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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

 

DEBORAH LAUFER, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARYA INFO TECH., INC. d/b/a RELAX INN 

STREATOR, an Illinois Corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:20-cv-03964 

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

 

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, EXPERT FEES AND LITIGATION

EXPENSES WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Motion for Entry of 

Judgment After Default and Verified Application for Attorney Fees’ Costs, Expert Fees and 

Litigation Expenses, DE 16, and the Court having reviewed the pleadings and papers filed in this 

cause, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Motion for Entry of Judgment After Default and Verified 

Application for Attorney Fees’ Costs, Expert Fees and Litigation Expenses is 

GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff is entitled to her attorney fees, costs, litigation expenses and expert fees 

in the amount of $3,950. 

Date: November 13, 2020 

_________________________________ 

VIRGINIA M. KENDALL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:20-cv-03964 Document #: 18 Filed: 11/13/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:140
The key points as I see it in regard to the connection between cybersecurity education and workforce 

development are:

• The term cybersecurity is very broad covering a variety of different areas. To adequately match 

academic skills to workforce needs the employers need to be more specific in defining the 

cybersecurity role they are looking for, such as: 

o Network defense

o Intrusion prevention

o Ethical hacking

o Information assurance

• There are typically underlying skills associated with cybersecurity jobs, being more specific in 

those requirements will also be helpful. For example are they looking for a person with a 

network technician’s background or someone with a computer science background.

• Be more definitive as to what industry certifications are required for entry level employment 

o Network +, Security +, or other

• From an academic standpoint we need to stay in tune with the changing landscape of 

cybersecurity to remain as current as we can to the needs of employers.
9301.

#### WATTS *v.*JACKSON.

The fact that a defendant whose case had been set for trial on a certain day was not then present in court in person or by counsel, because the case had been incorrectly stated in a newspaper in which the court calendar was printed, is not a sufficient reason for setting aside the judgment, when it does not 'appear that the plaintiff was in any way . responsible for the publication of the incorrect statement.

Decided March 13, 1918.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. October 5, 1917.

*Neufville £ Neufville,*for plaintiff in error.

*Boy Lewis,*contra. •

Harwell, J.

Watts filed a motion to set aside a judgment rendered against him in the municipal court of Atlanta at the term preceding that at which his motion was filed, upon the grounds, that the case against him had been incorrectly stated in the calendar published in,the Fulton County.Daily Deport newspaper, and for that reason his counsel was not present when the judgment wus rendered against him; that he had a meritorious defense, etc. It was agreed that the case was published in the newspaper as P. P. Jackson vs. C. R. White. The petition for certiorari further states that it was agreed that Frank Neufville, one of the attorneys for Watts, was present when the case was called and heard his name called as counsel for the defense, and heard the statement of the chief judge of thé municipal court that the said case went down for trial on the date on which the judgment was rendered. The answer of the judge of the municipal court to the petition for certiorari, says: “The allegations as to the evidence'set forth in said petition are true and correct, with the exceptions as to the agreement of counsel, which is true with the exception that Mr. Frank Neufville was in court and heard-the case sounded and his name called for the defendant in the case.” The trial judge overruled the demurrer filed by Jackson, sustained the motion,- and set aside the judgment. The case was carried by Jaekson to the superior court by certiorari; the superior-court judge sustained the certiorari and rendered final- judgment for Jaekson, the plaintiff in the original suit, and Watts excepted.

Under the facts thus appearing, the judge of the superior court did not err in sustaining the certiorari and in rendering final judg*32ment in favor of Jackson. *Kellam*v. *Todd,*114 *Ga.*981-83 (41 S. E. 39); *Gillespie v. Farkas,*19 *Ga. App.*158 (91 S. E. 244).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 4.03






AMENDMENT


CONVERTIBLE
PROMISSORY NOTE


DOCUMENT
B-04282009b







On or
about October 20, 2009, the parties agreed that the following Convertible
Promissory Note by and between Cord Blood America, Inc. and JMJ Financial is
hereby amended as follows:




•   Document B-04282009b.
Prepayment is not permitted.





ALL OTHER
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE DOCUMENT
B-04282009b REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.





