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

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Mish International Monetary Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04577

Honorable Manish S. Shah

Vega Capital London, Ltd., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, April 8, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion to reassign

[319] is granted, and case number 24−2628 will be submitted for reassignment. No

appearance on 4/11/24 is necessary. Upon reassignment, the court will enter the parties'

proposed briefing schedule on the motion to compel in 24−2628, with Glencore's response

due 4/26/24 and Vega/Spires' reply due 5/10/24. Notices Mailed. (psm, )

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-04577 Document #: 321 Filed: 04/08/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:12022
Exhibit
32.2











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of
Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here
of (the "report"), I, Michel St-Pierre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated this 15th day of April,
2009





MICHEL
ST-PIERRE


Michel
St-Pierre


Chief Financial
Officer
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**INDEX
        OIL AND GAS, INC.**


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


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


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




I,
      Andrew
      Boetius, Chief Financial Officer of Index Oil & Gas Inc. (the "Company"),
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
      The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2005, which this certification accompanies (the "Periodic Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
      November 27, 2006









**INDEX
                OIL
                AND GAS, INC.**Date: November
                27, 2006
              By:
              /s/ Andrew
                BoetiusAndrew
                BoetiusChief
                Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MPC Corporation (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|          | /s/ John Yeros                       |
|---------------|--------------------------------------|
| April 6, 2007 | John Yeros                           |
|          | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
**Exhibit 13.10**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Global Limited (the “Company”) forthe annual period ended 31 December 2008 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 29 April 2009
9541.

#### Moultrie Packing Company, *v.*Atlanta Mutual' Association.

Decided November 11, 1918.

Affidavit of illegality; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. January *22,*1918.

In the briefs of counsel it is stated that the question for decision is whether affidavit of'illegality or an equitable proceeding is the proper remedy. Counsel for plaintiff in error cited: *Platen*v. *Byck,*50 *Gg.*245; *20*Cyc. 1199; *Bartrom*v. *Collins Mfg. Co.,*69 *Ga.*751; *Rich*v. *Kiser,*61 *Ga.*370; *Mitchell*v. *Cooper,*73 *Ga.*796; *Bowen*v. *Groover,*77 *Ga.*196 (9a). Cited contra: *Green v. Oliphant,*64 *Ga.*566; *Tumlin*v. *O’Bryan,*68 *Ga.*65; *Harbig*v. *Freund,*69 *Ga.*184; *Hood*v. *Parker,*63 *Ga.*510.

*Shipp & Kline,*for plaintiff in error.

*P. Q. Bryan, J. L. Dowling,*contra.

Luke, J.

A garnishee who had not answered could not hy affidavit of illegality arrest an execution and set aside a judgment, upon the ground that before its rendition against the garnishee as being in default, the defendant had paid to the attorney for the plaintiff in ft. fa. a part of the claim and had given him a check and' note to cover the balance. • Affidavit of illegality is not the proper remedy in such a ease. *Tumlin*v. *O’Bryan,*68 *Ga.*65; *Lynch*v. *Gannon,*57 *Ga.*608; Civil Code (1910), § 5311. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the affidavit of illegality.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3906

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 

relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2004

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan (for herself and Mr. KNOLLENBERG) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 

Ukraine.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV 

4 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO UKRAINE. 

5 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN6 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith7 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 

8 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

9 (1) determine that such title should no longer 

10 apply to Ukraine; and 
2

•HR 3906 IH 

1 (2) after making a determination under para2 graph (1) with respect to Ukraine, proclaim the ex3 tension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal 

4 trade relations treatment) to the products of that 

5 country. 

6 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

7 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub8 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod9 ucts of Ukraine, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act 

10 of 1974 shall cease to apply to that country.

Æ
#### STATE v. DICK

No. 293P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 312

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2500

EDNA M. PICKETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED; JULIE GOEMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-96-952-5-F)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edna M. Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Stephen Muzingo, WALMART

STORES, INCORPORATED - LEGAL TEAM, Bentonville, Arizona, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing this Title VII

action alleging racial discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1994). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(e)(1); see generally Greene v. Whirlpool Corp., 708 F.2d 128, 130

(4th Cir. 1983). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the"Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge], that:

The Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005****(the"Form *10-KSB*") of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form *10-KSB* fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

**
Dated: April 10, 2006/s/ Derek Bartlett
 
Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer
 
 

 
Dated: April 10, 2006/s/ John Arnold
 
John Arnold, Chief Financial Officer
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

**
Rev. 0127201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ATTORNEY ADDRESS OR NAME

1. Complete this form and e-file it, using the Notice of Change of Address event, in each

case that you list below.

2. Update your contact information in CM/ECF. Click HERE for update instructions.

Name

Firm

Street Address

City/State/Zip Code

Phone Number 

Email address

ARDC (Illinois State Bar members, only)

If you have previously filed an appearance with this court using a different name, enter that name. 

