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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

William Gamble 

Monday, December 10, 2018 2:48 PM

privacyframework

Privacy Compliance Framework

I am one of the few lawyers with advance cyber security certifications. I teach the GDPR and cyber security 

frameworks like ISO 27001. I also have studied and combined information on cyber security and privacy 

frameworks around the world. 

What NIST must understand is that the GDPR and CCPA are not about either cyber security or privacy. The 

GDPR is a PROPERTY law. It defines our property rights in our data. This is not a new concept. It goes back to 

an article in the Harvard Law Review over 100 years ago by then Professor Louis 

Brandeis. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-

811X%2818901215%294%3A5%3C193%3ATRTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

What is necessary is the ability of the consumer to protect their property rights in their data like the ability to

protect any other property right. If you trespass on my property or damage my car I have the right to get 

compensation in a court of law. This is fundamental to any property right. 

To defend any property rights in data I need to have access to courts, I need a private right of action. Neither the 

federal government nor states attorney generals enjoy a stellar reputation for protecting any rights. They are 

cumbersome, complicated and ineffective. Without court protection any property right, including rights in my 

information is useless. 

In regard to a property framework NIST, and for that matter the US, is far behind the times in terms of setting 

international standards. Whether American businesses or legislators like it or not, the global standard has 

become the rights enshrined in the GDPR, a law that has been successful for over 20 years. Developing 

anything less restricts our competitiveness by encouraging US businesses to ignore the property rights of non 

US customers. 

Thanks to the help of hackers and Facebook, customers and partners are becoming far more aware of cyber 

security and privacy property rights. If they can't find firms in the US who can protect both, they will simply go 

elsewhere.

1
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of NexGen Biofuels Ltd.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eran
Rotem, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe that:

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

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

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                                         NEXGEN BIOFUELS LTD