Please
indicated acceptance and approval of this amendment by signing
below:


/s/Matthew
      Schissler
                
                
                /s/Matthew
      Schissler
                
                
                JMJ
      Financial / Its PrincipalChairman
      & CEO
                  Cord Blood America, Inc.
#### Thos. M. Burford’s Admr. *v.*Nat. Gaither, &c.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

March 4, 1872.

Landlord and Tenant — Lien for Rent — Seizure and Sale of Tenant’s Property by Stranger.

The rights of a landlord whose lien is in full force, and who has not resorted to his legal remedies to enforce the collection of his rent, cannot be jeopardized by the seizure and sale of the tenant’s property under execution.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

In the case of *Watts v. Cook, etc.,*the landlord’s lien had been perfected, by an actual levy of attachments and distress warrants before the execution creditors caused the sheriff to seize and sell the property.

The levy of these distress warrants and attachments took the property out of the possession of the tenant and placed it either actually or constructively in that of the officers who made the levies.

The sheriff could not possess himself of such property, so as to levy the executions in favor of Cook and Grief, without the commission of a trespass. Against the consequences of this trespass the execution creditors indemnified him, -and the action was therefore correctly brought on the bond of indemnity.

In this case no attachment or distress warrant had been levied or even sued out.

Appellant’s rights grew out of the laws relating to landlord and tenants, and not out of an actual levy under a writ issued from a court of competent jurisdiction. He must therefore assert his rights in the manner prescribed by such statutes.

In the case of Watts this court held that bonds of indemnity inure to the benefit of “all legal or equitable claimants whose rights might otherwise be jeopardized by the wrongful seizure or sale of property under execution.”

The rights of a landlord whose lien is in full force, and who has not resorted to his legal remedies to enforce the collection of his rent, cannot be jeopardized by the seizure and sale of the tenant’s property under execution, so long as the 20th section of Act 2, Chap. 56, R. S., remains in full forced

*53*Polk*& *Bro., for appellant.*

*Gaither, for appellee.*

The opinion in this case is perfectly consistent with the doctrine announced in II Bush.

The petition for a rehearing must be overruled.
H. Res. 465

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 11, 1998.

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 bill (H.R. 3494) to amend title 18, United States Code,

with respect to violent sex crimes against children, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall

be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the

Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
2

•HRES 465 EH

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in

order except those printed in the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All Points of order

against the amendments printed in the report are waived.

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 questions shall be 15 minutes. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill of amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment
3

•HRES 465 EH

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 11


                             NB CAPITAL CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                     Three-month period       Three-month period
                                          ended                     ended
                                      September 30,             September 30,
                                           2002                     2001


Net income                            $9,033,670                $ 10,594,680

Deduct: Senior preferred stock
        and series A preferred
        stock dividends                6,267,639                   6,270,288
                                       ---------                   ---------

                              (A)     $2,766,031                 $ 4,324,392

Common share outstanding      (B)            100                         100

Earning per share             (A/B)     $ 27,660                   $  43,244
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 #: 19-2 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:248
Year Ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005EARNINGSPre-tax income from operations
    
    $
    (97,834
    )
    
    $
    (220,728
    )
    
    $
    (4,836
    )
    
    $
    85,795
    
    
    $
    78,549Fixed charges
    
    
    19,607
    
    
    
    18,777
    
    
    
    16,650
    
    
    
    16,880
    
    
    
    16,403Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings available for fixed charges
    
    $
    (78,227
    )
    
    $
    (201,951
    )
    
    $
    11,814
    
    
    $
    102,675
    
    
    $
    94,952FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense (including debt issuance costs amortized to interest expense)
    
    $
    16,387
    
    
    $
    15,389
    
    
    $
    14,296
    
    
    $
    15,147
    
    
    $
    14,720Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest component of rent expense 1
    
    
    3,220
    
    
    
    3,388
    
    
    
    2,354
    
    
    
    1,733
    
    
    
    1,684Total fixed charges
    
    $
    19,607
    
    
    $
    18,777
    
    
    $
    16,650
    
    
    $
    16,880
    
    
    $
    16,404Ratio of earnings to fixed charges 2
    
    
    (3.99
    )
    
    
    (10.76
    )
    
    
    0.71
    
    
    
    6.08
    
    
    
