alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2514

___________ Herbert Phillip Malone, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Brent Scott, Infirmary Manager , * Eastern District of Arkansas. Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Mary Wyatt, Infirmary * [UNPUBLISHED] Records Supervisor, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 6, 1999 Filed: May 11, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Herbert P. Malone appeals the judgment of the district court 1 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following a jury verdict in favor of defendants. Upon careful-2-

review of Malone’s brief and the record, we conclude that his arguments either are unreviewable because he did not provide a trial transcript, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Van Treese v. Blome , 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), or are meritless. We also deny his motion for a remand. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL PITTMAN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff ) No. 1:20-cv-04493 

 ) 

 v. ) Judge Martha M. Pacold 

 ) 

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes 

and AEP GROUP BENEFITS PROGRAM, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants ) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

 All matters in controversy in the above captioned cause of action having been fully 

compromised, agreed, and settled pursuant to the terms of a written settlement agreement, 

plaintiff, Michael Pittman (“Plaintiff”), and defendants, Aetna Life Insurance Company 

(“Aetna”) and AEP Group Benefits Program (“the Plan”), hereby stipulate and agree to the 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the above captioned lawsuit, with prejudice, each party to 

bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Joseph P. McDonald (with consent) By: /s/ Warren von Schleicher 

 Attorney for Plaintiff, Attorney for Defendants, 

 Michael Pittman Aetna Life Insurance Company and 

 AEP Group Benefits Program 

 Joseph P. McDonald (0055230) Warren von Schleicher (IL 6197189) 

 MCDONALD & MCDONALD CO., L.P.A. SMITH | VON SCHLEICHER + ASSOCIATES

 200 E. Spring Valley Rd, Suite A 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3130 

 Dayton, OH 45458 Chicago, Illinois 60601 

 P: 937-428-9800 P: 312-541-0300 

 joseph@mcdonaldandmcdonald.com warren.vonschleicher@svs-law.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-04493 Document #: 20 Filed: 01/04/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:54
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on January 4, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the above 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing on the following 

attorney: 

Joseph P. McDonald 

McDonald & McDonald Co., L.P.A. 

200 East Spring Valley Rd., Suite A 

Dayton, OH 45458 

joseph@mcdonaldandmcdonald.com 

/s/ Warren von Schleicher 

SMITH | VON SCHLEICHER + ASSOCIATES

 180 North LaSalle St. Suite 3130 

 Chicago, Illinois 60601 

 P 312.541.0300 | F 312.541.0933 

 warren.vonschleicher@svs-law.com 

Illinois Bar No. 6197189

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04493 Document #: 20 Filed: 01/04/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:55
9932.

#### LIVINGSTON *v.*RANEY *et al.*

Decided January 15, 1919.

The evidence shows that the contract in question, entered into by James M. Raney in behalf of Raney Brothers as a partnership, was a gambling contract, for the future delivery of cotton; and that Raney Brothers were not a partnership for the purpose of entering into such contracts. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plea of nul tiel partnership, or in directing a verdict.for the defendant James M. Raney.

Action on contract; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Reid. Hay 6, 1918.

*J. T. Hill, F. A. Hooper,*for plaintiff.

*Eldridge*Cutts, *Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein,*for defendants.

Luke, J.

Livingston sued Raney Brothers, .alleging that the firm was composed of James M. Raney, Benjamin Raney, and Daniel Raney, who were at the time engaged in the general mercantile business; that James M. Raney, in behalf of Raney Brothers, entered into a contract on May 18, 1909, whereby it was agreed that they should deliver, before October 30, 1909, one hundred bales of cotton, at a price of ten and one quarter cents per pound. The contract recites that the said number of bales represents the crop, or a part of the crop, of Raney Brothers for the year 1909. Raney Brothers filed a plea of nul tiel partnership, andj subject to that plea, pleaded also that the contract was a gambling contract. The evidence clearly shows that Raney Brothers, as a partnership for the purpose of entering into such contracts, never existed, and the evidence further shows clearly that there had never been any partnership organized for the operation of farms, or the selling of cotton from farms; and the evidence further clearly shows that they did not as partners own farms or conduct farming operations. The evidence further shows that the agent of Livingston, the person who in behalf of Livingston signed the contract, knew, at the time that he executed the contract, that James M. Raney was undertaking to sell cotton that he was buying from farmers, and executed the contract- sued on, for the future delivery of cotton. The evidence further shows that so far as Livingston and James M. Raney were concerned, it was a gambling contract, for the future delivery of cotton, especially in-view of the fact that all of the evidence shows that Raney Brothers owned no farms jointly. *273gnd were raising no cotton. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant’s plea of nul tiel partnership, and did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant James M. Raney. See *Russell*v. *Camp,*9 *Ga. App.*691 (72 S. E. 60).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur*.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of FirstConsulting Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies,to his knowledge, that:

