 pm Plenary Speaker: Laurie Johnson, Laurie Johnson Consulting–Salon C

Foundational Elements of Community Disaster Resilience, Pre- and Post-Disaster

2:15 -2:30 pm Transition to Breakouts

2:30 – 5:00 pm Breakout 1: Framework and DRSP

Community Resilience–Equestrian

Buildings –Salon E

Transportation– Salon A

Power and Energy Systems– Salon B

Water and Wastewater Systems–Salon D

Communications–Salon F

Social Aspects of Resilience–Steeple Chase II

Resilience Metrics–Steeple Chase I

Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Planning– Triple Crown

5:00 pm Adjourn

February 19, 2015

7:15 – 8:00 am Continental Breakfast –Salon C Foyer

8:00 – 8:30 am Award Announcement of NIST Community Resilience Center of Excellence– Salon C

8:30 – 10:00 am Plenary – Planning and Implementation for Community Resilience– Salon C

Greg Guibert, Chief Resilience Officer, City of Boulder, CO

Emily Steinhilber, Assistant Director of Coastal Resilience Research, Old Dominion University

Jay Wilson, Clackamas County Resilience Coordinator, Clackamas County Emergency Management, Oregon

Lucile Jones, Science Advisor for Risk Reduction in the Natural Hazards Mission, US Geological Survey

Patrick Otellini, Chief Resilience Officer, San Francisco, CA

10:00 – 10:15 am Break

10:15 am–12:00 pm Breakout 2: Planning and Implementation

Community Resilience–Equestrian

Buildings –Salon E

Transportation–Salon A

Power and Energy Systems–Salon B

Water and Wastewater Systems – Salon D

Communications–Salon F

Social Aspects of Resilience– Steeple Chase II

Resilience Metrics– Steeple Chase I

Disaster Resilience Standards Panel Planning–Triple Crown

12:00–1:00 pm Lunch–Upper and Lower Courtyards

1:00 – 2:15 pm Final Report Out and Wrap up–Salon C

For attendees that did not pay for catering, lunch is available in the Hotel restaurant. Please note, coffee and snacks are only for 

attendees who have paid for catering.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GABRIELLE PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALTERNATIVE BEARINGS 

CORPORATION and THOMAS G. 

MALLOY,

Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil No. 1:19-CV-01493  

 

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

O R D E R

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

(1)Defendants Alternative Bearings Corporation’s and Thomas G. Malloy’s 

(“Defendants”) motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) are DENIED;

1

(2)Defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are DENIED without prejudice 

to refile in the transferee court; 

(3)Defendants’ motions to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are 

GRANTED;

 1 The motions referred to herein are Docs. 15 and 17 on the docket. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03262 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:500
2

(4)The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

s/Sylvia H. Rambo

SYLVIA H. RAMBO

United States District Judge

Dated: June 2, 2020

Case: 1:20-cv-03262 Document #: 32 Filed: 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:501
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1249ND

_____________

Sandra Martell, on behalf of Scott *

Poitra, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of North Dakota.

*

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: October 23, 1998

Filed: October 28, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, ROSS, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Sandra Martell, for her son Scott Poitra, a minor, appeals the district court's grant

of summary judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny

Poitra supplemental security income disability benefits. After careful review of the

administrative record and the parties' briefs, we conclude substantial evidence supports

the decision of the Commissioner that Poitra is not disabled for social security purposes

and the judgment of the district court is correct. Because the case presents no novel

issues, we affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.