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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

__________________________________________

)

Trademark Holder Identified in Exhibit 1, )

) Case No.: 20-cv-5003

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Judge: Honorable Matthew Kennelly

)

Does 1-340, As Identified in Exhibit 2, )

) Magistrate: Hon. M. David Weisman

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, a judgment was entered in the above action on January 20, 2021 [DOCKET 

#43], in favor of Plaintiff Nowstalgic Toys, Inc., (“Nowstalgic Toys” or "Plaintiff') and against 

the Defaulting Defendants in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per 

Defaulting Defendant for willful use of counterfeit Nowstalgic Toys Trademark in connection 

with the offer for sale and/or sale of products and Nowstalgic Toys acknowledges payment of an 

agreed upon damages amount, costs, and interest and desires to release this judgment and hereby 

fully and completely satisfy the same as to the following Defendants:

Doe Store Name Seller ID Email Address

21 Yiwu Power Import & Export Co., Ltd. yiwupower info@yiwupower.com

47 God Plaything Store 2613036 1101020519@qq.com

114 co/edfa AE9ZTJ3F5Y2IA 8yryihsstj@sina.com

THEREFORE, full and complete satisfaction of said judgment as to the above-referenced

Defendants is hereby acknowledged, and the Clerk of the Court is hereby authorized and directed

to make an entry of the full and complete satisfaction on the docket of said judgment.

Case: 1:20-cv-05003 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/25/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1325
Dated this January 25, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Rishi Nair

Rishi Nair

ARDC # 6305871

Kevin J. Keener

ARDC # 6296898

Keener & Associates, P.C.

161 N. Clark Street, Suite #1600

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 375-1573 

rishi.nair@keenerlegal.com

kevin.keener@keenerlegal.com

Case: 1:20-cv-05003 Document #: 44 Filed: 01/25/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1326
KING A. GREEN E

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5373

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 24, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

King A. Green e

, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney

General

, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY and MAKAR, JJ., and DAVIS, WILLIAM E., ASSOCIATE JUDGE,

CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 7

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:16959
2

Accused Product B — Top View Comparison

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Arts 

D’906 Patent

Accused Product B

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:16960
3

Accused Product B — Ornamental Design Comparison 1

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Accused Product B D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:16961
4

Accused Product B — Bottom View Comparison

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Arts 

D’906 Patent

Accused Product B

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:16962
5

Accused Product B — Front/Back View Comparison

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Prior Arts 

D’906 Patent

Accused Product B

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:16963
6

Accused Product B — Perspective View Comparison

Patents-in-suit D’723 Patent Patents-in-suit D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit D’195 Patent Patents-in-suit D’112 Patent

Prior Arts D’906 Patent

Accused Product B

D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:16964
7

Accused Product B — Side View Comparison

Patents-in-suit D’723 Patent Patents-in-suit D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit D’195 Patent Patents-in-suit D’112 Patent

Accused Product B D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:16965
8

Accused Product B — Ornamental Design Comparison 2

Patents-in-suit

D’723 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’256 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’195 Patent

Patents-in-suit

D’112 Patent

Accused Product B D’856 Patent

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 666-7 Filed: 09/06/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:16966
No. 87-815. No. 87-865. No. 87-1025. No. 87-1050. No. 87-1086. No. 87-1145. No. 87-1149. No. 87-1162. No. 87-5449. No. 87-5454. No. 87-5647. No. 87-5807. No. 87-5873. No. 87-5961. No. 87-5975. No. 87-6014. No. 87-6019. No. 87-6050. *1016No. 87-6127. No. 87-6161. No. 87-6166. No. 87-6181. No. 87-6201. No. 87-6204. No. 87-6207. No. 87-6214.

#### *1015Corace *v.*United States, Gregory Lumber Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Morgan *v.*Ohio, In re Goldstein, Damascus *v.*Borgia et al., Potter *v.*Wackenhut Corp. et al., Reagin *v.*Terry et al., Clissuras *v.*City of New York et al., Andrews *v.*Shulsen, Warden, et al., Wrenn *v.*Gould et al., Thompson *v.*Pfeiffer et al., Johnson v. Armontrout, Warden, Wilson *v.*Butler, Warden, Latshaw *v.*Felder et al., Howes *v.*United States, Shurn v. Illinois, Stumpf *v.*Ohio, Williams *v.*Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, *1016Post *v.*Ohio, Tempel *v.*Alaska et al., Lashley et ux. *v.*First National Bank of Live Oak, Olim *v.*Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Thomas *v.*Rafferty, Warden, et al., Milton *v.*World Savings & Loan Assn., Mehar *v.*C & P Telephone Company of Maryland, Murphy *v.*Sisco et al.,