(i)    the accompanying QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: November 8, 2006 |   | /s/ LARRY R. FERGUSON   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Larry R. Ferguson       |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238.  This certification shall not be deemed “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,nor shall it be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company underthe Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

1

----
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 414 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 173
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 414

                          [Report No. 105-502]

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1998

   Mr. McInnis, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    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.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 173

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 414

                          [Report No. 105-502]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 29, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBIT A TO DECLARATION OF STEVEN 

WEISBROT, ESQ. OF ANGEION GROUP LLC 

RE: ESTIMATED COSTS OF NOTICE AND ADMINISTRATION UNDER SEAL 

Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel respectfully moves for leave to 

file Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot, Esq. Of Angeion Group LLC Re: Estimated 

Costs Of Notice And Administration (“Second Weisbrot Declaration”) under seal. In support 

thereof, Co-Lead Counsel states as follows: 

1. On February 25, 2021, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel filed their Motion For 

Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. 

2. On March 1, 2021, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel filed the Second Weisbrot 

Declaration to provide the Court with an estimate of notice and administration costs. The 

publicly filed declaration includes a breakdown of notice and administration costs per class 

member and per claim – at both the notice and administration phase of the settlement -- using 

Plaintiffs’ estimated claim filing percentages. 

3. Exhibit A to the Second Weisbrot Declaration is Angeion’s comprehensive cost 

estimate, which contains the detailed breakdown of the costs per line item, such as “email blast 

setup fee” and cost to respond to individual requests for long-form notice. This pricing is 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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-cv-4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 130 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2374
2 

proprietary and the types of line items on which third party notice and settlement administrators 

compete. Accordingly, Angeion has requested that the detailed cost estimate be submitted under 

seal. 

4. Defense counsel does not object to this request. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel respectfully requests that the Court grant 

their request for leave to file Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot, Esq. Of Angeion 

Group LLC Re: Estimated Costs Of Notice And Administration under seal. 

Dated: March 1, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

By: /s/ Katrina Carroll 

Katrina Carroll 

CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 

111 W. Washington St. 

Suite 1240 

Chicago IL 60602 

312.750.1265 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com 

By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan 

Elizabeth A. Fegan 

FEGAN SCOTT LLC 

150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Ph: 312.741.1019 

Fax: 312.264.0100 

beth@feganscott.com

By: /s/ Ekwan Rhow 

Ekwan Rhow 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, 

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, 

P.C. 

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

(310) 201-2100 

erhow@birdmarella.com 

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 130 Filed: 03/01/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2375
Please read thoroughly 

This Federated Testing 64-bit ISO supports testing disk imaging, forensic media preparation, forensic 

string search, hardware write blocking, and mobile forensics data extraction tools. 

The test suite modules are hosted in an integrated Web browser interface. After installing, configuring 

and then launching the ISO into a virtual environment or bare metal, you are presented with the 

Federated testing web browser interface. The tool operates in Firefox. It has a self-loading interface that 

contains instructions for each modules use and can be accessed by selecting each individual test suite 

located on the left side navigation bar. Always simply click the Firefox logo located on the navigation bar 

to restore the working environment. 

Questions or Comments 

cftt@nist.gov 

Known security issue 

We have provided an unsecure generic password to you in the event you find your screen has locked: 

You must type: 1qazZAQ!1qaz 

Installation 

Tool operation and deployment: 

When you deploy the ISO create it using a VM. This environment was tested and found reliable under 

most applications. You must build the VM with a minimum 10 GB virtual hard drive, else the tool will not 

function properly. 

This tool was built and tested using VirtualBox. 

Known Windows hardware issue running 64-bit VMs 

 

BIOS setting: If you are unable to launch the Federated testing iso under Windows 10, In a nutshell – the 

Intel Virtualization Technology component needs to be enabled in the BIOS option settings. 

 

Solution 1: Enabling Intel Virtualization Technology 

(The following instructions are provided for demonstration only). Reference your 

hardware manual for detailed instructions related to your specific make and 

model. 
Virtual Technology is the architecture in computers which allows users to run more than one 

operating system using virtualization where the guest operating system is launched in a 

sandbox. In a sandbox, the application has limited resources and doesn’t have access to the 

main computer architecture which lies beyond the sandbox. If this basic setting is disabled, 

you might experience issues with VirtualBox. Here we will enable it in the BIOS.