List all active cases in which you currently have an appearance on file.

Case Number Case Title Assigned Judge

_______________________________

Signature of Attorney 

___________________BBBB

Date

Joseph Platt

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

773-241-1543

jplatt@cftc.gov

6317731

20-cv-03758 CFTC v. Long Leaf Trading G Durkin

/s/ Joseph Platt 4/25/2022

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 105 Filed: 04/25/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2768
EXHIBIT 10.2

                             SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT

SKRP 1, Inc.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 310
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Attn: Richard Rappaport, President

            RE:  PROSPECTUS, DATED JUNE __, 2004

Dear Mr. Rappaport:

The   undersigned   investor   ("Investor")  in  this   Subscription   Agreement
("Agreement")  hereby  acknowledges  receipt of the  prospectus  ("Prospectus"),
dated  June __,  2004 of SRKP 1,  Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation  ("SRKP"),  and
subscribes for the following  number of shares upon the terms and conditions set
forth in the  Prospectus.  The Investor agrees that this Agreement is subject to
availability and acceptance by SRKP.

The Investor  hereby  subscribes  for _______  shares of SRKP's  common stock at
$0.17 per share, for an aggregate  purchase price of $____________.  Enclosed is
the Investor's  check made payable to "SRKP 1, Inc. Escrow Account  Administered
by City  National  Bank" and has been  forwarded  to the  escrow  account in the
self-addressed  stamped  envelope  that has been provided for  convenience.  The
Investor may also elect to submit his  subscription  funds to the escrow account
via wire transfer as provided in this Agreement.


                                            ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

                                            ____________________________
                                            Signature of Investor

                                            ____________________________
    WIRING INSTRUCTIONS:                    Print Full Name

                                            ____________________________
ABA #[____________________________]         Street Address
City National Bank                          ____________________________
A/C[ _____________________________]         City, State, Zip
f/f/c Trust account # [___________]         ____________________________
Account Name:  SRKP 1, Inc.                 Area Code and Telephone Number
Attn:  [__________________________]

                                            _____________________________
                                            ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

                                            SRKP 1, Inc.

                                            By:  ________________________
                                                 Richard Rappaport
Compression Methods, Codes, & Uses 

COMPRESSION 

METHOD 

BINARY ASCII NOTES* 

Binary Fingerprints 

& Signatures 

Uncompressed 

0 --- Image Packed 8 pixels/byte 

Record Types 5, 6, & 8 

Binary Fingerprints 

& Signatures 

Compressed 

1 --- ANSI/EIA-538-1988 facsimile standard for 

lossless compression/decompression 

Record Types 5, 6, & 8 

Grayscale & Color 

Images 

Compressed 

--- JPEGL Lossless JPEG compression 

Record Types 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17** 

Grayscale & Color 

Images 

Uncompressed 

0 

NONE 

Record Type 3 & 4 

Record Types 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17 

Grayscale 

Finger/palm prints 

Compressed 1 

WSQ20

Lossy WSQ compression*** 

Record Types 4 

Record Types 14, 15 (500 ppi) 

Grayscale & Color 

Images 

Compressed 2 

JPEGB 

Lossy Baseline JPEG compression 

Record Types 4 (500 ppi) 

Record Types 14 & 15 (500 ppi) 

Record Types 10, 16, & 17 

Grayscale & Color 

Images 

Compressed 

--- JP2 Lossy JPEG 2000 

Record Types 10, 14, 15, 16, & 17 

Grayscale & Color 

Images 

Compressed 

--- JP2L Lossless JPEG 2000 

Record Types 10, 14, 15, 16, & 17 

* This list of Compression algorithms is not exhaustive. 

** Type-17 Iris record to be defined 

*** Finger/palm print images scanned at 500 ppi should be compressed using WSQ. 

Those scanned at 1000ppi should be compressed using JPEG2000. The original 1000 

ppi image may be transcoded to a 500 ppi WSQ image using JPEG2000.
#### Geo. B. Hodge *v.*E. H. Morin & Co.

Pleadings — Answer—Denial—Want of Knowledge or Information.

The defendant must deny all the allegations of the petition which he intends to controvert, and in addition thereto he must deny any knowledge or information of said allegations sufficient to form a belief as to their truth. A want of knowledge or information is not sufficient.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

January 25, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The petition in this case consists of one short paragraph in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendant is indebted to them in the sum of seventy dollars and fifty cents for balance due on livery bill, particulars of which are set out in an account filed with the petition.

