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

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

Eastern Division

Selene Danielle Arriaga

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04498

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Thomas J. Dart, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 3, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Briefing schedule set

as to Defendants David Cammack, Cook County, Illinois, Thomas J. Dart, Timothy

O'Donnell, Marie Rangel and Theodore Stajura's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a

Claim [30]. Responses due by 11/17/2020. Replies due by 11/24/2020. Teleconference

Status hearing set for 12/19/2020 is reset for 1/12/2021 at 9:00 AM. Teleconference Initial

Status hearing set for 11/9/2020 at 9:00 AM stands. Mailed notice(lk, )

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-04498 Document #: 32 Filed: 11/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:150
VCAT Discussion
 

NIST Innovation and 

Partnerships
 

10/28/2008
 
Key VCAT Questions
 

• What are NIST’s roles in innova•	 Is the role just measurement sc

and standards or does it include technology development? 
Innovation Ecosystem 

• Is this a good metaphor? • Is the zoo inventory complete? • Is US innovation still the best? • Is “competitiveness” the right metri• Is NIST making the right investmen• Is physical measurement enough? 
Rapid Innovation and 

Competitiveness
 

• Do we agree with the model? 

– “directed basic research” – Facilitating injection of Univ research 

results into business development
 

• Comments on INDEX, MIND, SWA

WIN? 

• Measures of success? 
Relationships at NIST
 

•	 Are these types of organizationa

relationships a useful way to fulfill tNIST mission? 

•	 If NIST has the opportunity, sho

expand the use of this tool or focus internal research competencies? 
NIST and Academia 

• Is the menu of collaboration adequ• (NRC postdocs, SURF, PREP, DH• Guest Researchers • Grants 
Nanotech Research Initiat

• Western Institute of Nanoelectronics (W

based in California; Institute for Nanoelectronic Discovery and Explorati(INDEX), based in New York; and SouthAcademy for Nanoelectronics (SWAN), in Texas. 

• Semiconductor Research Center (SRC) • NIST, SRC-NRI: $18.5M over 5 years 
JQI and JILA 

• Are these effective models? Is the 

leveraging effect real? 

• Track record (Firsts(?), Nobels, 

MacArthur) 

• Generation change • Research foci ok? 
HML, UMBI/CARB 

• Bio-partnerships (NOAA, HML, UM• Relevance? Leveraging effects? • Results? • Revised MOU w/UMBI centers • RIC 
TIP
 

• Technology Innovation Program • Measurement Science, standards, tech• Identifying Critical National Needs? Do 

agree with the 7 topic areas (civil infrastructure, energy, mfg, water, commcomplex nets, personal med) 

• TIP criteria adequate? • Do we endorse the plan? 
MEP 

• Mfg extension partnership • Model ok (Fed/State/Industry)? Bridging 

to technology sources? 

• Geographic coverage? • Focus (mfg short term needs)? • Metrics of effectiveness? • Smart Machining a good test? 
Backup
 
Standards 

• Large scope (lots of stds groups) • Heavy participation by NIST • Do we agree with premise (utility of 

standards, benefits to US and int’l?) 

• Do we agree with the examples and cla

associated? (biometrics, nanotech, biof

• Enabling commerce and competition thr

standards 
Baldrige Program
 

• Does it work? • What are the effects? Do we agree with 

metrics and measurements? (coral sprinanswer!) 

• Best quote of the day (“worth educating 

expense? What if you don’t educate and stay?”) 

• Process and practices, not simply an aw

Not ISO 9000 (results count)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,556
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                 771
<INVENTORY>                                  1,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,626
<PP&E>                                       2,056
<DEPRECIATION>                               444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               13,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        14,789
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        33,232
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     1,245
<OTHER-SE>                                   (36,379)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 13,995
<SALES>                                      22,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             22,965
<CGS>                                        22,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                52,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (28,954)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (28,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (28,954)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.53)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§ 1350)




I,
Charles E. Ramey of US Dataworks, Inc., certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:




(i)       the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




(ii)      the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks, Inc. as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




Dated:  February
22, 2011




/s/ Charles E. RameyCharles
      E. RameyChief
      Executive Officer
IIA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 960

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 9, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To validate certain conveyances in the City of Tulare, Tulare

County, California, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that:
2

HR 960 RFS

1 (1) It is in the Federal Government’s interest

2 to facilitate local development of jobs in areas of

3 high unemployment.

4 (2) Railroad interests in rights-of-way prevent

5 local communities from obtaining clear title to prop6 erty for development unless the city also obtains the

7 Federal reversionary interest in those rights-of-way.

8 (3) For development purposes, in order to se9 cure needed financing, the City of Tulare Redevelop10 ment Agency requires clear title to certain parcels of

11 land within the city’s business corridor that are part

12 of a railroad right-of-way.

