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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MISH INTERNATIONAL MONETARY 

INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly 

situated,

 v.

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al.

Case No. 1:20-cv-04577

Judge Manish S. Shah

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2 and the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action (ECF

No. 24), Plaintiff Mish International Monetary Inc. (“Plaintiff”) respectfully seeks leave to file 

under seal Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Class Certification, the 

Expert Report of Professor Craig Pirrong, and the Declaration of Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq and 

exhibits thereto (collectively “Class Motion”). Defendants do not object to Plaintiff filing its Class 

Motion under seal.

In support of this motion, Plaintiff respectfully states as follows:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2(c), “[a]ny party wishing to file a document or portion of

a document electronically under seal in connection with a motion, brief or other submission

must...move the court for leave to file the document under seal.” L.R. 26.2(c). This rule further

allows the filing party to “provisionally file the document electronically under seal.” Id.

2. Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, the parties and certain non-parties

designated certain information produced during discovery as confidential or highly confidential.

ECF No. 24, p. 10. Certain of the information so designated is reflected in Plaintiff’s Class Motion. 

3. Plaintiff is preparing a redacted version of the Class Motion, which will be sent to 

counsel for the Defendants. Absent objection from Defendants, Plaintiff intends to file their 

proposed redacted version of the Class Motion in the public record. Plaintiff is serving an unredacted version of the Class Motion on counsel for Defendants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 301 Filed: 02/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9238
2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting it

leave to file under seal the un-redacted version of Plaintiff’s Class Motion.

Dated: February 19, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher McGrath

Christopher Lovell

Christopher M. McGrath

LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON

LLP

500 Fifth Avenue, Suite

2440 New York, New York 

10110 212.608.1900

clovell@lshllp.com

cmcgrath@lshllp.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 301 Filed: 02/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9239
##### 



Exhibit
10.27
 
 
 
     Total Part-Time AnnualYear
    
    
    Salary2007
    
    
    $
    46,8752008
    
    
    $
    31,2502009
    
    
    $
    12,5002010
    
    
    $
    9,375Total
    
    
    $
    100,000




---



##### 








---



##### 



Sincerely,
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC./s/ Richard S. HillRichard S. HillChairman and CEOI agree to the terms set forth herein./s/ Sass SomekhSass Somekh     12-20-06 Cc:
    
    Novellus Board of DirectorsNovellus Human Resources Department
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer of GFI GroupInc.**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Gooch,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: March 23, 2006 |
|---------------------------|
| /s/ MICHAEL GOOCH         |
| Michael Gooch             |
| Chairman of the Board     |
| Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Blackwater Midstream Corp. on Form S-8 (No. 333-152203), of our report dated June 28, 2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Blackwater Midstream Corporation as of March 31, 2010 and March 31, 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended March 31, 2010, for the period December 23, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (Successor periods); as well as the statements of operations, net parent investment and cash flows of the Westwego, LA Terminal Business for the period January 1, 2008 through December 22, 2008 (Predecessor period) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010.





We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.





/s/ MALONEBAILEY, LLPHouston, TexasJune 28, 2010
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 03, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 03, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0178. DAVIS LASTRAPES v. MARCIA P. LASTRAPES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2022V0977
IV

House Calendar No. 167

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 407

[Report No. 105–488]

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 111) proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect

to tax limitations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1998

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J.

Res. 111) proposing an amendment to the Constitution

of the United States with respect to tax limitations.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint reso3 lution (H. J. Res. 111) proposing an amendment to the

4 Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limi5 tations. The joint resolution shall be considered as read

6 for amendment. The amendment specified in the report
2

HRES 407 RH

1 of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution

2 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall

3 be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amend4 ed, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage

5 without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of de6 bate on the joint resolution, as amended, which shall be

7 equally divided and controlled by the chairman and rank8 ing minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary;

9 (2) one motion to amend, if offered by the Minority Lead10 er or his designee, which shall be considered as read and

11 shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided

12 and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)

13 one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

House Calendar No. 167

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 407

[Report No. 105–488]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution

tax limitations.Constitution of the United States with respect to(H. J. Res. 111) proposing an amendment to the

APRIL 21, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### COOK v. WAKE COUNTY HOSPITAL SYSTEM

No. 202A97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 618

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals allowed 5 June 1997.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1478

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

T. Wayne Allen, Sr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: November 1, 2013

Filed: November 6, 2013 (Corrected November 6, 2013)

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

T. Wayne Allen pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After finding that Allen was an armed career
criminal (ACC), and in accordance with the written plea agreement, the district court

1

sentenced him to 180 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release. On appeal,

Allen’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in finding that Allen was

the person who committed the ACC predicate offenses.