May 13, 2008                                             By: /s/ Eran Rotem
                                                         ------------------
                                                         ERAN ROTEM
                                                         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
```
10195.

#### Smith *v.*Fuller Loan Company *et al.*

Bloodworth, J.

1. When read in connection with the charge as given and applied to the facts of this case, the court did not err in charging as complained of.

2. The ground of the motion for new trial that the judge in Ms charge “did not give the jury any measure of damages under said contract, and did not charge the jury on the question of the amount plaintiff would be entitled to recover under the contract,” is without merit. *727Instructions. given by the judge covered substantially the issue raised, and were sufficiently clear. If a fuller charge was desired by the defendant, he should have made a proper and timely written request therefor. Moreover, this assignment of error is “too genera], vague, and indefinite to be considered.” *Odum*v. *Rutledge,*16 *Ga. App.*350 (3) (85 S. E. 361).

Decided May 13, 1919.

Action on contract; from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. October 17, 1918.

*W. A. Slaton,*for plaintiff in error. *F. H. Colley,*contra.

3. This being a suit on contract for $360, for commissions only for securing a loan as provided in said contract, the court' did not err in failing to instruct the jury in reference to another contemporaneous contract, which provided that the borrower should “pay all expenses exceeding $360.”

’4. There was evidence to support the verdict, and, no error of' law appearing, the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., disqualified.*
#### Maxwell Finance Co., Appellee, *v.*Morton Show Case Co., Appellee; Whiteneck et al., Appellants.

(No. 2030

Decided December 1, 1948.)

*Messrs. Harshman & Young,*for appellee Maxwell Finance Company.

*Messrs. Shaman, Winer <3 Shulman,*for appellee Morton Show Case Company.

*Messrs. Jacobson & Durst,*for appellants.

By the Court.

The cause is submitted on motion of plaintiff, an appellee herein, to dismiss the appeal for failure to file assignments of error, brief and bill of exceptions, within 50 days after filing notice of intention to appeal on questions of law, as required by Rule VII of the Courts of Appeals.

The motion to dismiss is supported by the record and it is hereby sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Appeal*dismissed.

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ABC CORPORATION I, 

ABC CORPORATION II,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-4806

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

NOW COMES Yu-Hao Yao attorney of record for Defendant Gyroor-US (“Defendant” or 

“Gyroor-US”) and third-party respondents Gyroor, Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, 

Gyroshoes, and HGSM (collectively, “Third-Party Respondents”), and for his Motion to Withdraw 

as Counsel, states as follows:

1. Yu-Hao Yao is no longer associated with Glacier Law LLP

2. The remaining counsel from Glacier Law LLP will continue to represent the Defendants 

in these proceedings.

3. The withdrawal will neither prejudice Defendants nor delay the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, Yu-Hao Yao respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion to 

withdraw as counsel for Defendants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 681 Filed: 12/01/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:17481
ii

Date: 12/01/2023 /s/ Yu-Hao Yao

Yu-Hao Yao, Esq

GLACIER LAW LLP

251 South Lake Ave, Suite 910

Pasadena, CA 91101

mickey.yao@glacier.law

323-546-6766

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 681 Filed: 12/01/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:17482
1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this December 1, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

file with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel 

of record and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing documents via CM/ECF.

Date: 12/01/2023 /s/ Yu-Hao Yao

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 681 Filed: 12/01/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:17483
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FAMILY SMILES, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,

 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.: 20-cv-04838

DEFENDANT SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY’S 

RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company (“Sentinel”) respectfully moves the Court to 

dismiss the amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs Family Smiles, LLC and Von Westernhagen 

Dental Corporation (collectively “Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. In this insurance-coverage dispute, Plaintiffs seek payment for coronavirusrelated business interruption losses, but, as explained more fully in the accompanying 

memorandum and attached exhibits, Plaintiffs’ policy does not cover, and in fact expressly 

excludes, Plaintiffs’ claimed losses.

Considering Sentinel’s arguments and supporting exhibits, this court should find that 

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief and dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (ECF 

No. 24) with prejudice.

Dated: January 20, 2022.

Case: 1:20-cv-04838 Document #: 41 Filed: 01/20/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:952
2

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Anthony J. Anscombe

Anthony J. Anscombe (IL #6257352)

Darlene K. Alt (IL #6228745)

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

227 West Monroe Ave., Suite 4700

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 577-1300

aanscombe@steptoe.com

dalt@steptoe.com

Sarah D. Gordon (pro hac vice

forthcoming)

Caitlin R. Tharp (admitted pro hac vice)

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 429-3000

sgordon@steptoe.com

Counsel for Sentinel Insurance Company

Case: 1:20-cv-04838 Document #: 41 Filed: 01/20/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:953
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to:

David B. Goodman

Kali K. Nies 

Goodman Law Group 

20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, Illinois, 60602. 

dg@glgchicago.com

kn@glgchicago.com

by ECF and e-Service on January 20, 2022.

/s/ Anthony J. Anscombe 

Anthony J. Anscombe 

Case: 1:20-cv-04838 Document #: 41 Filed: 01/20/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:954
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Valentino Rossi

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04828

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

195mph Limited, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, November 30, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Pursuant to notice of

voluntary dismissal, this action is dismissed without prejudice. Each party shall bear its

own attorney's fees and costs. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04828 Document #: 34 Filed: 11/30/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2496
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      111
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          3
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   192
<PP&E>                                            5430
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3765)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              379
<BONDS>                                           1108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1945
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1910)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1916
