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

In re: TikTok Inc. Consumer

Privacy Litigation

1:20-cv-04699

Plaintiffs Bradley Fugot, Adam K. Storey, and Yevgeniy S. Androshchuk

Tyler S. Graden

Kessler Topaz Melter & Check, LLP

280 King of Prussia Road

Radnor, PA 19087

205844 610-667-7706

tgraden@ktmc.com

June 29, 2023

✔

✔

✔

✔

Tyler S. Graden

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 304 Filed: 06/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13429
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 Certification of Chief Executive
Officer Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 
 In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Rotoblock
Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chien Chih Liu, Chief Executive Officer,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:
 
 (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 Registrant.
 
 
  Date: August
11, 2009 ROTOBLOCK
CORPORATION
 
 /s/ Chien
Chih Liu
 By: Chien
Chih Liu, Chief
Executive Officer
Amendment No. 1 to the Hibernia Corporation Executive Bonus Insurance Plan



 Exhibit 10.91 
  
 HIBERNIA CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE BONUS INSURANCE PLAN 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Hibernia Corporation
Executive Bonus Insurance Plan (the “Plan”) is made as of the 24th day of August 2005. 
  
 WHEREAS, Hibernia Corporation, a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (the “Company”), maintains the
Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, under the terms of the Plan, the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Committee”) and/or the Board has the authority to amend the Plan prior to the consummation of a Change of Control
(as defined in the Plan); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Committee adopted
the following amendments to the Plan on August 23, 2005 and the Board approved the following amendments to the Plan on August 24, 2005; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, and effective as of the date first above written, the Plan shall be and hereby is
amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 5.2 of the Plan is hereby
amended by deleting the second sentence of Section 5.2 and substituting the following in its place: 
  
 After the consummation of a Change of Control, the Committee and/or the Board of Directors, as the case may be, shall possess the authority to terminate
the Plan or to amend the terms of the Plan or any Enrollment Form entered into in connection with the Plan, provided that (i) if any such termination or amendment would cause the Company to cease Bonus Payments after the effective date thereof
or to reduce the amount of such payments after such date, the Company shall, as soon as administratively feasible, increase the recurring annual total cash compensation of any affected Participant then receiving such compensation in an amount equal
to the value of any such reduction or cessation (such increase need not be a salary increase but to the extent such increase is in the form of a bonus, such increase shall not be set off against any other bonus to which the affected Participant
would otherwise be entitled), and (ii) no termination or amendment shall change the Bonus Payments to which a Participant who retires or becomes disabled prior to October 1, 2006 is entitled under Section 4.2 or 4.3 of the Plan as
those Sections existed as of the date of this amendment. 
  
 2. On
and after the date hereof, each reference in the Plan to “this Plan,” “hereunder,” “herein” or words of like import shall mean and be a reference to the Plan as amended hereby. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed as of the month,
day and year first above written. 
  

			
	HIBERNIA CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ J. Herbert Boydstun


	 	 	J. Herbert Boydstun
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


  

 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3942 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3942

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 7 Commercial Boulevard in Middletown, Rhode Island, as the ``Rhode 
                Island Veterans Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3942

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 7 Commercial Boulevard in Middletown, Rhode Island, as the ``Rhode 
                Island Veterans Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7 
Commercial Boulevard in Middletown, Rhode Island, is hereby 
redesignated as the ``Rhode Island Veterans Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rhode Island Veterans Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
10232.

#### Cash *v.*The State.

Decided March 7, 1919.

Accusation of possession, of intoxicating liquor; from Butts superior court—Judge Searcy. November 2, 1918.

*C. L. Redwine,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial contains the general grounds only, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to convict, the verdict has the approval of the presiding judge, and this court will not interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., eoneur.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-50792

__________________

ALEXIS HERMAN, Secretary of Labor,

United States Department of Labor,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BARRY TAYLOR, doing business as BST

Enterprises/Junior Careers, ET Al.,

Defendants,

FRANCISCO GARCIA LEON, also known

as Frank Garcia, doing business as

BST Enterprises/Junior Careers,

doing business as GABE Enterprises/

Junior Careers,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CV-207)

______________________________________________

October 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

________ ___________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00220

- CR

_________ ________ ________ __

On Appeal from Criminal District Court N o. 4 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1577405D

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wall a ch, JJ. Per Curiam Memo randum Opinion 

### B RANDON 

### C LAYTON 

### Y OCUM 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Brandon Clayton Yocum attempts to appeal h is conviction for
murder

. See Tex. Penal Cod e Ann. § 19.0 2 (c )

