alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

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 C 4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani

STATUS REPORT BY DEFENDANTS AND 

DESIGNATION OF DEFENDANTS’ LEAD COUNSEL 

1. Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1 (ECF No. 3), all Defendants in MDL 

No. 2948 hereby designate the undersigned counsel, Anthony J Weibell of Wilson Sonsini 

Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. as “Lead Counsel for Defendants.” 

2. Defendants also wish to inform the Court that the Court may disregard the “Joint 

Status Report by Defendants and Certain Plaintiffs” (ECF No. 7) that was filed yesterday, 

August 23, 2020, by Defendants and certain few plaintiffs. Defendants apologize for any 

disruption caused by that filing to the Court’s normal processes. Defendants had agreed to that 

statement in the optimistic hopes of streamlining the upcoming settlement approval process by 

obtaining from the few non-settling plaintiffs consent to the class action settlement reached 

between Defendants and the Settling Plaintiffs. However, Defendants appear to have 

misapprehended the circumstances and discovered today that their hopes were misplaced. 

3. Accordingly, Defendants reaffirm the proposals made in the Settling Parties’ 

Statement and Proposed Case Management Schedule (ECF No. 6) filed on August 21, 2020. 

That statement represents the current position of all Defendants and the vast majority of all 

Plaintiffs/Plaintiffs’ counsel in this MDL, and the proposed schedule therein should be adopted 

by the Court. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:93
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: August 24, 2020 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

 Professional Corporation 

 By: /s/Anthony J Weibell

 650 Page Mill Road 

 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

 Email: aweibell@wsgr.com 

Counsel for all Defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:94
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 24, 2020, the foregoing document was filed electronically 

through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System. Service of this document is being made upon 

all counsel of record in this case by the Notice of Electronic Filing issues through the Court’s 

Electronic Case Filing System on this date. 

/s/Anthony J Weibell 

Anthony J Weibell 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/24/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:95
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Brooke Boone

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02863

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Hospira Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, May 18, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman: Status hearing set for

7/6/2020 at 9:15 a.m.Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02863 Document #: 11 Filed: 05/18/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:78
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DIEGO VARGAS

No. 20 CR 331-2 

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through its attorney, JOHN R. 

LAUSCH, JR., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, 

respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a), to dismiss the 

indictment against defendant DIEGO VARGAS with prejudice, and in support 

thereof, states as follows:

1. On or about July 9, 2020, defendant DIEGO VARGAS (“defendant”) was 

charged in a one-count indictment with conspiracy to commit bank theft, in violation 

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. 

2. On or about October 1, 2020, defendant was charged in a one-count 

indictment with maliciously attempting to damage and destroy, by means of an 

explosive device, a building used in an activity affecting interstate and foreign 

commerce, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i). United States 

v. Diego Vargas, 20 CR 708 (Bucklo, J.).

3. On or about June 10, 2021, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant 

entered a plea of guilty in case number 20 CR 708. As part of that plea agreement, 

defendant stipulated to the offense conduct charged in this case and the government 

Case: 1:20-cr-00331 Document #: 199 Filed: 03/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1144
2

agreed to dismiss the indictment in this case after the court sentenced defendant in 

20 CR 708.

4. On or about March 3, 2022, defendant was sentenced to a term of 60 

months’ imprisonment in case number 20 CR 708. 

5. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) states that the “government 

may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.”

6. The United States seeks to dismiss the indictment against defendant 

with prejudice.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully moves this Court for a dismissal 

of the indictment in this case with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a).

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Mary Katherine McClelland 

Mary Katherine McClelland

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street, 5th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-0517

Dated: March 16, 2022

Case: 1:20-cr-00331 Document #: 199 Filed: 03/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1145
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00281-CV

Baltazar PINEDA Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Ruben A. Gonzalez VILLARREAL d/b/a Perico’s Transfer and Genaro Escobedo Rodriguez,

Appellees

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CVE-001451-D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 19, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). Appellant also requests that each party be ordered to bear its own appellate costs. 

However, the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the assessment of 

costs; accordingly, all costs of appeal will be assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
PD-0144-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 2/6/2015 12:43:25 PM

Accepted 2/6/2015 3:54:16 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3920 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3920

To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme 
                                 Court.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2004

Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Everett, Mr. Pombo, 
 Mr. Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Goode, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Franks of Arizona, 
 Mr. Hefley, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Kingston) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Rules, 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 allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme 
                                 Court.

    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 ``Congressional Accountability for 
Judicial Activism Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

    The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a 
judgment of the United States Supreme Court--
            (1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act; and
            (2) to the extent that judgment concerns the 
        constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

    The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as 
near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of 
Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used 
for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the 
President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

    This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article 
III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 795

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit the imposition of

certain additional fees on consumers in connection with any electronic

fund transfer which is initiated by the consumer from an electronic

terminal operated by a person other than the financial institution holding

the consumer’s account and which utilizes a national or regional communication network.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit

the imposition of certain additional fees on consumers

in connection with any electronic fund transfer which

is initiated by the consumer from an electronic terminal

operated by a person other than the financial institution

holding the consumer’s account and which utilizes a national or regional communication network.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 795 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Electronic Fund

3 Transfer Fees Act of 1997’’.

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN FEES.

