alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-85,417, TA-W-85,417A]


West Linn Paper Company, a Subsidiary of Belgravia Investments, 
Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Galt Foundation, West Linn, 
OR; Columbia River Logistics, Inc. (CRL), a Subsidiary of Belgravia 
Investments, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Resource 
Staffing, Vancouver, WA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on August 18, 2014, applicable to workers of West Linn Paper Company, a 
subsidiary of Belgravia Investments, Inc., including on-site leased 
workers from Galt Foundation, West Linn, Oregon (TA-W-85,417). The 
Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal 
Register on September 9, 2014 (Volume 79 FR Page 53450).
    At the request of a state workforce office, the Department reviewed 
the certification for workers of the subject firm. The firm is engaged 
in the production of coated paper.
    The investigation confirmed that worker separations at Columbia 
River Logistics, Inc. (CRL), including on-site leased workers from 
Resource Staffing, Vancouver, Washington, (TA-W-85,417) are 
attributable to increased imports of coated paper, as are worker 
separations at the West Linn, Oregon facility.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,417 and TA-W-85,417A is 
hereby issued as follows:

    All workers of West Linn Paper Company, a subsidiary of 
Belgravia Investments, Inc., including on-site leased workers from 
Galt Foundation, West Linn, Oregon (TA-W-85,417) and Columbia River 
Logistics, Inc., including Resource Staffing, Vancouver, Washington 
(TA-W-85,417A) who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after July 8, 2013 through August 18, 2016, and all 
workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation 
from employment on the date of certification through two years from 
the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of October, 2014.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-27483 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 18.1

March 16,
2011

GFI
Group Inc.
55 Water Street
New York, NY 10041

We
have audited the consolidated financial statements of GFI Group Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2010, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report thereon dated
March 16, 2011, which expresses an unqualified opinion. Note 2 to such consolidated financial statements contains a description of your adoption, during the year ended
December 31, 2010, of your change in the date for the annual goodwill impairment test. In our judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the
circumstances.

Yours truly,/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York


---



QuickLinks
#### Benj. H. Lawrence, Etc., *v.*H. C. Middleton.

Reformation of Instruments — Deed to Describe Property.

. The grantee in a deed is entitled to have the deed so reformed as to correctly describe the property intended to be conveyed thereby.

Trusts — Conveyance of Land in Trust — Grantor Has No Interest in the Execution of the Trust.

The conveyance to the trustees for the benefit of Mrs. Lawrence divested the grantor of all interest in the trust property, and under *601the same she cannot claim to have any interest, either legal or equitable, in the execution of the trust.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 17, 1871.

*Bodley & Sumrall, for appellants.*

*Bullock, Anderson & Weissenger, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

It is satisfactorily established by the pleadings, exhibits and proof that appellee was entitled to have the deed under which he claims title so reformed as to correctly describe the property intended to be conveyed.

The conveyance from May and Gray to H. W. Gray and others, trustees for Mrs. Selina Lawrence, divested the grantor of all interest in the trust property, and under the same she could not claim to have the slightest interest, either legal or equitable, in the execution of the trust. In addition to this, the trustees were empowered to sell and convey the trust estate at their discretion. Under such a state of case the statute of 1820 does not apply. *Butler v. Miller,*15 B. Monroe. Bottom page 494.

Judgment affirmed.
#### S. W. Kenner *v.*Charles W. McIntyre, etc.

Sales — Execution of Note After Receipt of Goods — Plea of Fraud too Late.

The plea of fraud in the sale of goods cannot be made available, where the note was executed after the goods had been received and opened, and after the purchaser had acquired a full knowledge of all the facts connected with the transaction and had received and accepted the goods.

Libel and Slander — Pleadings—Answer—Counter-Claim—False Representation.

Special damages in a case like this can be recovered only where the false representations are made maliciously and with intent to injure, and it must appear that actual injury was thereby done. It is not enough to charge that a creditor is induced to sue and attach by reason of false and malicious representations, it must be alleged that the attachment was discharged on the hearing of the case.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

October 21, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The plea of want of consideration for the execution of the note sued on is bad. The answer shows upon its face that it was given for goods, wares, etc., sold and delivered.

