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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois

Western Division

Victoria C. McKenzie )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-50249

Plaintiff, )

) Hon. Phillips G. Reinhard

Illinois Department of Children and Family )

Services, et al. )

Defendants. )

)

STATUS REPORT

Now comes attorney for Plaintiff, Victoria C. McKenzie, with a status report per the Honorable 

Lisa A. Jensen’s Minute Order #20 and states:

1. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria C. McKenzie filed her Complaint in this Court along with 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. On July 9, 2020, Judge Reinhard struck Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to meet pleading 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and failure to state a claim on which relief maybe granted.

3. On. September 15, 2020 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion for attorney 

representation, which the Court granted.

4. On September 16, 2020, the Honorable Lisa A. Jensen appointed Matthew S. Jarka to represent 

Plaintiff under Local Rules 83.11(h) and 83.37, and instructed counsel to file an appearance and 

status report informing the Court if counsel planned on filing an Amended Complaint or a 

statement that he cannot amend the Complaint consistent with his obligations under Rule 11 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. On October 22, counsel filed his appearance and the Court extended the due date of the status 

report to November 9, 2020.

6. Counsel was recovering from Covid-19 in early November and apologizes to this Court for 

missing the deadline. 
7. Counsel has had several communications with the Plaintiff and, so far, has been unable to obtain 

from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s previous counsel the necessary information to file an Amended 

Complaint consistent with Rule 11.

8. Plaintiff states her medical conditions have made it difficult to remember the dates, names, and 

events on which she broadly based her originally filed Complaint in this matter. Additionally, 

Plaintiff states she has been unsuccessful in obtaining her “records” from the Illinois Department 

of Children and Family Services that would allow her to file an Amended Complaint that meets 

the pleading requirements.

9. Counsel requests an extension of ninety days from this Court in order to request Plaintiff’s 

records from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court that might allow counsel to understand the nature and 

specificity of Plaintiff’s grievances to determine if the Amended Complaint can be rehabilitated 

in accordance with Rule 11.

10. Counsel’s request for extension is not made for purposes of delay, but rather to be able to fulfill 

the responsibilities of the Court’s appointment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff submits this Status Report and request for extension.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Matthew S. Jarka

Asher, Gittler & D’Alba, Ltd.

200 W. Jackson, Suite 720

Chicago, IL. 60606

(312) 601-9241

ARDC #6322603
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          58,865
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,865
<PP&E>                                         219,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 425,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          827,432
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,269
<OTHER-SE>                                    (452,482)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   425,219
<SALES>                                        241,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,802
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,236,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,511
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (998,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (998,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (998,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)


</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

MISH INTERNATIONAL MONETARY INC., 

on behalf of itself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-04577 

Hon. Manish S. Shah 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

SHELL TRADING (U.S.) COMPANY, 

Movant, 

v. 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED and 

ADRIAN SPIRES, 

Respondents.

 Case No. 1:24-cv-05206 

 Hon. Jeremy C. Daniel 

 Magistrate Judge Heather K. 

 McShain 

AMENDED NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, July 3, 2024 at 9:45 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned shall appear before the Honorable Manish S. 

Shah at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, Room 1919, 219 South Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, and then and there present Defendants Vega Capital London Limited and 

Adrian Spires' Unopposed Motion to Reassign Civil Action No. 1:24-05206 as a Related Case to 

Civil Action No. 1:20-4577. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 365 Filed: 06/27/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:13857
2 

Dated: June 27, 2024 

Respectfully submitted, 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED 

and ADRIAN SPIRES 

By: /s/ Michael P. Kelly 

Michael P. Kelly 

AKERMAN LLP 

750 Ninth Street, N.W., Suite 750 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 393-6222 

michael.kelly@akerman.com 

Amy Graham Doehring 

Shawn Taylor 

AKERMAN LLP 

71 S. Wacker Drive, 47th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 634-5700 

amy.doehring@akerman.com

shawn.taylor@akerman.com

Attorneys for Vega Capital London Limited 

and Adrian Spires 

Michelle D. Nasser 

DOWD BENNETT LLP 

222 West Adams Street, Suite 250 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 224-7006 

mnasser@dowdbennett.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 365 Filed: 06/27/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:13858
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on June 27, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended 

Notice of Unopposed Motion to Reassign was served to the following counsel of record in Civil 

Action No. 1:24-05206 via email and to all counsel of record in Civil Action No. 1:20-04577 via

ECF: 

Eliot F. Turner 

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 

1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 

Houston, TX 77010-3095 

Telephone: (713) 651-5151 

Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 

eliot.turner@nortonrosefulbright.com

Alex Cummings 

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 

1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 

Houston, TX 77010-3095 

Telephone: (713) 651-5151 

Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 

alex.cummings@nortonrosefulbright.com

Attorneys for Movant Shell Trading (US) Company 

/s/ Michael P. Kelly 

 Michael P. Kelly 

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 365 Filed: 06/27/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:13859
Exhibit 12.1
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of eLong, 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The company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 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)) for
the company and have:
     5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    By:
    /s/ Guangfu CuiName:
    Guangfu CuiTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Devon POWELL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7145.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 10, 2004.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

Mark Andrew McBride, Beverly Hills, California, for Appellant. Rudolf A. Renter, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

James Devon Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Powell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a *297certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04699

Honorable John Z. Lee

TikTok Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 10, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Due to a last−minute conflict,

the Court resets the status hearing currently set for 12/2/20 to 12/11/20 at 1:00 (Central

time). Mailed notice(ca, )

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-04699 Document #: 102 Filed: 11/10/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1840
Exhibit 32.1

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 Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-KSB/A to the Annual Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc. (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rupert Galliers-Pratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my
best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | /s/RUPERT GALLIERS-PRATTRupert Galliers-Pratt
Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:
January 30, 2006

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 Vistula Communications Services, Inc. and will be retained by Vistula
Communications Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Hess *vs.*Joseph.