By sub-section 2 of section 125, Civil Code, it is provided that the answer shall contain a denial of each allegation of the petition controverted by the defendant or of any knowledge, or information thereof sufficient to form a belief. Im the 1st paragraph of the original answer appellant admits he is indebted to appellees in some amount on the livery bill filed, but he says he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the amount thereof. 'Paragraph 2 presented no defense to the action and in the 3d he says he has no knowledge, or information sufficient to form a belief as to the correctness of the *364account sued on, except certain items in the account, sufficiently-named, to the original answer a demurrer was sustained, and on leave given an amended answer was filed or rather it professes to be an amendment to the 2d paragraph of the orginal, in which appellant says as to the several items in the account filed save and except certain charges therein designated by their respective dates, he says he has no knowledge, or information sufficient to form a belief. A demurrer was also sustained to this amendment, and appellant failing to answer further judgment was rendered against him for the amount claimed. By the Sec. *supra.*The defendant must deny all the allegations of the petition which he intends to controvert, and in addition thereto he must deny any knowledge, or information of said allegations sufficient to form a belief of their truth. In this case appellant wholly fails to make a general denial of the allegations of the petition, but places the defense on his want of knowledge or information, which is not sufficient, and especially in connection with the first paragraph of the answer, in which an indebtedness is admitted.

*J. R. Hallan, for appellant.*

--, *for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 21.1



QC Holdings, Inc.

A Kansas corporation



|                                               |  |                              
|---------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|QC Financial Services, Inc.                    |  | Missouri                     
|QC Properties, LLC (2)                         |  | Kansas                       
|QC Financial Services of California, Inc. (2)  |  | California                   
|Financial Services of North Carolina, Inc. (2) |  | Delaware                     
|QC Advance, Inc. (2)                           |  | Missouri                     
|Cash Title Loans, Inc. (2)                     |  | Missouri                     

---

|(1) | All subsidiaries are 100% owned.
|--- | --------------------------------

|(2) | Subsidiary of QC Financial Services, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Benjamin Garner, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04693

Honorable John Z. Lee

Allstate Insurance Company

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, March 12, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: The Court has reviewed the

status report. The Court orders the parties to file a joint written status report by 6/13/21.

The report, which shall be as concise as possible, shall set forth: (1) the current deadlines

imposed by the Court and whether the matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge in

any fashion (e,g., for discovery supervision; for resolution of a motion; for settlement;

etc.); (2) the progress of discovery, if discovery is ongoing; (3) the status of briefing on

unresolved motions, if any; (4) whether the parties have engaged or are engaging in

settlement discussions and the status of those discussions; (5) for cases without any future

court dates, an agreed proposed schedule; (6) for cases that have future court dates and if

the parties believe there is good cause to extend the current deadlines, a proposed

amended schedule and the basis for the request; (7) a request for any agreed action that the

Court can take without a hearing; (8) and whether the parties believe a telephonic hearing

or in−person hearing is necessary within the next 60 days, and, if so, the issue(s) that

warrants discussion and the parties' respective positions. (ca, )

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-04693 Document #: 35 Filed: 03/12/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:194
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 43

Electing Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois to the Committee on Veteran’s

Affairs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois to the

Committee on Veteran’s Affairs.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. LaHood.

Æ
10085.

#### Smith & Hollis *v.*Youngblood.

Luke, J.

1. A landlord’s rent lien on crops raised on the rented premises is in the nature of purchase-money, and is superior to a homestead exemption set apart out of the crops. See *Shirling*v. *Kennon,*119 *Ga.*501 (46 S. E. 630), and cases there cited.

*(а)*In order, however, to effect a valid levy upon such crops under an ordinary‘distress warrant, it is essential that it first appear that the crops were raised on the premises, and that the affidavit provided for in Civil Code (1910)) § 3400, be of file. See *Davis*v. *Jones,*95 *Ga.*788-790 (23 S. E. 59).

(б) The failure to file such an affidavit is not -cured by filing it after the levy and interposition of a claim to the property. See *Brantley*v. *Stephens,*77 *Ga.*467. ‘

2. It was not shown by the affidavit to foreclose, or the warrant issued thereon, or the levy, that the levy was upon crops grown on the rented premises. In fact a part of the property described in the levy was “one white horse mule, smooth mouthed.” To affirm the judgment dismissing the levy in this case does not conflict with *McDaniel*v. *West*
      *641
      *berry,*74 *Ga.*380; *McLaws*v. *Moore,*83 *Ga.*177 (2-b) (9 S. E. 615), *Perdue*v. *Fraley,*92 *Ga.*780 (19 S. E. 40), or *Davis*v. *Taylor,*103 *Ga.*366 (30 S. E. 50). The court in dismissing the levy did not err for any reason assigned.

Decided April 19, 1919.

. Levy and claim; from Taylor superior court—Judge Howard.’ April 1, 1918.

*C. W.*Foy, for plaintiff.

*C. B. Marshall, Jere M. Moore,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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