The plea of fraud in the sale of such goods can not now be made available as the note was executed after the goods had been received and opened, and after appellant had acquired a full knowledge of all the facts connected with the sale and had received and accepted the goods.

The charge that appellant had sustained special damages by reason of false and fraudulent representations made by appellees to their creditors in Cincinnati is not good as a counter claim for these reasons. Special damages in cases like that can be recovered only where the false representations are made maliciously and with the intent to injure. Possibly it is sufficiently alleged that appellees did act maliciously and did intend by their representations to injure the credit of appellant as a business man, but it does not appear that they were actually injured thereby. They claim that by reason of such representations their creditors were induced to sue them and to attach their property, but *528they do not allege that there were not good grounds for such attachments, nor that the same were not sustained when tided.

*Anderson & Given, for appellant.*

*Andrews, for appellees.*

It is not enough to charge that a creditor is induced to sue and attach by reason of representations, which are alleged to be false and malicious, and then tacitly concede that in point of fact good grounds for the attachments existed, by failing to allege, upon trial, the orders were discharged.

Whilst it is a rule of practice that upon demurrer every material allegation in the pleading is to be taken as true, it is also true that the pleading is to be construed most strongly against the pleader.

If the attachments were discharged, that fact should have been stated in the answer. The failure to state it raises the presumption- that they were sustained, and if such be the fact, the representations complained of, turned out to be true instead of false and fraudulent.

We regard the answer as amended as fatally defective.

Judgment affirmed.
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

Alhummza Stokes v. City of

Chicago, et al.,

20 CV 4716

Defendants Bolton, Gonzalez, Leano, Nichols Jr.

Kelly M. Olivier

Hale & Monico, LLC

53 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 337

Chicago, IL 60604

6309826 (312) 341-9646

kolivier@halemonico.com

2/5/2021

✔

✔

✔

✔

Kelly M. Olivier

Case: 1:20-cv-04716 Document #: 25 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:71
#### Abijah J. Whitmore v. Mary Whitmore.

*Divorce*— Alimony—JSxtreme cruelty— *Costs.*

A motion for alimony *pendente lite*will not be entertained by the-Supreme Court before tbe return of tbe appeal bond, where the-wife is defendant and tbe decree is against ber.

It is extreme cruelty warranting a divorce for a wife to causelessly humiliate and disgrace her husband and endanger bis means of subsistence by habitually, persistently and publicly accusing him of' infamous conduct in violation of bis marriage obligations, and by applying vile and vulgar epithets to him and dogging him and setting-others to spy out bis movements, until by inordinate and indecent exhibitions of jealousy and tbe criminal indulgence of unworthy suspicions and ungoverned violence she has practically destroyed the: decencies and purposes of the marriage relation.

Costs were denied the wife on affirmance of a decree for divorce-obtained for good cause by her husband and appealed from by herself.

Motion for alimony *pendente Ute.*Submitted and denied June 13.

*J. W. A. S. Cullen*for the motion.

*George Gartmer*against.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Detroit.

Submitted October 11.

Decided October 31.

*418Bill for divorce. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Geo. Gardner*and *Fred B. Gartner*for complainant.

*John W. A. S. Cullen*for defendant

Campbell, -T.

Complainant obtained a decree of divorce against defendant on tbe ground of cruelty. There was strong evidence, fully corroborated by the defendant’s charges in her answer, that she had habitually and persistently treated complainant in the most offensive and opprobrious manner, accusing him in public and in private of infamous conduct in violation of his marriage obligations, and calling him by the vilest epithets vulgarly applied to persons acting habitually as she charged him to have acted. This conduct on her part was carried on at times and places not only calculated to exasperate and humiliate him, but to publicly disgrace him and to endanger his means of subsistence. She not only applied this kind of offensive language to him, but she dogged him personally and set other persons to pursuing him and spying out his movements, and insulted him and other persons in his presence in such a manner as nothing short of insanity could excuse. It would not be profitable to detail this offensive matter at length. That it amounts to extreme cruelty is beyond question, and that it had gone far enough to practically destroy all the decencies and purposes of the marriage relation is apparent. Ve find no evidence that this inordinate and indecent exhibition of jealousy had any accountable basis, and it can only be treated as a criminal indulgence of unworthy suspicions and ungoverned violence. *We*see no reason for reversing the decree, and we do not think the defendant should burden complainant with costs or expenses of the appeal beyond . what has already been laid upon him.