After reviewing the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, we conclude

that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Allen wasthe person convicted

of the Nevada robbery convictions at issue. See United States v. Urbina-Mejia, 450

F.3d 838, 839 (8th Cir. 2006) (court did not clearly err in finding that defendant had

prior conviction based on data from National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and

testimony of probation officer, where defendant provided no evidence that NCIC

report was unreliable). Accordingly, the district court properly sentenced him as an

ACC. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (ACC status applies to person who violates § 922(g)

and has three previous convictions for violent felony or serious drug offense). 

Further, having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Allen about procedures

for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
-- Converted by SECPublisher 3.1.0.1, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing
















Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

VENTURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 



 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO VENTURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the "Amendment") is dated as of 
___________________, 200__. 


RECITALS



	
A.      		
Article XIII of the Venture Financial Group, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") provides that the Plan may be modified or amended by the Board of Directors of Venture Financial Group, Inc.
("Venture").	
	 
	
B.      		
On September 14, 2005, the Board of Directors of Venture approved amendments to the Plan.	
	 
	
C.      		
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning attributed to such terms in the Merger Agreement.	
	 



AMENDMENT



	
1.      		
Sections 6.9 and 7.9 of the Plan are amended to change the termination date of an Optionee's Options following the Optionee's death from 12 months to 6 months following the Optionee's death.	
	 
	
2.      		
Sections 6.10 and 7.10 are amended to change the termination date of an Optionee's Options following the Optionee becoming Disabled from 12 months to 6 months following the Optionee becoming Disabled.	
	 
	
3.      		
This Amendment is effective as of the date hereof and is hereby incorporated into the Plan. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Plan remain in full force and effect and
are not amended or modified in any respect.	
	 



 DATED as of and approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of Venture at a meeting held on September 14, 2005. 


23
10164.

#### WILSON *v.*BRICE, guardian.

1. Neither a residuary legatee of a person deceased nor his guardian can maintain an action to enforce the right of contribution of the estate of the decedent, growing out of a cosuretyship. Such a right is a chose in action of the estate and can be exercised only by the personal representative of the estate. This is true although the administrator has paid all the debts of the estate and has fully administered the estate, and has transferred the judgment and execution (the payment of which by the administrator gave him the right of contribution) to the guardian of the legatee, and although, under, the will of the decedent, the *735legatee was the sole legatee of the residuum of the estate, and the money which paid the judgment and execution referred to would otherwise have gone to the legatee as a part of his legacy. Under such circumstances an action against another for contribution could be maintained only by the administrator of the estate, and could not be assigned to any other person, except by a sale ordered by the ordinary as a part of the administration of the estate. *Smith*v. *Turner,*112 *Ga.*533 (37 S. E. 705) ; *People’s National Bank*v. *Cleveland,*117 *Ga.*908 (5), 918 (44 S. E. 20) ; *Brown*v. *Mutual Life Insurance Co.,*146 *Ga.*123 (59 S. E. 856); *Bill*v. *Maffett,*3 *Ga. App.*89*(59 8.*E. *325); Buchholz*v. *Sapp,*148 *Ga. 352*(96 S. E. 858).

Decided May 14, 1919.

2. Under the foregoing ruling the court erred in overruling the 1st and 2d grounds of the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, and in not dismissing the petition.

3. The error in the judgment upon the demurrer'rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Complaint; from Brooks superior court—Judge Thomas. September 14, 1918.

*Bennet & Harrell, Branch & Snow,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. K. Wilcox, Dan R. Bruce,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

The headnotes need no elaboration. We can not forbear saying, however, that, under the facts of this case, it looks as if justice,' expediency, and common sense would all answer yes to the question whether the plaintiff should be allowed to maintain her action; but, as was said by Powell, J., in *Hill*v. *Moffett,*supra: “Expediency, in such cases, loudly argues for an affirmative answer, but the law says no. The dictates of the law are superior to the dictates of expediency. The title to personal property, including choses in action, belonging to the estate of a decedent passes at his death, not to his heirs, but to his administrator; the heirs have merely an equitable interest in such assets; and they can sue for the recovery of such property or for the collection of such debts only when, on the part of the administrator, there is collusion, insolvency, unwillingness to collect the assets when called on, or some other like special circumstance. *Worthy*v. *Johnson, 8 Ga. 236; Morgan*v. *Woods,*69 *Ga.*599; *Smith*v. *Turner,*112 *Ga.*533 (37 S. E. 705). Many more citations to the same effect could be given, if necessary.”

