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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3937 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3937

      To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish 
                  macroeconomic congressional budgets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2004

Mr. Hastings of Washington (for himself and Mr. Castle) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in 
      addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish 
                  macroeconomic congressional budgets.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Macroeconomic Budgeting Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MACROECONOMIC CONGRESSIONAL BUDGETS.

    (a) Macroeconomic Categories.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by striking paragraph 
(4) and by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) 
through (6), respectively.
    (b) Additional Matters.--Section 301(b) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
of paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the 
end of paragraph (9), and by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(10) set forth appropriate levels for each fiscal year 
        covered by such concurrent resolution for new budget authority 
        and outlays for each major functional category established by 
        the Committees on the Budget (after consultation with each 
        other), based on allocations of the total levels set forth 
        pursuant to subsection (a)(1).''.
                                 <all>
```
46988478.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION 

BENJAMIN GARNER AND DEBORAH 

SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated individuals, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an 

Illinois Insurance Company,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-04693

Hon. John Z. Lee 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

The parties, Plaintiffs Benjamin Garner and Deborah Schick (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant 

Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby 

notify the Court that they have reached a settlement in principle of this matter. 

1. The parties respectfully request thirty (30) days leave of the Court to finalize the 

settlement through a written settlement agreement and file a stipulation of dismissal. 

2. The parties further request that the Court vacate the status conference currently set 

for December 21, 2021 and remove the conference from its docket.

3. Finally, the parties request that the Court remove this case from its active docket.

WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court strike the upcoming status conference, 

strike all other upcoming hearings and deadlines, and remove this case from its active docket.

Dated: December 16, 2021 

Respectfully submitted,

Allstate Insurance Company

/s/Lewis S. Wiener__________________

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 54 Filed: 12/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:258
46988478.1

Lewis S. Wiener (Bar No. 414479)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

700 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20001-3980

Telephone: 202-383-0140

Facsimile: 202-637-3593

Email: lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com

Timothy J. McCaffrey (Bar No. 6229804)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000

Chicago, IL 60611

Telephone: 312-535-4445

Facsimile: 312-724-9322

Email: timmcaffrey@eversheds-sutherland.com

Francis X. Nolan, IV 

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.

New York, NY 10036-7703

Telephone: 212-389-5083

Facsimile: 212-389-5099

Email: franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Benjamin Garner & Deborah Schick

/s/Steven L. Woodrow______________

Steven L. Woodrow 

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Marc E. McCallister

mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com

McCallister Law Group

200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2150

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 345-0611

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 54 Filed: 12/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:259
November 12, 2020

Clerk, Attention: Dorothy Brown

Circuit Court of Cook County

Richard J. Daley Center

50 W Washington Street

Chicago, IL 60602

Re: Longobardi v. Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc., as successor-in-interest to The Bendix 

Corporation et al

USDC No: 1:20-cv-04367

Circuit Court No: 2019 L 002580

Dear Clerk:

A certified copy of an order entered on 11/10/2020 by the Honorable Gary Feinerman , remanding the 

above-entitled case back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois is herewith transmitted to you for 

your files.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk 

By: /s/ Roberto Cornejo

 Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-04367 Document #: 33 Filed: 11/12/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:539
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                     208,857,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              215,471,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                16,630,000
<INVENTORY>                                222,922,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           676,862,000
<PP&E>                                     224,041,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              81,821,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             861,553,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      222,532,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       958,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 626,818,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               861,553,000
<SALES>                                    806,898,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           806,898,000
<CGS>                                      446,385,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              668,347,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,128,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            147,679,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                47,340,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        100,339,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               100,116,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 320 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 320

  Providing for a committee to notify the President of completion of 
                               business.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            November 10 (legislative day, November 9), 1997

                    Adopted pursuant to H. Res. 311

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for a committee to notify the President of completion of 
                               business.

    Resolved, That a committee of two Members of the House be appointed 
to wait upon the President of the United States and inform him that the 
House of Representatives has completed its business of the session and 
is ready to adjourn, unless the President has some other communication 
to make to them.
                                 <all>
```
#### Louis CONWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hon. Margaret GARVEY, Family Court of the NYS, County of Rockland County Office Building New City New York 10956, County of Rockland, Richard Feinberg, Jennifer Williams, Dept. of Probations, Allison-Parris County Office Building, Gail Golden, Volunteer Counseling Service Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-0174-PR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 6, 2004.

*793Louis Conway, West Nyack, N.Y., for Appellant, pro se.