<SALES>                                            342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   335
<CGS>                                              187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    29
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     97
<INCOME-TAX>                                        31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 66
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        66
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MISH INT’L MONETARY INC.,

on behalf of itself and 

All others similarly situated,

 v. 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al.

Case No. 20-cv-04577

Judge Gary S. Feinerman

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. MCGRATH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

I, Christopher M. McGrath, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, hereby declare as follows:

I am a partner with the law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. The statements 

herein are true to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief, including information 

provided by attorneys and staff of Lovell Stewart. I make this declaration to submit certain 

documents and information referenced in Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss 

the Second Amended Complaint. 

1. A true and correct copy of an agreement between G. H. Financial Limited (“GH”)

and defendant Vega Capital London Limited (“Vega”), dated July 12, 2016 is attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1. 

2. A true and correct copy of an agreement between G. H. Financial Limited and Vega 

Capital London Limited, dated November 16, 2017 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

3. A true and correct copy of a 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 

4. A true and correct copy of documents produced by Vega bearing Bates stamps 

VEGA_MISH_000043303-3309 are attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 180 Filed: 09/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2757
2

5. A true and correct copy of a document referenced as a “Confirmation Statement” 

for dated on or about April 1, 2021 is attached hereto as Exhibit 

5.

6. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Vega Capital London Ltd Unaudited 

Financial Statements for The Year Ended 31 May 2020” is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

7. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Vega Capital London Ltd Unaudited 

Financial Statements for The Year Ended 31 May 2021” is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

8. A true and correct copy of a document produced by Vega and Bates stamped 

VEGA_MISH_000000021 is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

9. A true and correct copy of a document produced by Vega and Bates stamped 

VEGA_MISH_000043353 is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

10. A true and correct copy of a cover letter from Vega’s counsel dated July 28, 2022 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my personal

knowledge, information and belief.

Executed in Rhinebeck, New York, on August 23, 2022. 

Christopher M. McGrath

Case: 1:20-cv-04577 Document #: 180 Filed: 09/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2758
Definitions of IoT

IoT Advisory Board

19 January 2023

Mike Bergman

VP of Technology & Standards

Consumer Technology Association
ISO/IEC – Consensus Online Definitions

“IoT device

“entity of an IoT system that interacts and 

communicates with the physical world 

through sensing or actuating

“Note 1 to entry: An IoT device can be a 

sensor or an actuator.

“[SOURCE: ISO/IEC 20924:2018, 3.2.4]”

ISO/IEC technical standards use the master 

dictionary where possible. 

Example: 

Draft ISO/IEC 27402, “Cybersecurity – IoT 

security and privacy – Device baseline 

Requirements”, @3.2 “IoT Device”
NISTIR 8425 Consumer Profile for IoT Products

• NISTIR 8425 

o Comes from the NIST IoT Cybersecurity Program team

o Is specific to “Consumer IoT”

o Was published in Sept 2022

“NIST describes an IoT device as 

computing equipment with 

at least one transducer (i.e., sensor or actuator) and 

at least one network interface [IR8259].”

“All IoT products contain at least one IoT device and may contain only this product 

component.” 

“In many cases, the IoT product may be purchased as one piece of equipment (i.e., the 

IoT device) but still requires other components to operate, such as a backend (e.g., 

cloud server) or companion user application on a personal computer or smartphone.”
Consumer Technology Association Perspective on Defining IoT

• The Consumer Technology industry generally accepts the NIST 

structure:

1. An IoT device has networking, computing, and transducer capabilities.

2. Classical IT equipment is excluded:

Laptops/tablets

Servers

Routers

Smartphones

• We have observed that there is some “crossing the lines” • E.g., consumer routers (“CPE routers”) may be considered as “IoT” to accomplish some limited 

objectives
The IoT Product “...requires other components to operate”

“NIST describes an IoT device as 

•computing equipment with 

•at least one transducer (i.e., sensor or 

actuator) and 

•at least one network interface [IR8259].”

IoT Product

As Sold
Suggestions

1. Agree to stay within common assumptions of “IoT”

 E.g.: A server in a data center with ambient heat sensing...not IoT

2. Align to the NIST definition of IoT Product and IoT Device

3. Recognize limitations of the compute-network-transducer boundary
Proposal for Scope of IoTAB

1. Formally cite NIST IoT Product and IoT Device definitions from 

[NISTIR 8425] and [NISTIR 8259].

2. Highlight NIST clarification, “not IT e.g. not laptops, smartphones, 

etc.” [NISTIR 8259]

3. If we discuss other device categories, be explicit about why it is 

wrapped up with “real” IoT (e.g., CPE routers, home printers)
© 2022 CTA® / Proprietary and Confidential 8

<end>
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
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number:________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Getting Girls into STEM and

Cybersecurity - Pathways to Progress

Date(s): April 21, 2021 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: This webinar will explain how we can better understand the cultural nuances that prevent girls from 

feeling welcomed in cybersecurity and STEM careers. In addition, what we can do in our communities to ensure girls are 

excited about these fields and inspired to be part of a future in STEM. Webinar attendees will hear presentations from: 

• Dr. Gabriela Gonzalez, Deputy Director and Operations Manager, Intel Foundation

• Madeline Di Nonno, President & CEO, Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media 

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Marian Merritt, Deputy Director of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice 

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3939

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’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2004

Mr. ROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, 

Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. 

SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HOLT, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

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’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 14–24 Abbott Road in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 

6 and known as the Fair Lawn Main Post Office, shall be 

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Mary Ann Collura Post Of8 fice Building’’. 
2

•HR 3939 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Mary Ann Collura Post Office Building’’.

Æ