13 SEC. 2. TULARE CONVEYANCE.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d),

15 all conveyances to the Redevelopment Agency of the City

16 of Tulare, California, of lands described in subsection (b),

17 heretofore or hereafter, made directly by the Southern Pa18 cific Transportation Company, or its successors, are here19 by validated to the extent that the conveyances would be

20 legal or valid if all right, title, and interest of the United

21 States, except minerals, were held by the Southern Pacific

22 Transportation Company.

23 (b) LANDS DESCRIBED.—The lands referred to in

24 subsection (a) are the parcels shown on the map entitled

25 ‘‘Tulare Redevelopment Agency-Railroad Parcels Pro-
3

HR 960 RFS

1 posed to be Acquired’’, dated 5/29/97, that formed part

2 of a railroad right-of-way granted to the Southern Pacific

3 Railroad Company, or its successors, agents, or assigns,

4 by the Federal Government (including the right-of-way ap5 proved by an Act of Congress on July 27, 1866). The map

6 referred to in this subsection shall be on file and available

7 for public inspection in the offices of the Director of the

8 Bureau of Land Management.

9 (c) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS OF AC10 CESS.—Nothing in this section shall impair any existing

11 rights of access in favor of the public or any owner of

12 adjacent lands over, under or across the lands which are

13 referred to in subsection (a).

14 (d) MINERALS.—The United States disclaims any

15 and all right of surface entry to the mineral estate of lands

16 described in subsection (b).

Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
1

ANSI/NIST Fingerprint Standard Update Workshop II

Table 5:  Finger Impression Type

B. Scott SwannCJIS/FBI

304-625-2477bswann@leo.gov

Stephen MeagherFBI Laboratory703-632-7106

Stephen.Meagher@ic.fbi.gov

2

Table 5:  Finger Impression Type• One byte field (generally 6th byte of a binary record or 

field X.003 of an ASCII record) which describes the manner in which the fingerprint information was obtained.

Recommendation primarily provided in September 2005 by:

3

Table 5 - Finger Impression Type (Legacy Table)

Description CodeLive-scan plain 0Live-scan rolled 1Nonlive-scan plain 2Nonlive-scan rolled 3Latent impression 4Latent tracing 5Latent photo 6Latent lift 7

4

What is IMP used for?

A misconception exists that the Impression Code value is not utilized by anyone other than possibly a latent examiner to 

determine how a fingerprint was acquired.

The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) actually utilizes IMP to determine file maintenance 

decisions and anticipates utilizing IMP for filtering and matching decisions within a fingerprint search.

5

What’s important to know about the FP?

Live-scan vs Nonlive-scan

Plain  vs. Rolled

Optical vs. Non-optical

Contact vs. Non-contact

6

Table 5 - Finger Impression Type (Legacy Table)

Description CodeLive-scan plain 0Live-scan rolled 1Nonlive-scan plain 2Nonlive-scan rolled 3Latent impression 4Latent tracing 5Latent photo 6Latent lift 7

7

Update Considerations

Impression Codes 10-15 have been previously defined for palm prints and must be accounted for in any new impression code numbering scheme.   Codes 0-1 are retained as legacy codes with the 

meaning of live-scan plain and rolled, {contactless or contact}, and {optical or non-optical}. Codes  20 and 21 defined to be limited to Live-scan 

optical contact plain and rolled.Code 9 was defined for vertical swipe devices to 

harmonize with M1 finger standards.

8

Table 18 – Palm Impression type (Legacy Table)

Description Code

Live-scan plain 10Nonlive-scan plain 11Latent palm impression 12Latent palm tracing 13

Latent palm photo 14Latent palm lift 15

9

Table 5 – Finger impression type (Proposed Table)

Description CodeLive-scan plain 0

Live-scan rolled 1

Nonlive-scan plain 2

Nonlive-scan rolled 3

Latent impression 4

Latent tracing 5

Latent photo 6

Latent lift 7

Live-scan vertical swipe 8

Live-scan optical contact plain 20

Live-scan optical contact rolled 21

Live-scan non-optical contact plain* 22

Live-scan non-optical contact rolled 23

Live-scan optical contactless plain 24

Live-scan optical contactless rolled 25

Live-scan non-optical contactless plain 26

Live-scan non-optical contactless rolled 27

Other 28

Unknown 29

10

Questions?