1. Restart your computer and press Del or F2 (depends on the motherboard to 

motherboard. You can click the correct key which appears underneath the 

Windows logo when you restart your computer) on the BIOS.

2. Once the BIOS is enabled, navigate to the option of Intel Virtualization 

Technology which is usually present in Advanced. The menu in which it is 

present might differ motherboard to motherboard so explore yourself.

In the case of ASUS motherboards, follow the following path:

Advanced > CPU Configuration > Intel Virtualization Technology

Navigating to Intel Virtualization Technology 

3. Now change the option to Enabled. Save changes and exit the BIOS.

Enabling Intel Virtualization Technology 
The computer will now restart. Upon the restart, you might need to reinstall the VirtualBox 

application and after loading all the guest operating systems, check if the issue is resolved.
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.144

Watauga Pavilion

                                   ASSIGNMENT

     This Assignment is made as of the 20th day of May 2004 by INLAND REAL
ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation ("Assignor") to and for the
benefit of INLAND WESTERN WATAUGA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited
partnership ("Assignee").

     Assignor does hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto
Assignee all of its right, title and interest as Buyer under that certain
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated April 19, 2004, as amended and entered into by
ASG Watauga Pavilion, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, as seller, and
Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the "Agreement"), for the sale and purchase of
the property commonly known as Watauga Pavilion, located in Watauga, Texas as
further described by the Agreement,.

     Assignor represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement,
and that it has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in
any way to any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts
the foregoing assignment and agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i)
perform all of the obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify,
defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from and against all claims and
liabilities arising under the Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as
of the date first written above.

                               ASSIGNOR:

                               INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC.
                               an Illinois corporation


                               By: /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza
                                   ---------------------------------
                               Name: G. Joseph Cosenza
                                     -------------------------------
                               As Its: President
                                       -----------------------------

                                    ASSIGNEE:

                               INLAND WESTERN WATAUGA LIMITED
                               PARTNERSHIP,
                               an Illinois limited partnership

                               By: Inland Western Watauga GP, LLC, a Delaware
                               limited liability company
                               General Partner

                                    By: Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust,
                                    Inc., a Maryland corporation
                                    Sole Member


                               By: /s/ Charles Benvenuto
                                   ------------------------------
                               Name: Charles Benvenuto
                                     ----------------------------
                               As Its: Authorized Agent
                                       --------------------------
9708.

#### Swain *v.*Graves, ordinary, for use, etc.

Luke, J.

1. Where suit was brought for the breach of a' bond given under section 379 of the Renal Code of 19Í0, to stop a prosecution for seduction, the condition of which was as follows: “Now should the said Charlie J. Swain provide for the said. Dollie Sumner and her child, now Dollie Swain, and maintain her and her child in meat and drink and Clothing and other necessities of life in a manner suitable to her circumstances during and for • the period of five years from the date of *51this hond, then this obligation to be void; otherwise of full force and effect,” proof that the mother of 'the child had by her labor accumulated some little property would not relieve the defendant from his obligation to keep and maintain the mother and child as provided by the bond.

Decided November 12, 1918.

Action upon bond; from Tift superior court—Judge Eve. March 6, 1918.

*J. P. Knight,*for plaintiff in .error.

*R. D. Smith,*contra.

2. The charge of the court was full and fair, and was not subject to the criticism that the contentions of the defendant were not fully submitted to the jury. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial and the exception to the failure of the judge to charge more fully the contentions of the defendant were without merit. The evidence fully authorized the verdict, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

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

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

|                 |                                                                             |                                  |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|            |                                                                        |                             |
| Date: April 16, 2007 | By:                                                                    | /s/              Alexander C. Gilmour |
|                 | Name:              Alexander C. Gilmour                                          |
|                 | Title:              Acting Principal Executive Officer and              Director |

----
#### James A. SAUNDERS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.

No. 05-3035.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2004.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) 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.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JAMES M. GREEN, CECIL M. GREEN, RITA M. GREEN, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

MONROVIA NURSERY COMPANY, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1742

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:18

- cv

- 05257

- RGK

GJS, Judge R. Gary Klausner.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

L ANCE R EICH , Holley Driggs, Las Vegas, NV, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants.

D AVID A. D ILLARD
, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Glendale, CA, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also

repres ented by S TEVEN A NDREW W ILSON

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 20-1742 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2021O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, Chief Judge

, T ARANTO and C HEN
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 6, 2021 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-1742 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 01/06/2021