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

### This order is nonprecedential. 

# mniteb**~tate5** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI5** 

# fortbe jf

# eberaI (!Circuit

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWYORK (ALSO KNOWN AS AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY), Defendant-CrossAppellant, AND 

### WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.



### 2012-1462, -1473 Appeals from the United States Court ofInternational Trade in case no. 09-CV-0187, Senior Judge Richard W. Goldberg. 

### ON MOTION ORDER Case: 12-1462 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2012

## us V. GREATAMERICAN INSURANCE CO. 2 Defendant-Cross Appellant Great American and Defendant-Appellee Washington International jointly move for a 22-day extension oftime, until November 27, 2012, to file their opening briefs. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT



## OCT 052012 Date

cc: Amy Rubin, Esq. T. Randolph Ferguson, Esq. Mark D. Plevin, Esq. s27 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Case: 12-1462 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2012
Exhibit 99.1
                                  ------------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-J4
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-J4


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (a
"Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                 Dated: March 30, 2005
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                            Dated: March 30, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
DATE: April 4, 2008 

TO: All Interested Parties 

FROM: R. Michael McCabe, Elaine M. Newton 

SUBJECT: Upcoming Mobile ID Work Group Meeting 

The NIST Mobile ID work group was formed as a result of the NIST Mobile ID 

workshop held last September. The next meeting has been scheduled for June 4-5, 

2008 at NIST to continue the development of a minimum set of operational requirements 

for enrollment, identification, and verification functions using Mobile ID devices. 

During the previous workshop that was held March 5-6, a “Strawman” document was 

discussed and several updates, corrections, and modifications were proposed. These 

changes will be incorporated into the next version of the “Strawman” scheduled to be 

released by May 1, 2008. At the June meeting, submitted comments on this updated 

document will be reviewed and discussed. Any issues or aspects of Mobile ID that you 

would like to have discussed during the June meeting should be forwarded to me as soon 

as possible so that these topics can be placed on the agenda. 

Date: Wednesday-Thursday June 4-5, 2008 

Time: June 4 - 9:00 am - 5:00 pm; June 5 - 9:00 am - 3:00 pm 

Place: NIST 

Administration Building 101, Lecture Room E 

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Directions and visitor information can be found here: 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/visitor.htm 

Cost: There is a $20 registration fee. Pre-registration is mandatory and closes on 

Wednesday May 28th, 2008. After this date, admission to the workshop will probably not 

be possible. Since space is limited, register early. 

Registration: 

To pre-register for this workshop please visit: 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/confpage/080604.htm 
Hotel: 

Rooms are being reserved at the Gaithersburg Holiday Inn at a special rate of $113 plus 

13% tax through May 20, 2008. To register for rooms please call the hotel directly, 301-

948-8900 and request the NIST/Mobile ID room block. Reservations should be made as 

soon as possible to take advantage of this rate. These rates will be effective for the nights 

of June 3-5. This is the hotel at 2 Montgomery Village Avenue and Route 355 (or 

Frederick Road). There is also a Courtyard and Marriott nearby. 

If you are not currently a member of the Mobile ID ad hoc group but would like to join or 

need other information please contact mobileid@nist.gov 

R. Michael McCabe Elaine M. Newton 

ID Technology Partners (IDTP) NIST 

mmccabe@idtp.com enewton@nist.gov 

www.idtp.com fingerprint.nist.gov/mobileid 

301-865-9371 301-975-2532
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001049535
<NAME> CAVALRY BANCORP INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,883
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          30,080
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     45,278
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,791
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,795
<LOANS>                                        231,532
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,846
<DEPOSITS>                                     234,598
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,482
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,850
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 339,846
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,340
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  480
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   784
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,604
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,270
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,270
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,334
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       81
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,416
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,416
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.43
<LOANS-NON>                                        160
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,861
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        6
<RECOVERIES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,946
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,946
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 84432 

FILE 

. MAY 0 9 2022 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

CESAR IVAN TORRES, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

MARIA DE JESUS TORRES, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a series of orders, including an order 

denying an amended motion for stay and award of attorney fees, and a 

divorce decree and award of attorney fees. Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Family Court Division, Clark County; Dedree Butler, Judge. 