*1015484 U. S. 1060; 484 U. S. 1061; 484 U. S. 1064; 484 U. S. 1057; 484 U. S. 1066; *ante,*p. 902; *ante,*p. 906; 484 U. S. 1053; *ante,*p. 919; 484 U. S. 1067; *ante,*p. 907; 484 U. S. 1068; 484 U. S. 1079; 484 U. S. 1069; 484 U. S. 1069; 484 U. S. 1079; 484 U. S. 1079; 484 U. S. 1071; *1016484 U. S. 1079; 484 U. S. 1075; 484 U. S. 1075; 484 U. S. 1076; 484 U. S. 1076; *ante,*p. 908; 484 U. S. 1077; and *ante,*p. 937. Petitions for rehearing denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel HUERTA-VARGAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10335.

D.C. No. CR-04-00009-LRH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.

Decided Dec. 13, 2004.

Paul L. Pugliese, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael K. Powell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Manual Huerta-Vargas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry of a deported or removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d *579435 (2000), *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), *Ring v. Arizona,*536 U.S. 584, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), and *United States v. Ameline,*376 F.3d 967 (9th Cir.2004), Huerta-Vargas contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based upon facts that were not alleged in the indictment, proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury nor admitted by the defendant. The sole basis for the sentencing enhancement was Huerta-Vargas’s prior aggravated felony conviction, and his contention is, therefore, foreclosed by our holdings in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.2000), and *United States v. Quintanar-Quintana,*383 F.3d 1052, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00392

- CR

Andrisela Marie NG

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CR

- 8420

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 7, 2013.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

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

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             102                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,863                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,798)                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,635                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,232                       0
<PP&E>                                         134,507                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (55,377)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 414,630                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,178                       0
<BONDS>                                        245,767                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,359                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   414,630                       0
<SALES>                                        294,424                 132,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               294,424                 132,227
<CGS>                                          189,269                  83,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,269                  83,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,542                  22,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,175                   6,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,438                  19,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,040                   9,430
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,398                  10,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (670)                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,728                  10,078
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-1 No. 333-115602 and Form S-4 No. 333-115604) of Grande Communications Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiary and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 23, 2007, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Grande Communications Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiary included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Austin, Texas 

March 23, 2007
#### G. B. *v.*S. J. H.

[No. 3-275A26.

Filed December 9,1975.]

*176
      *Larry L. Ambler, Patrick Brennan and Associates,*of South Bend, for appellant.

*Leonard V. Campanale,*of Mishawaka, for appellee.

Garrard, J.

— This appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment that appellant is the father of twins born January 25,1973.

Appellant may succeed if he can show that the evidence supporting the decision establishes *at best*a result based on mere conjecture, guess, surmise, possibility or speculation; or if he can show that the only evidence to support the result is so incredible in view of the other evidence that it could not induce conviction in any reasonable mind. *Beaman*v. *Hedrick*(1970), 146 Ind. App. 404, 255 N.E.2d 828.

H testified that her relationship with B began in April, 1971; that they first had intercourse on the second or third date, and that thereafter they generally had intercourse more than once a week until the late summer of 1972. On cross examination she stated that on their first date they had gone to the Town and Country Theater to see “The Godfather.” It appears that film was first shown at the theater in question on March 24, 1972.

B’s account commences their relationship in April 1972. He stated he was “pretty sure” they first had intercourse on a date after the “Indianapolis 500” that year. He agreed that the relationship continued through most of the summer of 1972 and that they had intercourse several times a week.

H testified that she went with no other men during the period of their relationship, and B presented no evidence to dispute this.

*177There was also a conflict in the testimony regarding the use of contraceptives. H testified that at first she used contraceptives supplied by B, but that when the original supply ran out, it was not replenished. B testified that they never used contraceptives and that the first time they had intercourse H told him they were unnecessary because she was already pregnant.

Certainly the court had to make a credibility determination. However, despite the conflicts, it could have reasonably concluded that during late April and May, 1972, these parties were regularly engaging in intercourse and that a preponderance of the evidence established B as the father of the twins. We may not now reweigh that evidence or redetermine credibility.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Staton, P.J. and Hoffman, J., concur.

Note. — Reported at 338 N.E.2d 315.
EXHIBIT 2 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:116
★ ★ ★

Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd | The ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regarding-acquisi...

1 of 5 8/23/2020, 1:03 AM

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:117
Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd | The ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regarding-acquisi...

2 of 5 8/23/2020, 1:03 AM

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:118
Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd | The ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regarding-acquisi...

3 of 5 8/23/2020, 1:03 AM

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:119
Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd | The ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regarding-acquisi...

4 of 5 8/23/2020, 1:03 AM

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:120
Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd | The ... https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-regarding-acquisi...

