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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 23, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16699

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-60114-CR-JIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELYDIUKYS FABELO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 23, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robin J. Farnsworth, appointed counsel for Elydiukys Fabelo in this direct
criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation,

supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct.

Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Fabelo’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED. However, we discovered a scrivener’s error in the

judgment and, therefore, this case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of

correcting the judgment so that it indicates that the Count 4 conviction was for a

conspiracy to use a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(o).

2
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-04699 Document #: 18 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:242
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 

Upon consideration of the motion filed to withdraw attorney Connely M. Doizé as counsel 

of record for Plaintiff Schulte in the above-captioned matter, the Court hereby GRANTS the 

motion. 

SO ORDERED this ___ day of ____________, 2023. 

 

 Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

IN RE: TIKTOK INC. CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Schulte v. TikTok, Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-02466 

MDL No. 2948 

Master Docket No. 1:20-CV-04699

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 314-1 Filed: 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14119
IV

House Calendar No. 249

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 541

[Report No. 105–724]

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) making

continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 16, 1998

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

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

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res.

128) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1999, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.

4 Res. 128) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal

5 year 1999, and for other purposes. The joint resolution

6 shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous

7 question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolu-
2

HRES 541 RH

1 tion to final passage without intervening motion except:

2 (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by

3 the chairman and ranking minority member of the Com4 mittee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 249

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 541

[Report No. 105–724]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution

poses.tions for the fiscal year 1999, and for other pur-(H.J. Res. 128) making continuing appropriaSEPTEMBER 16, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 22:19:01 Eastern Daylight Time 

Subject: Nadia giselaSilva rocco 

Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 10:59:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

From: nadia gisela silva rocco 

To: NIST Explainable AI 

El secreto de las comunicaciones NO SE LOS DOY NI DOY PERMISO A NADIE DE JACER NADA EN EL NOMBRE MIO LA 

REINA DEL PLATA OK SI ME PERTENECE BIEN LO DICE ES UN SECRETO HAGAN LO QUE QIIERAN NO ES NO OK bye 

Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

 

**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge and belief: (1) the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented.

 

 

 

| /s/ Thomas W. Winfree       | March 20, 2007 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
| Thomas W. Winfree                                         | Date           |  
Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

/s/ C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.      

March 20, 2007

C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.

Date

 
Chief Financial Officer

 

 

  |
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00118-CV 

ENRIQUE CARNERO, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

BILLY JOE WARD, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 99,785-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

 

July 19, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Enrique Carnero, appearing pro se, has filed a notice of appeal challenging the 

judgment of the trial court in his lawsuit.

By letter of May 23, 2013, we notified Carnero of two matters pertaining to his 

appeal requiring immediate attention. First, the filing fee was unpaid. Second, 

Carnero’s notice of appeal was untimely although filed within the fifteen-day extension 

period authorized by appellate rule 26.3. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. We granted Carnero ten 

days, on peril of dismissal, to pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence and to file 
2

a written explanation of the need for additional time to file his notice of appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 5, 26.3, 42.3(a) and (c); Kidd v. Paxton, 1 S.W.3d 309 (Tex.App.—

Amarillo, 1999, pet. denied).

Carnero did not pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence nor did he file a 

writing explaining the need for additional time to file his notice of appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal of Carnero is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(a) 

and (c). 

James T. Campbell

 Justice
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of LG Display Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: April 30, 2014



/s/ SANG BEOM HANSang Beom HanRepresentative Director, President andChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to LG Display Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG Display Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7651

JAMES ARTHUR BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director; LONNIE M. SAUNDERS,

Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District

Judge. (CA-96-273-AM)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Arthur Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motions for

appointment of counsel and general relief, deny a certificate of

probable cause to appeal, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Brown v. Angelone, No. CA-96-273-AM (E.D.

Va. Sept. 26, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL

338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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
#### Grelle, Jr., Appellant, *v.*Humbel et al., Appellees.

(No. 4152

Decided September 21, 1948.)

*Mr. Michael A. Coughlin*and *Mr. Walter W. Grelle,. Jr.,*for appellant.

*Mr. Arthur L. Spielmann,*for appellees.

Wiseman, P. J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Columbus, in which a default judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff was vacated after term.

Plaintiff sued defendants for garage rent and obtained a default judgment on December 8, 1947, in the-amount of $89. On January 9, 1948, an execution was issued which was returned unsatisfied. On January-*27816, 1948, the defendants filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which motion was subscribed only by counsel for the defendants. On January 21, 1948, the court granted leave to defendants to amend at bar to ■change the style of the pleading from “motion” to “petition.” On the same date the court, without further proceedings, sustained the petition to vacate the judgment and granted defendants leave to file a tendered answer. On January 26, 1948, plaintiff filed his application for a rehearing on the petition to vacate the judgment, which application was overruled on February 9, 1948. After the motion was amended at bar and designated a “petition,” it was not verified and no summons was issued as required by Section 11635, General Code. No'proof of any of the grounds to vacate was submitted and the court made no finding •as to the validity of the defense.