1. The papers, upon an application to compel the attorney of the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of money deposited by the defendant with his attorney, should not be entitled in the action, the application being *delms*the action, and in'no sense a step or proceeding in the action.

2. A summary application to compel an attorney to pay over money received hr his professional capacity is only entertained on motion of the client. It is a privilege given to clients for their protection against exactions and overreachings, and is not extended either to outside parties, or to assignees of clients.

(Before Jones, J., at Special Term,

December, 1867.)

This is an application to compel the attorney of the defendant to pay the plaintiff a certain sum of money deposited by the defendant with his attorney.

The application comes up on an order to show cause, without any name signed to it as attorney. The order to show cause, and the affidavits on which it is founded are, however, indorsed “ --att’ys for plff.” All the papers are entitled in the action.

The case as shown by the moving papers is this. The defendant was arrested in this action under an order of arrest. His brother-in-law, J. Halberstadt, employed an attorney to procure the defendant’s release; the attorney undertook to procure bail for the defendant- on receiving $500 to secure him. The $500 was raised by the defendant’s said brother-in-law, and by him paid to the attorney who procured bail for the defendant, and thereupon the defendant was released from arrest.

This suit progressed, and about the 9th of April, 1866, the plaintiff’s attorney and said J. Halberstadt agreed that this $500 should be paid over to the plaintiff in part satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim in the action against the defendant, and-¡that the plaintiff should release the de*610fendant’s bail in this action. Afterwards the plaintiff’s attorney demanded of the defendant’s attorney the said sum of $500 as his legal charges in this action, and offered, on receipt thereof, to release the bail and discontinue the action. The application is founded on the affidavits of J. Halberstadt, the defendant, and the plaintiff’s attorney. There are opposing affidavits which it is unnecessary to consider, in the view taken of the motion.

Jones, J.

This application cannot be granted: *First.*The papers are wrongly entitled in this action. The application is *dehors*the action, and is in no sense a step or proceeding in the action.

*Second.*It appears to be made on behalf of the plaintiff, between whom and the defendant’s attorney the relation .of attorney and client does not exist. . A summary application to compel an attorney to pay over money received in his professional capacity is only entertained on motion of the client. This is a privilege given to clients for their protection against such exactions and overreachings, which the attorney by reason of the confidence placed in him by his client might resort to. But this privilege and extraordinary remedy is not extended either to outside parties or to assignees of clients.

Motion denied, without costs.
H. Res. 586

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 9, 1998.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 3150) to amend title 11 of the United States

Code, and for other purposes. All points of order against the

conference report and against its consideration are waived.

The report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 600

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that certain

extraordinary bills reported by the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight to eliminate waste and provide reform of the executive

branch are privileged.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 14, 1998

Mr. ROYCE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

provide that certain extraordinary bills reported by the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to

eliminate waste and provide reform of the executive

branch are privileged.

1 Resolved, That clause 4(a) of rule XI of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by inserting

3 after ‘‘rule XXXVI;’’ the following: ‘‘the Committee on

4 Government Reform and Oversight——on any bill that

5 eliminates waste and reforms departments, agencies, and
2

•HRES 600 IH

1 instrumentalities of the executive branch and that carries

2 a designation that such bill is extraordinary;’’.

Æ
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2022

- 2655

_____________________________
T RAVIS L EE H ARDY D ELACRUZ , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Linda L. Nobles , Judge

. February 22, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 10.5**

 

June 2, 2008

 

Mr. Stephen T. Auburnc/o Pliant Corporation1475 Woodfield RoadSchaumburg, Illinois 60173

 

Dear Steve:

 

This letter revises andsupersedes as of January 1, 2008, the severance benefit provisions in yourletter to the Company of July 19, 2005, in light of the tax regulationsunder Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

In the event that youremployment is involuntarily terminated by the Company without cause, or as theresult of the occurrence of a change in control of the Company, you willreceive payment of not less than fifty-two weeks of salary continuance (payableover the 12-month period beginning with your separation from service)  In the event that upon your separation youare a “specified employee” of a “public company” (as those terms are defined inthose regulations) and the total salary continuance exceeds the maximuminvoluntary separation pay amount (currently $460,000) permitted by the Section 409Aregulations, the excess will be paid no earlier than the date that is sixmonths after your separation from service.

 

These severance benefits inlieu of amounts otherwise payable under the Company’s applicable severance andsalary continuation plan or program, and are conditional upon your delivery,within six months of your separation from service, of a release of anyemployment-related claims and customary covenants in form and substancesatisfactory to the Company.

 

If you agree that thiscorrectly restates the terms of your severance benefit, please sign one copy ofthis letter below and return the signed copy to me.

 
|   |   | Pliant Corporation                     |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                   |
|   | By:    |  /s/ Harold C. Bevis              |
|   |   | Harold C. Bevis                        |
|   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

Agreed:

 
|  /s/ Stephen T. Auburn |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Stephen T. Auburn           |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26157]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 (Second Review)]


Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From Vietnam

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping 
duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam would be likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry 
in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31345) 
and determined on September 5, 2014, that it would conduct an expedited 
review (79 FR 56826).
    The Commission completed and filed its determination in this review 
on October 30, 2014. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC 
Publication 4498 (October 2014), entitled Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 
FSrom Vietnam: Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 (Second Review).

    Issued: October 30, 2014.

    By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-26157 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
##### 



Citizens Effingham Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2006
 Exhibit 32.1
  (1)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
the Company.
  /s/Harry H. Shearouse