5 of 5 8/23/2020, 1:03 AM

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:121
#### MESSER v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL

No. 72A97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 57

Petition by defendant (Town of Chapel Hill) to dismiss appeal allowed 5 June 1997.
Exhibit 10.10
 Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.
 Employment Agreement
 This Employment Agreement Agreement Effective Date Company Employee
 RECITALS
  Prior Employment Agreement
    NOW, THEREFORE,
 ARTICLE I
EMPLOYMENT
 Company Employs Employee.
 Employee Accepts Employment.




---



##### 



ARTICLE II
TERM OF EMPLOYMENT
 Term. Term Term
 ARTICLE III
COMPENSATION
 Salary.
 Incentive Bonus.
 Country Club Membership and Dues.
 Business Expenses.
 Benefits.
 ARTICLE IV
DISABILITY
 Suspension of Agreement. Code
 2




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
 Death.
 Termination for Cause. Cause
      3




---



##### 



Subsidiary
 Effect of Termination Under Section 5.1 or 5.2.
 Termination Without Cause.
 Termination by Employee
 Termination by Company
 Severance Amount provided, however,
    4




---



##### 



Termination On Account of Change in Control
      Good Reason
  Compensation
 5




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
NON-COMPETITION AND NON-SOLICITATION
 Terms of Covenant. Restrictive Area Restrictive Period
 Financial Institution provided
however,
  6




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE
 Confidential Information. Confidential Information
  7




---



##### 



Dispute Resolution.
 ARTICLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
 Modifications.
 Notices.
 To Company:
    
    Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.440 Maine StreetQuincy, Illinois 62301To Employee:
    
    Daniel J. Cook1600 Silverthorne DriveQuincy, Illinois 62305
  Entire Agreement; Survival.
 Waivers.
 Binding Effect.
 Assignment.
 8




---



##### 



Construction.
 Severability.
 Governing Law.
 Arbitration.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Ted T. AwerkampIts:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Daniel J. CookDaniel J. Cook
 9
| Subsidiaries of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |   |   |
| Name of Subsidiary                                     |   | State of Organization |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Village Bank                                           |   | Virginia |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Village Bank Mortgage Corporation                      |   | Virginia |
| (wholly-owned subsidiary of Village Bank)              |   |   |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Village Insurance Agency, Inc.                         |   | Virginia |
| (wholly-owned subsidiary of Village Bank)              |   |   |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Village Financial Services Corporation                 |   | Virginia |
| (wholly-owned subsidiary of Village Bank)              |   |   |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Southern Community Financial Capital Trust I           |   | Virginia |
|                                                   |   |   |
| Village Financial Statutory Trust II                   |   | Virginia |
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3939 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3939

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 14-24 Abbott Road in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, as the ``Mary Ann 
                    Collura Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3939

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 14-24 Abbott Road in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, as the ``Mary Ann 
                    Collura Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14-24 
Abbott Road in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, and known as the Fair Lawn Main 
Post Office, shall be known and designated as the ``Mary Ann Collura 
Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mary Ann Collura Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case: 1:20-cv-04455 Document #: 4 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:18

Case: 1:20-cv-04455 Document #: 4 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:19
10363.

#### WATSON *v.*LITHONIA BANKING COMPANY.

Decided June 12, 1919.

Although the presumption is that the magistrate’s answer to the certiorari was true, the evidence introduced on the issue made by the traverse to the answer was in conflict and did not demand a finding against the traverse; and the judge of the superior court therefore erred in directing a verdict against the traverse.

Certiorari; from Gwinnett superior court—Judge Cobb. January SO, 1919.

*O. A. Nix,*for plaintiff in error..

*L. B. Norton, I. L. Oakes,*contra.

Wade, C. J.

' This was a suit in a justice’s court upon a promissory note. The defendant filed a plea of non est factum. The trial of the case in the justice’s court having resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, certiorari was sued out. One of the grounds of the petition for certiorari was that the note sued upon was not introduced in evidence. The magistrate’s answer states that the note was introduced in evidence. The defendant thereupon traversed the magistrate’s answer as to this statement. At the conclusion of the evidence upon the issue thus raised, the judge of the superior court directed the jury to return a verdict against the traverse, and also 'overruled the certiorari. A motion for a new trial, based on the ground that the judge of the superior court erred in directing the verdict, was overruled, and exception is taken to this judgment, as well as to the order overruling the certiorari.

Although the presumption is that the statement made in the magistrate’s answer was true, the traverse to the answer raised an issue of fact, and since the evidence introduced upon this issue was in sharp conflict, this court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the evidence demanded a finding in accordance with that presumption, and therefore the’action of the judge of the superior court in directing a verdict against the traverse and in overruling the certiorari is

*Reversed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*