Patrick M. Murphy, McCabe, Collins, McGeough & Fowler, Mineóla, N.Y. (on submission)., for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: CALABRESI, B.D. PARKER, and RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

In October 2003, Plaintiff-Appellant Louis Conway (“Conway”) filed a *pro se*complaint against a number of individuals (“defendants”) on a range of issues arising in connection with child custody proceedings in family court and related counseling sessions, which were ordered by the family court judge.

The district court (Chin, *J.)*dismissed all of Conway’s federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. On appeal, Conway argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint, which he insists raised non-frivolous claims, and that the court should, at the very least, have allowed him to amend his complaint.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. We note, moreover, that although the district court did not specifically address Conway’s request for injunctive relief against one of the defendants, a state court judge, this claim, absent any showing that the defendants violated a declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable, is unavailing. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1983; Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-317, § 309(c), 110 Stat. 3847, 3853; *see also Hili v. Sciarrotta,*140 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir.1998) (“Congress amended § 1983 to bar injunctive relief ‘in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity ... unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” ’) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

We have considered all of Conway’s arguments and find them to be without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FILED 7/17/2020

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case: 1:20-cr-00368 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:46
Case: 1:20-cr-00368 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:47
Case: 1:20-cr-00368 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/17/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:48
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of VornadoOperating Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’sknowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   August 11, 2003      /s/ STEVEN ROTHName: Steven Roth  Title:   Chief Executive Officer
#### The People v. Henry H. Parkhurst.

*Bmhesdemeni*— New *trial..*

*A.*person was charged with embezzlement to an amount exceeding: $25, but there was no proof that part of the money came to his-hands and the remainder was less than $25. *Held*that a request for an acquittal was too broad, but that respondent should have had the benefit of the defect in proof under the request, and as a punishment for felony was unwarranted, he was entitled to a new trial.

Exceptions from Muskegon.

Submitted June 20.

Decided June 27.

Information for embezzlement. Respondent was convicted.

New trial ordered.

Attorney General *Jacob J. Van Riper*for the People.

*J. U.*Stmdish, *W. D. Fuller*and *Stephen H. Glink*for the respondent.

Cooley, J.

Respondent was convicted on a charge of embezzlement of property to a value exceeding twenty-five dollars. The record contains all the evidence. The property embezzled was bark, which was delivered by servants of the respondent to third persons and the value received by the servants. The evidence of embezzlement was that respondent failed to account for the money received. One certain sum was paid to a man named Ryan, and there was neither evidence that Ryan had authority to receive it nor that the money ever came to respondent’s hands. Leaving this out of view the value supposed to have been converted by respondent was less than twenty-five dollars. The judge was requested to charge the jury that on the evidence respondent was entitled to an acquittal. The request was refused. It was undoubtedly too broad, but as no felony was made out we think the respondent should have the benefit of the defect in proof under this request. The other *23evidence of conversion did not bring the crime home to the respondent very conclusively, and as the punishment to which he is subject is clearly unwarranted by proofs, we think justice requires a new trial.

It will be ordered accordingly.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 31.06

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND
15d-14(a),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ruth Porat,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alphabet Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 29, 2016



|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ RUTH PORAT                                                                 
|Ruth Porat                                                                     
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
10105.

#### City of Jackson *v.*Crawkord.

Decided April 22, 1919.

Action for damages; from Butts superior court—Judge Searcy. August 17, 1918.

*C. L. Redman, W. E. Watkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. M. Fletcher,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

The motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds; the verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in denying a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 66 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 66

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on International 
              Relations in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