. Yocum pleaded guilty to that offense pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, and the tri al court sentenced him in accordance with that agreement to twenty

- six years’ confineme nt. As part of his plea

- bargain
ag reement, Yocum w aived his right to appeal.
Consistent with Yocum ’ s plea

- bargain agreement, the “Trial Court ’ s Certification of Defendant ’ s Right of Appe al” in this case states that this “is a plea

bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). On September 15 , 2022, we notified Yocum of the certification an d warned him that we would dismiss the appeal unles s we receiv ed a response by Septembe r 2 6 , 2022, showing grounds for continuing th e appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. We received no response.
In accordance with the trial court ’ s certifi cation, we dismiss Yocum ’ s appeal.
See Tex. R. App . P. 25.2(d), 43 .2(f); see, e.g. , Po nciano v. State , No. 02

- 17

- 00394

- C R , 2018
WL 1414731, at *1 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 22, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: Octobe r 13, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 590 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 10, 1998.
Whereas 13-year-old Hunter Scott of Cantonment, Florida, has received 
        international recognition for his efforts to honor the memory of the 
        captain and crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, which sank in the Pacific 
        Ocean during the final days of World War II;
Whereas Hunter Scott has spent the past two years seeking recognition for the 
        crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, many of whom perished as a result of 
        shark attacks and exposure after being stranded in the water for four 
        days;
Whereas Hunter Scott's extensive work is the subject of legislation before this 
        Congress, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike;
Whereas Hunter Scott's work ethic, love of country, and strength of character 
        serve as a shining example to the young people of the United States; and
Whereas Hunter Scott has helped the crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS receive 
        international recognition from the New York Times, USA Today, the 
        Associated Press, CBS, Nickelodeon, and other print and broadcast media: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and honors Hunter 
Scott for his efforts to honor the memory of the captain and crew of the U.S.S. 
INDIANAPOLIS and for the outstanding example he has set for the young people of 
the United States.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

s1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145481 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145481

COA: 308430

Eaton CC: 01

- 020251

- FC

GARY ALVA THATCHER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for

appoint ment of counsel is DENIED.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00123- CV Jam es Allre d; Wholearth Organic Com posting, L .L.C.; TargetBrush an d Grinding, L.L.C.; JOH In vestm ents, Ltd.; and JO H Associates, L.L.C., Appellants v. How ard Hale and Ch eryl Hale, Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN600106 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE B Y RNE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

Th e pa rt ies have fi le d a

n a g re e d mo tio n to wi thd ra w o ra l argume nt a

nd a bate thi s appea l. Th e p ar t i es h av e i nformed us that they are in the proce ss of settling this matter a nd have asked f or an a batement to foc us on the settlement neg otiations. W e g rant the motion and a bate the appea l until October 23, 2006. I f t he parties have not filed an ag ree d motion to di smiss t his appea l by that date , th e y

sh ou ld a dv ise the c ourt

of the status of

the se ttl e me nt p ro c e e din g s. Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Filed: September

20, 2006
As of: 8/19/21 10:48 AM 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Received: August 19, 2021 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. ksj-0snr-jpfn 

Comments Due: August 19, 2021 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: NIST-2021-0004 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Comment On: NIST-2021-0004-0001 

Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 

Document: NIST-2021-0004-DRAFT-0024 

Comment on FR Doc # 2021-1617 6 

Submitter Information 

Email: 

Organization: Wharton AI for Business, Wharton School of Business 

General Comment 

AI Risk Management is an increasingly important area. We recommend that you take a look at the AI 

Risk & Governance white paper authored by the Wharton AI for Business Center (AIB) in partnership 

with the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Leaming (AI/ML) Risk and Security consortium (AIRS). We

collectively believe that the benefits of AI and its adoption within various marketplaces, especially the 

financial services sector, present opportunities to improve both business and societal outcomes when risks 

are managed responsibly. The potential risks of AI/ML that are identified in the white paper include: 

Data-Related Risks, AI/ML Attacks, Testing and Trust, and Compliance. While there is no one-size-fitsall approach, institutions might consider adopting methods and practices to mitigate AI risk which 

includes oversight and monitoring, enhancing explainability and interpretability, and exploring the use of 

evolving risk-mitigating techniques like differential privacy watermarking among others. AI governance 

frameworks could help organizations learn, govern, monitor, and mature AI adoption. The four core 

components of AI governance identified in the white paper are definitions, inventory, policy/standards, 

and a governance framework, including controls. (See the attached white paper for reference or read 

online at https://ai.wharton.upenn.edu/artificial-intelligence-risk-govemance/). 