The decree must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of 
Scientific Counselors, NICHD, December 5, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to December 
5, 2014, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, 
Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2014, 79 FR 210, page 
64608.
    The meeting notice is amended to add an open session and agenda 
from December 5, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to December 5, 2014, 12:30 p.m. as 
follows below. The closed session commences immediately afterward.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.
    Date: December 5, 2014.
    Open: 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: A report by the Scientific Director, NICHD, on the 
status of the NICHD Division of Intramural Research, and seminars by 
various intramural scientists.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference 
Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference 
Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.


    Dated: November 13, 2014.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-27347 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report 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 Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of Odimo Incorporated at the dates and for
    the periods indicated.



|                     |  |                                                                                               
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 26, 2006 |  | /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa Kornblum, Chief Financial
    Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE v. WALKER

No. 23P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 788

Notice of appeal by defendant (substantial constitutional question) dismissed 5 June 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
|   | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                August 4, 2005 | by:    |                                                             |
|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Hillard                C. Gardner                                |
|                                |   | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                |   | (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer)      |
1

785583.4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC.,

CONSUMER PRIVACY

LITIGATION,

This Document Relates to All Cases

MDL No. 2948

Master Docket No. 20-cv-4699 

Judge John Z. Lee

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES 

IN SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1. The Local Rules prohibit the filing of briefs in excess of 15 pages without prior 

approval of the court. Local Rule 7.1.

2. On February 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class 

Action Settlement (“Motion”). ECF No. 122.

3. At the March 2, 2021 hearing on that Motion, the Court asked Co-Lead Counsel to 

submit a supplemental memorandum further addressing three issues related to that Motion: (1) the 

representation of minor class members; (2) the process through which Co-Lead Counsel valued 

the claims; and (3) consideration of class notice by email and/or in-App notifications. See 

Transcript of 03/02/21 Hearing, pp. 45-47.

4. To ensure that the Court is fully informed regarding these issues, Plaintiffs request 

permission to exceed the 15-page limitation and file a motion of up to 25 pages in length.

Dated: March 22, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan

Elizabeth A. Fegan

FEGAN SCOTT LLC

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 135 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2389
2

785583.4

150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Ph: 312.741.1019

Fax: 312.264.0100

beth@feganscott.com

By: /s/ Katrina Carroll

Katrina Carroll

CARLSON LYNCH, LLP

111 W. Washington St.

Suite 1240

Chicago IL 60602

312.750.1265

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

By: /s/ Ekwan Rhow

Ekwan Rhow

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, 

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 201-2100

erhow@birdmarella.com

Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 135 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2390
3

785583.4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Elizabeth A. Fegan, an attorney, affirm that the foregoing was filed on March 22, 2021 

on ECF, which automatically served all counsel of record.

March 22, 2021 By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan

Elizabeth A. Fegan

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 135 Filed: 03/22/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2391
Exhibit 32.2



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 of American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President 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 (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ G. Peter DAloia                             
|G. Peter DAloia                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



October 25, 2005
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge: Jeffrey Cole 

 

THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENT YANJIN-US’ 

MOTION TO VACATE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TO SANCTION PLAINTIFFS 

Third-Party Respondent Yanjin-us’ (d.b.a. “Shenzhen Yanjingmaoyi Ltd. Co.,” Dkt.456, p.14, 

Exhibit A, #12), by and through counsel, moves this honorable Court to vacate the Preliminary 

Injunction Order entered on October 13, 2021 against it, and to Sanction Plaintiffs for their bad-faith 

false representation and bad-faith patent enforcement action against third-party Respondent Yanjin-us. 

 

Date: 05/16/2022 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju 

He Cheng 

Tao Liu 

GLACIER LAW PLLC 

200 Park Avenue, Ste 1703 

New York, NY 10166 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 535 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:13894
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this May 16, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing file with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record and 

interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 05/16/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju 

 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 535 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13895