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to 

NRAP 3(g) reveals two jurisdictional defects. Specifically, this court lacks 

jurisdiction over the appeal from the order denying the amended motion for 

stay and award of attorney fees. This court has jurisdiction to consider an 

appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor 

Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). An order 

denying a motion for stay is not an appealable order. See, e.g., Brunzell 

Constr. Co. v. Harrah's Club, 81 Nev. 414, 404 P.2d 902 (1965) (no statute 

or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order denying a motion for stay). 

Second, appellant previously appealed from the divorce decree, 

and this court dismissed the appeal as premature because a timely tolling 

motion had been filed in the district court but not resolved. Torres v. Torre.s, 

Docket No. 83677 (Order Dismissing Appeal, November 23, 2021). A timely 

tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal 

is of no effect if it is filed after such a tolling motion is filed, and before the 

district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion. See NRAP 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NevADA 

(0i 1947A 
4(a)(4). Review of the district court docket entries reflects that the 

"Objection" filed on October 11, 2021, has still not been resolved by the 

district court. Accordingly, the appeal from the divorce decree remains 

premature, and this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

Silver 

GPX, J. 

Cadish 

Pidem.L 

Pickering 

1 J. 

cc: Hon. Dedree Butler, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Cesar Ivan Torres 

Jennifer Gastelum Law PLLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001050117
<NAME> DYNAMIC DETAILS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             180                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,656                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,040)                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,220                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,831                       0
<PP&E>                                         117,141                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,340)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 360,586                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,726                       0
<BONDS>                                        247,897                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,776                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   360,586                       0
<SALES>                                         86,912                 162,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,912                 162,197
<CGS>                                           55,875                 104,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,875                 104,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,114                  33,111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,984                  15,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,939                   8,928
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,963)                 (4,610)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,976                   4,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (670)                   (670)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,306                   3,648
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
H. Res. 414

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 30, 1998.

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee

on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is

waived with respect to any resolution reported from that committee before May 1, 1998, providing for consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1998, and for other purposes, an amendment thereto, a

conference report thereon, or an amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Guai Ren LIU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1771.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 13, 2004.

Decided Jan. 11, 2005.

Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Patricia A. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Guai Ren Liu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Ms applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Liu contends first that the IJ violated his right to due process because he rejected Liu’s past persecution claim without making any reference to the medical report of Qing Yeh, M.D. We find this claim to be without merit because the record reveals that the IJ in fact considered the report and Liu, in any event, cannot show prejudice from the alleged oversight. *See Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir.2002).

Next, Liu asserts that the IJ erred in relying on the 2001 State Department Country Report. We find that we are without jurisdiction to consider this claim because Liu failed to raise it before the Board and thus did not properly exhaust admimstrative remedies. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000); *Asika v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004), *petition*
      *313
      *for cert. filed,*73 U.S.L.W. 3135 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2004) (No. 04-256).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
EXHIBIT 35.2




ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE




GE DEALER FLOORPLAN MASTER NOTE TRUST




March 28, 2011




The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GE Commercial Distribution Finance Corporation (“CDF”), as the sub-servicer (the “Sub-Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Sub-Servicing Agreement dated as of August 10, 2006 (as may be further amended and supplemented from time to time, the “Agreement”), between General Electric Capital Corporation and CDF, does hereby certify that:




1.           CDF is, as of the date hereof, Sub-Servicer under the Agreement.





2.           The undersigned is an authorized officer who is duly authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this certificate to the GE Dealer Floorplan Master Note Trust.





3.           A review of the activities of Sub-Servicer during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “reporting period”), and of its performance under the Agreement, has been made under my supervision.





4.           To the best of my knowledge,  based on such review, Sub-Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate the date first above written.










/s/ Michael KarimName:
Michael KarimTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
Below are my comments on the draft

2.1. Methodology

2.1.2. Secure software development attestations.

This category should also identify which of the "accepted secure software development practices" this

specific version of software adheres to. The reason is these practices are acceptable at a given date;

they will evolve with time.