- ANSI/NIST Fingerprint Standard Update Workshop II
- What is IMP used for?
- What’s important to know about the FP?
- Update Considerations
- Table 18 – Palm Impression type (Legacy Table)
- Table 5 – Finger impression type (Proposed Table)
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Annual Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Frederick F. Wolfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that :

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Frederick F. Wolfe  |           |
|-------------------------|----------------|
| Frederick F. Wolfe      |
|                    |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
|                    | March 14, 2007 |   |
|                         |                |  |  |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2452MN

_____________ Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Pioneer Snacks, Inc., a Michigan * [UNPUBLISHED] corporation, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: October 20, 1997

Filed: October 30, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Clove rdaleFoods of Minnesota, Inc. (Cloverdale) appeals from the advers e decisions of the jury and the judge in this diversity action. Cloverdale raises several contentio ns related to the admissibility of evidence offered by Pioneer Snacks, Inc
. (Pioneer ), the ruling on Cloverdale's motion to sanction Pioneer for discovery violations, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. Becaus e theparties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before this court and our review involves the application of established principles of law in a factintensive case, we conclude that an extensive discussion would serve no useful-2-

purpose. Having considered the record, the briefs, and the parties' arg uments, we reject Cloverdale's allegations of reversible trial error and we are sa tisfied the record supports the verdict. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Hillard C. Gardner, certify that:
 
 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cavalry Bancorp, Inc.;
 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4) The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15-d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:
 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5) The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b) 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.
 
 Date: May 6, 2004
byHillard C. GardnerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
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 &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’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 8.6.&§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

Hugo Boss Trade Mark

Management GMBH & Co. KG v.

1:20-cv-3784

Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GMBH & Co. KG

Sankalp Kandaswamy

Baker McKenzie

300 East Randolph Street, Suite 5000

Chicago, Illinois 60601

IL 6332886 312-861-8000

sankalp.kandaswamy@bakermckenzie.com

6/26/2020

✔

✔

✔

✔

Sankalp Kandaswamy

Case: 1:20-cv-03784 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:54
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 546 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 546

Ordering the immediate printing of the entire communication received on 
            September 9, 1998, from an independent counsel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 1998

  Mr. Condit (for himself, Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. LaHood) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Ordering the immediate printing of the entire communication received on 
            September 9, 1998, from an independent counsel.

Whereas the entire communication of the Office of the Independent Counsel 
        received by the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, includes 
        information of fundamental constitutional importance;
Whereas the American people have a right to receive and review this 
        communication in its entirety;
Whereas the House Committee on the Judiciary has failed to make the entire 
        communication available to the American people; and
Whereas failure to make the entire communication available to the American 
        people raises a question of privilege affecting the dignity and 
        integrity of the proceedings of the House under rule IX of the Rules of 
        the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the entire communication received, including all 
appendices and related materials, on September 9, 1998, from an 
independent counsel, pursuant to section 595(c) of title 28, United 
States Code, shall be printed immediately as a document of the House of 
Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
### S UPERIOR 

### C OURT

OF THE



### S TATE OF 

### D ELAWARE

FERRIS W

. WHARTON N EW C ASTLE C OUNTY C OURTHOUSE

J UDGE W ILMINGTON

, DE 19801

- 3733

December 8 , 2014

Sterling Hobbs a.k.a. Amir Fatir

SBI # 13

1181 Paddock Road

Smyrna, Delaware 19977

Letter and Order

RE: Motion for Reconsideration

– 75060892DI

Dear Mr. Hobbs :

The Court has received your Motion for Reconsideration dated October 30,

2014 . In the Motion you assert that, based on your claim for lack of jurisdiction, the

Rule 61 Motion you filed on September 19, 2014 cannot be summarily dismissed

because “Super. Ct. R. 61(i)(5) clearly states that ‘The bars to relief in paragraphs (1),

(2), (3), and (4) of this subdivision shall not apply to either a claim that the court

lacked jurisdiction...’” 1

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 was amended effective June 4, 2014. The

amendment included a procedural mechanism by which the Court shall summarily

dismiss seco nd or subsequent Rule 61 Motions before considering the procedural bars

contained in Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)

. 2 If the claims set forth in the second or

subsequent Rule 61 Motion do not meet the pleading requirements of Section

(d)(2)(i)

- (ii), the Court shall dismiss the claim. 3 Therefore, because your Rule 61

1 Mot. for Reconsideration, D.I. 248, ¶ 3 (quoting Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5))

. 2 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).

3 Id.2 Motion did not set forth claims as required by Section (d)(2)(i)

- (ii), the Court

summarily dismissed your Rule 61 Motion.

T he Court need not examine your claims under Section (i) because your cl aims

did not survive summary dismissal under th e current version of the rule . As you note

in your Motion

, Section (i)(5) renders the procedural bars set forth in Section (i)

inapplicable to claims of lack of jurisdiction; however, because your claim was

dismissed under Section (d), Section (i)(5) is inapplicable . Stated another way, the

recent amendment effectively mandates that all second or subsequent post

- conviction

motions be summarily dismissed before examining the Motion under Section (i )

unless the movant was convicted after a trial and either the claim is that new evidence

exists to prove the movant’s innocence or the claim is that a new rule of constitutional

law that has been made retroactive applies to the movant’s case. 4

Ther efore, your Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton

Judge

F WW/jnl

4 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(i)

- (ii).