The jurisdiction of the trial court to change its judgment does not extend beyond the term in which it is rendered. *Reinbolt*v. *Reinbolt,*112 Ohio St., 526, 533, 147 N. E., 808. The vacation of a judgment after term is controlled by Section 11631 *et seq.,*General Code, which specifically enumerates the procedural steps to be followed. A court is without power to vacate a judgment after term, unless there is a strict •compliance with the controlling statutory provisions. *Terry*v. *Claypool,*77 Ohio App., 77, 86, 65 N. E. (2d), 883; *Andrews*v. *Ackerman Coal Co.,*59 Ohio App., 65, 17 N. E. (2d), 274; *Rabb, Admr.,*v. *Board of Commrs.,*36 Ohio App., 481, 173 N. E., 255. The statutory requisites not being complied with, the court was without authority to vacate the judgment.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

*Judgment reversed.*

Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHRISTIAN REA

No. 20 CR 316

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Chief Judge 

ORDER

Upon the Parties Joint Motion, under Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B), for an extension of time in which to return an indictment 

in the above-captioned case, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time within which to file an indictment 

against the defendant be extended from July 25, 2020, to and including September 

23, 2020. Specifically, this Court finds that the ends of justice served by the extension 

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial because 

the failure to grant such an extension would deny counsel for the defendant and the 

government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of the evidence 

for presentation to the Grand Jury, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

ENTERED:

 

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER

Chief Judge

DATED: July 20, 2020

Case: 1:20-cr-00316 Document #: 11 Filed: 07/20/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:41
Exhibit 32.3 – Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added bysection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tarpon CoastBancorp, Inc., the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: April 26, 2004 /s/ George E. Cline  George E. Cline Chief Financial Officer
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Tarpon CoastBancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Tarpon Coast Bancorp, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Bill Fasoli <bill.fasoli@servicenow.com>

Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 1:54 PM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Cc: Bill Fasoli <william.fasoli@gmail.com>

Subject: Privacy Framework Comments

Dear Ms. MacFarland,

Hope I’m not too out of the loop here, but I would love to see an informative reference 

section in the privacy framework, that maps to NIST 800-53 Rev 5. (It is definitely one of 

my favorite parts of the CSF.) I know that the new version (Rev 5) is not out yet, but I 

think it would be great to add the references as a placeholder until the new framework is 

published. I would also like to see how the framework maps to / addresses GDPR and 

CCPA. I think this would greatly add to the more widespread adoption of the privacy 

framework.

Thank you for your consideration!

Thx,

_____________________________________________

Bill Fasoli

Manager, Cybersecurity & IT Audit

O: (669) 262-3746

M: (949) 375-0025

ServiceNow is Forbes #1 World's Most Innovative Company

LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube | Facebook
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 47 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 12, 1997.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States with respect to the number of terms of office of Members of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives. The first reading of the joint 
resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
joint resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
After general debate the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. No 
amendment shall be in order except those specified in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order specified in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, may be considered notwithstanding the adoption of a 
previous amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report of the Committee on 
Rules equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall 
not be subject to amendment. If more than one amendment is adopted, then only 
the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as 
finally adopted. In the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative 
votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative votes 
shall be considered as finally adopted. The Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) 
reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed 
question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, 
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series 
of question shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IV

House Calendar No. 275

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 586

[Report No. 105–799]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

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

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 8, 1998

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

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

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

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

the United States Code, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3150) to amend title 11 of the

4 United States Code, and for other purposes. All points of

5 order against the conference report and against its consid6 eration are waived. The conference report shall be consid7 ered as read.
House Calendar No. 275

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 586

[Report No. 105–799]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference repurposes. title 11 of the United States Code, and for other port to accompany the bill (H.R. 3150) to amend

OCTOBER 8, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen

United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850 

www.ca7.uscourts.gov 

 

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

October 12, 2022 

To: Thomas G. Bruton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois

Chicago, IL 60604-0000

No. 22-2682 

IN RE:

 TIKTOK INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION 

APPEAL OF: STEVEN F. HELFAND

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:20-cv-04699

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge John Z. Lee

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A 

certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to 

costs shall constitute the mandate. 

TYPE OF DISMISSAL: F.R.A.P. 42(b)

STATUS OF THE RECORD: no record to be returned

form name: c7_Mandate (form ID: 135)

Case: 22-2682 Document: 00714081137 Filed: 10/12/2022 Pages: 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 276 Filed: 10/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13362
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December
          31,
          2007 of the MACROshares Oil Up Holding Trust (the "Registrant"), as filed
          with
          the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
          Report"),
          I, Samuel Masucci, III, principal executive officer of MACRO Securities
          Depositor, LLC, which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the
          "Depositor"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
                The
                    Annual 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 Annual Report fairly represents,
                    in all
                    material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                    of the
                    Registrant.
  March
          28,
          2008
   /s/
          Samuel Masucci, III
 Samuel
          Masucci, III
 Chief
          Executive Officer
CFTC Ex. 128 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-10 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:631
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-10 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:632
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-10 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:633