*Judgment reverséd.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur'.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50241

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROSARIO MUNIZ TELLEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-158-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rosario Muniz Tellez appeals his conviction following a jury trial for being

an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of ammunition in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). He argues that the district court erred in

denying his request for an instruction and jury charge that included the

definition of“unlawful user”thatthis court used in United States v. Herrera, 289

F.3d 311, 323-24 (Herrera I), vacated, UnitedStates v. Herrera, 313F.3d 882 (5th

Cir. 2002) (en banc) (Herrera II). The Government moves for summary

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 24, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50241

2

affirmance on the ground that Muniz Tellez’s argument is foreclosed by our

precedent or, in the alternative,for an extension oftime to file an appellate brief.

We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Cain, 440 F.3d 672, 674 (5th Cir. 2006).

Muniz Tellez’s argument thatthe district court erred in refusing to give the jury

a Herrera I instruction is foreclosed by our precedent, particularly our decision

in United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832, 837-39 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 2043 (2006). See also United States v. McCowan, 469 F.3d 386, 391-92

(5th Cir. 2006); Herrera II, 313 F.3d at 883-85. Accordingly, the district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time

to file an appellate brief is DENIED.
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-124165) of Odimo Incorporated and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 9, 2006 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Odimo Incorporated andSubsidiaries which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Odimo Incorporated and Subsidiariesfor the year ended December 31, 2005. The report included an explanatory paragraph regarding theCompany’s ability to continue as a going concern as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005.**RACHLIN COHEN & HOLTZ LLP**Fort Lauderdale, Florida
**Exhibit 10.4**
**Summary of Employment Arrangement with J. PaulMcGrath**
J. Paul McGrath serves as Senior VicePresident, General Counsel &Secretary of the company. Mr. McGrath’s employment agreement datedDecember 17, 1999 provides that he will receive annually a stockoption grant covering at least 50,000 shares of the company’s common stock.Due to an adjustment in the company’s general option grant practice,Mr. McGrath received grants covering only 43,000 shares inFebruary, 2003 and 36,000 shares in February, 2004. EffectiveMay 27, 2004, shareholders approved a three-for-one-split ofthe company’s common stock and outstanding stock options wereadjusted accordingly. On July 7, 2004, the company approved aspecial stock option grant to Mr. McGrath covering 28,000 shares,to make up for his reduced grants in 2003 and 2004. This grantbecomes exercisable in its entirety on July 7, 2005 and has a termof eight years. In addition, Mr. McGrath will receive a cashpayment of approximately $290,000 upon retirement, representingthe difference in exercise price between the July 7, 2004grant and the earlier grants.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 21-3160

___________

IN RE: ANDRE THOMPSON,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:09-cr-00143-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

December 10, 2021

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, PORTER and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 7, 2022)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Andre Thompson seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 

District Court to rule on a motion he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By order 

entered on December 10, 2021, the District Court denied his motion and declined to issue 

a certificate of appealability. In light of the District Court’s action, Thompson’s 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as 

moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If 

developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal 

stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested 

relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).

If Thompson wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s decision with 

respect to his § 2255 motion, he should file a notice of appeal in the District Court within 

the time period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
State of the Industry

Handwriting

Improving Biometric and Forensic Technology:

The Future of Research Datasets

NIST - Gaithersburg, MD

January 27, 2015

Unclassified 1
State of the Industry - Handwriting

Unclassified 2

Typically, handwriting examinations are

accomplished using a side by side comparison,

either of questioned writing to known writing

or questioned writing to questioned writing.
State of the Industry - Handwriting

Unclassified 3

Operational databases are used to associate 

documents/cases

Forensic Identification System for Handwriting

Anonymous Letter File

Bank Robbery Note File
State of the Industry - Handwriting

Unclassified 4

Research databases

Chicago

West Virginia

NIJ Funded

Other
State of the Industry - Handwriting

Unclassified 5

Questions/Discussion
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

 CRAIG STODDART

 BILL WHITEHILL

 DAVID J. SCHENCK

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

lisa.matz@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

HTTP://5TH.TXCOURTS.GOV

April 7, 2016

Shane Bebout

Todd, Barron, Thomason, Hudman & Baxter, P.C.

3800 E. 42nd Street, Suite 409

Odessa, TX 79762

Johnny Wayne Chambless, II

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P.

701 Brazos Street, Suite 1500

Austin, TX 78701-3293

Re: Shihab Diais and Odessa Dental Solutions, P.A. v. Land Rover Dallas, L.P. and Snell 

Motor Company Operators GP, LLC, General Partners # 05-15-00115-CV

Dear Attorneys:

Enclosed is a corrected page for the above-mentioned case. Please note the following typographical 

error, which has been corrected:

Page 5, second paragraph, replace perseveration with preservation. 

Please replace page five of your previous copy with the enclosed.

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa Matz

Lisa Matz

Clerk of the Court

cc: Trial court judge

Trial court clerk