 Mr. Gilman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on International 
              Relations in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on International Relations 
(hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $10,983,892 for the One 
Hundred Fifth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,349,555 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1998; and
            (2) not more than $5,634,337 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1999.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Oversight.
                                 <all>
```
And Told hin, He Snnele WLS a. Sur Made yi Hey hil him Mis
then pet | hin back in He cell bee I are polling FASE SEX.
of fealber. hbols R PO sores (for ELL he 4 sutT abot this aon)

% have Hae assantfed and. athcked.
On SaToveley To Sta day night ab Si Oem

duithy- rds in ol 47 Wes asriolled and hed tb be Taber oct
the call and then to te. cubside. hespiTe (6 are Using a Prserhes
dusted FAN To chown out Ber vesse So Alay cact Heat He
assenll. And yeslerdag, Ke $3 Ine m £5 Cll rebsed To Lk |
his calemehe back re coll So he Was put in CHALAIs ond STrapped
ib the Restioit chair rihere he 14 stil at fod.

[Ulery » IIUSCLIUG, ecrded  %7-8L
CELE 3 O53

Bist Toms CES)


FILED

| _ SEP 13 2021
Hay, Zain D: Tohaslor JUDGE IAIN D. JOHNSTON Sal | oat \
US, DeTtcel TuDae UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RE. Deméleziis Hell Vo Cig th, 80-CV- S025.

| LLP pbye full

Zz While for several fensore!

| zt “
d He STATEMENT of DesfuleD FACTWAL LSSWES was

wihdle gs such, aad Stoked be fh Hed
"A Sateen? of UplzesfuEd
FACTual LISUES “

wd Ca. the Court have he Dockel Change ed accerdigly, reYech
this caren As all te VA . Talked therein we Supporfed by reaperdenls

ann docuness and exhibils ,
Q.x0 Wye He Court io CKamine He Cslculetions ‘oad highlighled

abit ave used. As 7 is Clear od lunar biq uous that A. © Cecetved

No dae process Shearing for b the Taking fl ma Groed Conduct Time.

(Get ) based ay an alleged Géb Uasalisklar designalion, This id


in vielalien ol clear Supreme Cowl Ca8e lard, and there thre clear
Exemp ils in fh kde, Sovply ignored by if espandals. B Moar

beSed a fends on feeds and exhibils ily QCT Fron Qodh

To Book Sheld of been VESTED od pon cortscctable,

The adie Toyethor oA these Tao QCT calculations places
ile pst ity (olease, date as Such x Ulge He (out? fo order
a tet Kesig or Sunmarify order aly Celease. Ham His Tacildy.
Evaiydeg xX fenair in this Tcl Cealesa paibildly SLL hill
eile asset, o achesiiale ly Biol? er dea th— Mit 38 |

not ype
a Ke pat rhek, We Evas Who x WheTe abaucf~ frevioubly

hes tal been able to Be a few olter being torced bxck to the
with a sal fedelar and (allegdl Ly) taped! 1 Ther 13 eel hed Tso

misses, wel Uf dug dale, Told one fsonen To fack-up Ihe Was


Mody ~ fro WHERE 16 vad wzTHUHo,,~ he Wes being moved with te

incale ub hac judl been accused eb Sewucly adseullng WV: Eves. Thal
cyt ba Hhar dogs aber beng actaed oS Sonal assault fy fyuto
eHloyld b oe He guy Yom U8 cod nfo his cell Load F3) Buh
Ke 9g | Lo Y3 Ce Was caved rop-less! Jo he rebel ip in
Phere, 2 deed him To The & geal and andther Use f Farce
occurred , Med Hey [of Me guy Sek isle 130M rath his of
Coltade. The. voy roid chy Hal guamefe ie fehsd Te go infe £0
Coll, he ellcked He ollar xrmile in 18 et wile he shes atill ax

ail

hondcutts ,, bealing hin senseless!
' Cane Jo Bod af Lh bug dale Told

He ranale lls ht Tiyed b Wverin with Lo Co Hat the (CaS

Nas because hes Cedl-male had bee degping kis “(; Snileh kdters.) |

on Won Sang he was bullying horn in the. coll |!
**Exhibit No. 99.2**

[On Letterhead of Aston Bell, Certified Public Accountant] 

**Independent Accountant’s Report**

Corporate Asset Backed Corporation, (as Depositor)

68 South Service Road, Suite 120 

Melville, NY 11747 

U.S. Bank Trust NationalAssociation 

Corporate Trust Services 

100 Wall Street, Suite 1600 

New York, NY 10005

Re:        CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) (the “Trust”)

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We haveexamined assertions of Corporate Asset Backed Corporation (the “Depositor”) and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, (the “Trustee” and, together with the Depositor, the “Management”) that the Depositor and the Trusteehave complied, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Trust Agreement dated as of May 20, 2004, (the “Trust Agreement”) in respect of the CABCO Series 2004-101 Trust (Goldman Sachs Capital I) (the “Trust”),during the periods covered by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”). Management is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement.Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Management’s assertions based on our examination. 

Our examination was made in accordancewith attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor’s and the Trustee’s compliance with the Trust Agreementand performing such other procedures as considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual Report and Management’s assertions with respectto such compliance are fairly stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2011. 

/s/ Aston Bell, CPA 

New York, New York 

March 16, 2012