    5.79
 
 1
    
    For purposes of calculating the ratio of earnings
to fixed charges, earnings are defined as income from
continuing operations before income taxes and cumulative
effect of change in accounting principles plus fixed
charges. Fixed charges include interest expense
(including amortization of deferred financing costs) and
an estimate of operating rental expense, approximately
20%, which management believes is representative of the
interest component.2
    
    Earnings before fixed charges were inadequate to
cover fixed charges by $97.8 million, $220.7 million and
$4.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively.
#### STATE v. FIELDS

No. 260P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 226

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
#### Robert L. TINSLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 04-3430.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2004.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
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 period from June 27, 2008 (commencement of operations) to March 31, 2009 of  MacroShares $100 Oil Down 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.



Date: June 29, 2009

| |                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ SAMUEL MASUCCI, III                                      
| | Samuel Masucci, III                                          
| | Chief Executive Officer of Depositor,
on behalf of registrant
| |
#### STATE v. HILL

No. 247P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 226

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 25, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00508

- CV

R udy MENDEZ

, Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 08659 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On December 4, 2014, the trial court signed an order granting the contests to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. On January 21, 2015, the trial court filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the trial court’s order and a copy of the contest filed by appellee, the City of San Antonio. The trial court’s order indicates contests were also filed by the Bexar County

District Cler k, and Judy Stewart the official reporter of the 45th District Court. However, the supplemental clerk’s record does not contain a copy of those contests.

On February 9, 2015, appellant filed a letter that we construed as an appeal from the trial

court’ s order granting the contests. As a result, on February 12, 2015, we ordered the clerk of

the trial court and Ms. Stewart to file

— no later than March 4, 2015

— the appropriate supplemental clerk’s record and the reporter’s record from the contest hearing th at occurred on or about December 4, 2014.

On February 17, 2015, the Bexar County District Clerk, Ms. Stewart, and all other court

officials and court reporters having an interest in the costs accruing in this suit filed a motion with this court asking u s to consider as timely

- filed their contest that w as “inadvertently filed in

the Fourth Court of Appeals.” In the motion, counsel for the contestants stated the contest was accidently filed with this court on November 18, 2014, instead of with the trial c ourt . Because it is apparent from the trial court’s order granting the contests that all parties were before the court and the trial court considered the contestants’ objections to appellant’s affidavit of indigence, we

GRANT the motion.The clerk of the trial court and Ms. Stewart are reminded that, pursuant to the February 12, 2015 order of this court

, a supplemental clerk’s record and a reporter’s record from the hearing that occurred on or about December 4, 2014 are due March 4, 2015

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on t his 25th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**INDEX
      OIL AND GAS, INC.**


**FORM
      10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2006**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I
      am the
      Chief Financial Officer of Index Oil & Gas, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
      "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-K
      of
      the Company for the year ended March 31, 2006 and filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission ("Form 10-K").




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
      in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:July14,
                2006
              
              
              /s/
                Andrew Boetius
              
              Andrew
                Boetius
              Chief
                Financial Officer
NVLAP ASSESSOR BULLETIN AB-33-2022 PAGE 1 OF 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

January 8, 2024

ASSESSOR BULLETIN NUMBER: AB-39-2024

LAP: ALL

SUBJECT: Updates to the NIST Contract and UTRS Contract forms

The purpose of this bulletin is to inform NVLAP assessors of the updated Quote and Invoice forms for 

NIST and UTRS contracts. These changes are applicable to all assessor quotes and invoices. These 

documents have been revised to include the approved GSA POV rate. There are no changes to the 

process.

Effectively immediately, the GSA POV rate has been updated to $0.67.

The updated forms are located in the NVLAP Interactive Web System (NIWS) Assessor Portal.

Please contact Lori Gruber (lori.gruber@nist.gov) or Tessa Gordon (tessa.gordon@nist.gov) if there are 

any questions regarding the use of the quote and invoice forms.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 26, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00207

- CV

Antonio JIMENEZ and Mary Louise Jimenez

,

Appellants

v.

Carlos GONGORA

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 02692

Honorab le Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The district court clerk’s request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record is granted. We order the district court clerk, Donna Kay McKinney, to file the clerk’s record by May 23, 2016

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court