About AIB and AIRS: Through interdisciplinary courses and experiential learning opportunities, 

Wharton's AIB prepares undergraduate and graduate students for the advancing field of Al. AIB also 

provides educational resources for business professionals looking to understand machine learning 

fundamentals. AIB's programs seek to make the field more inclusive and diverse by attracting curious

students and business professionals who have never been exposed to the possibilities of how AI can 

transform business and society. The lead faculty director, Dr. Kartik Hosanagar, is also a best-selling 

author of the book, A Human's Guide to Machine Intelligence, on the risks associated with automated 

decisions enabled by AI and frameworks to mitigate those risks. AIRS is an informal group of 

practitioners and academics from varied backgrounds, including technology risk, information security, 

legal, privacy, data architects, model risk management, and others, working within financial and 

technology organizations and academic institutions.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 0 552

_____________________________
R ICO J ONES , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA C OMMISSION ON O FFENDER R EVIEW , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. Clifton A. Drake , Judge

. May 14, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , B ILBREY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Rico Jones, pro se
, Appellant.

Alex Arthur Christiano, Assistant General Counsel
, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60071

Summary Calendar

JOHN SHIRLEY; MARTHA SHIRLEY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

W. THOMAS McCRANEY, JR.; CAPITAL ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC, PA.,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CV-124-WS

-------------------- August 23, 2002 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

John Shirley (“Shirley”) and his wife Martha appeal the

dist rict court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Shirley’s

medical malpractice cla ims against Dr. Thomas McCraney and his

medical group. The Shirleys argue on appeal 1) that the district

court should have granted Shirley’s motion to obtain a new expert;

2) that the district court should have stricken portions of the

defendants’ summary judgment motion; and 3) that the district court

should have denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion.2

Shirley does not indicate that another expert witness was

available or what that witness would have stated. The district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shirley’s motion to

obtain another expert before ruling on the summary judgment motion.

See Richardson v. Henry

, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990); Stearns

Airport Equip. Co ., Inc. v. FMC Corp. , 170 F.3d 518, 534-35 (5th

Cir. 1999).

The record indicates that the district court did not consider

the defense expert witnesses and thus that the court’s failure to

strike those portions of the defendants’ summary judgment motion

was of no consequence. The Shirley’s appellate argument on this

issue is without merit.

Our de novo review of the record reveals that the district

court did not err in granting summary judgment. Though Shirley

cites to a numb er of allegedly disputed facts, he points to no

evidence countering the deposition testimony of his own exp ert

witness that Dr. McCraney’s method of treatment did not violate the

standard of care. S ee Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

, 477 U.S.

242, 250 (1986); Brown v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp. DeSoto, Inc.

, 806 So.

2d 1131, 1134 (Miss. 2002). With respect to the lack-of-informedconsent claim, Dr. McCraney’s deposition testimony did not indicate

that prescribing physical therapy was below the standard of care or

that it caused Shirley’s worsened condition discovered in December

1994. S ee Palmer v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.

, 564 So. 2d 1346,

1364 (Miss. 1990).3

AFFIRMED.
10026.

#### Bald Mountain Portland Cement Co. *v.*McGuirk.

Luke, J.

1. Where a promissory note recited that its consideration was “fifty shares of the capital stock of the Bald Mountain Portland Cement Company,” it was reversible error, on the trial of a suit upon the note, for the court, over timely objection, to permit the defendant to prove by her witness Lester that “she (the defendant) asked me the question, if those subscriptions, if this money, had to be raised before they could build the plant, and I told her that Mr. Bass and this board of directors said they were going to order the machinery and,finance the proposition, and then these subscriptions would come in to take care of those obligations;” and it was also error to permit the defendant, over timely objection, to testify: “Mr. William E. •Lester came to me about taking stock in this Bald Mountain Portland Cement Company; he explained it all very fully to me, he talked a great deal about it, why he wanted me to take stock, I felt very anxious because they had promised to build the plant in twelve months.” This testimony, referring to representations made before the purchase of the stock and not integrated in the contract of indebtedness, varied and added to the terms of the note. See *Dinkler*v. *Baer,*92 *Ga.*432 (17 *630S. 953); *C., R. & C. Ry. Co.*v. *Warthen,*98 *Ga.*599 (25 S. E. 988) ; *Smith*v. *Southern Building & Loan Co.,*111 *Ga.*811 (35 S. E. 707).

Decided April 19, 1919.

Complaint; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. July 1, 1918.

*Joseph P. Jones, Walter McElreath,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles J. Lester,*contra.

2. There is no error of law other than that dealt with above. Eor the reason herein set out, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*