5 The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693

6 et seq.) is amended—

7 (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920,

8 and 921 as sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respec9 tively; and

10 (2) by inserting after section 917 the following

11 new section:

12 ‘‘SEC. 918. FEES.

13 ‘‘In the case of any electronic fund transfer which—

14 ‘‘(1) is initiated by a consumer from an elec15 tronic terminal operated by a person other than the

16 financial institution holding the account of the

17 consumer; and

18 ‘‘(2) utilizes a national or regional communica19 tion network to effect the transaction between such

20 person and the financial institution holding the ac21 count of the consumer,

22 no fee may be imposed on the consumer with respect to

23 such transaction by the person operating the electronic

24 terminal at which the transfer is initiated.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                       890
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,484
<PP&E>                                           3,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                     850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,547
<BONDS>                                             65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,897
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (94)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    282
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (55)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       175
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
10114.

#### MUTUAL CANNING COMPANY *v.*DeGUENTHER.

Decided May 16, 1919.

Where one buys outright a negotiable promissory note, the transaction is not rendered usurious because the discount amounts to more than the • maximum lawful rate of interest.

■The exclusion of testimony referring to other notes than those sued on was proper. The excluded testimony set out in special grounds 4, 5, and 7 of the motion for a new trial was immaterial. Special grounds' 1 and 3 as to the exclusion of testimony are not in proper form for consideration.

The evidence authorized the verdict in favor of the- plaintiff.

Complaint; from city court of Nashville—Judge Christian. August 31, 1918.

*L. E. Lastinger, J. P. Knight, R. A. Hendricks,*for plaintiff in error.

*747
      *Patterson &*Copeland, *E. K.*Wilcox, contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, when a special ground of a motion for a new trial sets forth a lengthy excerpt from the testimony of a witness, and complains that the court erred in excluding it as a whole, and some of the testimony so excluded is clearly hearsay and inadmissible, and it is not specified in the ground of the motion what parts of the testimony are admissible, the ground is too defective to be considered by the reviewing court. This ruling disposes of the 1st special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The testimony set forth in the 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial, referring to other notes than, the ones sued on, was properly excluded.

3. The assignment of error in the 3d special ground of the motion for a new trial, failing to give’ the name of the witness whose testimony was excluded, is insufficient in form and can not'be considered. *Sims*v. Sims, 131 *Ga.*262 (62 S. E. 192).

4. No error appears in the exclusion of the testimony complained of in the 4th, 5th, and 7th special grounds of the motion for a new trial. The testimony excluded, under the facts of the ease, was irrelevant and immaterial.

5. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds.

6. It does not appear from the evidence that the notes sued upon were infected with usutfy. Where one buys outright a negotiable promissory note, the transaction is not rendered usurious because the discount upon the note amounts to more than the maximum lawful rate of interest. *Campbell*v. Morgan 111 *Ga.*200 (36 S. E. 621).

7. The evidence demanded, and the court properly directed, a finding for the plaintiff on four of the notes sued upon; and the evidence authorized the finding of the jury for the plaintiff on the remaining note. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and*Stephens, *JJ., concur.*
Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 10 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:44
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          115951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                115951
<PP&E>                                           71164
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (17790)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  169325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           249500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         55767
<OTHER-SE>                                    (135942)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (80175)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    59170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (56238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (56238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (56238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.005)


</TABLE>
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 614

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 19, 1998

Received

RESOLUTION

Appointing the authorizing managers for the impeachment

trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the

United States.

1 Resolved, That Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr. Sensen2 brenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr.

3 Gekas of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer

4 of Indiana, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio,

5 Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr.

6 Cannon of Utah, Mr. Rogan of California, and Mr.

7 Graham of South Carolina are appointed managers to con8 duct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson

9 Clinton, President of the United States, that a message

10 be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these ap11 pointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in

12 connection with the preparation and the conduct of the
2

HRES 614 RDS

1 trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate

2 and take all other actions necessary, which may include

3 the following:

4 (1) Employing legal, clerical, and other nec5 essary assistants and incurring such other expenses

6 as may be necessary, to be paid from amounts avail7 able to the Committee on the Judiciary under appli8 cable expense resolutions or from the applicable ac9 counts of the House of Representatives.

10 (2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing

11 with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the

12 House of Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunc13 tion with or subsequent to, the exhibition of the arti14 cles of impeachment that the managers consider nec15 essary.

Passed the House of Representatives December 19,

1998.

NEWT GINGRICH,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
#### STATE v. ROBINSON

No. 243P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 228

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
H. Res. 408

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 23, 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. 1252) to modify the procedures of the Federal

courts in certain matters, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order

against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with

section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 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, modified by striking section
2

•HRES 408 EH

9 (and redesignating succeeding sections accordingly). Each

section of that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall

be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with

clause 7 of rule XVI or section 303(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the

bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of

whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to

be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 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 for 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 adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of
3

•HRES 408 EH

a substitute made in order as original text. 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.