"2.3.2.1. Implements a Secure Development Process" mentions NIST SSDF, but, as the title of section 2.3

states, this is the baseline. One should expect software developers to also comply to other practices,

which should also be mentioned.

2.3.3.5 Strong Cryptography

A reminder to the consumer that the cryptography was strong at the time listed in "2.3.1.4 Attestation

Date" should be helpful.

2.3.4.1 Personally Identifiable Information (PII) Data Manifest

The PII list shown is but a subset of what GDPR defines as personal data. LGDP and APPI are not far

behind. We should assume companies who want to use this labeling criteria may want to sell their

products in the EU/EEA, Brazil, and Japan (to name a few). I propose the Assertion should either outline

which PII/personal data it is being used, and maybe also mention which definition of personal data it

uses. After all saying "this software does not store, process or transmit any PII data" when it handles

email addresses and associated IPs would cause headaches in countries with more restrictive privacy

policies than the US.

2.3.4.2 Location Data Manifest

My concerns presented in 2.3.4.1 also apply here.

3.2 Layered Approach

The customer should be able to freely obtain a means to scan this label and read its contents. This will

probably be done using some kind of software/app that is available through the website the

government is expected to curate information on this labeling program.

This label should also provide enough info so customer at a glance can identify the main points of the

attestation:

- Does it use PII? (2.3.4)

- Date (already mentioned in 3.1)

- Secure? (2.3.3)

Appendix A, Proposed Label Approach

A binary label with just one "seal of approval" is draconian. For instance, what would a binary seal say

about PII data in a medical app? Also, it should not require understanding of a language, so it needs to
 

 

 

 

--

be more graphic/iconic. Instead of colours, it should use an arrow length as a B&W version of the EU

energy efficiency letter grade. Finally, it should account for blind customers.

Another vibrant ASCII production
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN GARNER AND DEBORAH 

SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all 

similarly situated individuals, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an 

Illinois Insurance Company,

Defendant.

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

Hon. John Z. Lee 

CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT A JOINT STATUS REPORT

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), by and through its attorneys and with 

the consent of counsel for Plaintiffs Benjamin Garner and Deborah Schick (“Plaintiffs”), 

respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for the parties to submit a Joint Status Report 

to October 20, 2020.

1. The deadline to submit a Joint Status Report is currently set for October 1, 2020.

2. On September 1, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, moving that deadline to October 19, 2020, 

and setting the status hearing for October 21, 2020. (ECF Doc. No. 12.) 

3. Accordingly, Allstate seeks an extension up to and including October 20, 2020 for the 

parties to submit a Joint Status Report, so that Allstate may respond to the Complaint 

before the parties submit their Joint Status Report. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:43
2

4. Plaintiffs consent to this request.

WHEREFORE Defendant respectfully requests that the Court extend the time to submit a 

Joint Status Report to October 20, 2020.

Dated: September 25, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

Allstate Insurance Company

/s/Francis X. Nolan_________________________

Francis X. Nolan, IV (pro hac vice)

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

The Grace Building

1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.

New York, NY 10036

Telephone: (212) 389-5083

Fax: (212) 389-5099

franknolan@eversheds-sutherland.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:44
45264720.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Motion to Extend 

Time to Submit a Joint Status Report was served via ECF to the following attorneys of record:

Steven L. Woodrow 

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

_/s/Francis X. Nolan_____

Frank X. Nolan, IV

Case: 1:20-cv-04693 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:45
H. Res. 513

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 24, 1998.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3736) to amend the

Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes relating to

H–1B nonimmigrants. The bill shall be considered as read

for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by

the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the

amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of

rule XXIII shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended,

and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the

bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule

XXIII, which shall be in order without intervention of any
2

•HRES 513 EH

point of order or demand for division of the question, shall

be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for

one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed

in the Congressional Record and numbered 3 pursuant to

clause 6 of rule XXIII shall be considered as adopted in lieu

of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the

Congressional Record and numbered 1.

Attest:

Clerk.