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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

____________________________________ 

MISH INT’L MONETARY INC., : 

on behalf of itself and : 

all others similarly situated, : 

 : Case No. 20-cv-04577 

v. : 

 : The Honorable Gary Feinerman 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD. : 

and JOHN DOES 1-100 : 

____________________________________x 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND 

COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT VEGA CAPITAL 

LONDON, LTD. 

I Marvin A. Miller, attorney for Plaintiff Mish International Monetary Inc., hereby certify 

that on August 17, 2020, service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Vega Capital 

London, Ltd. was completed via FedEx pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, and Article 

10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. A copy of the FedEx receipt and tracking notification are 

attached. 

Dated: August 18, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Marvin A. Miller 

Marvin A. Miller 

Miller Law LLC 

115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

312.332.3400 

mmiller@millerlawllc.com 

Christopher Lovell 

Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP 

500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440 

New York, New York 10110 

212-608-1900 

clovell@lshllp.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 18, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

served on all counsel of record via the ECF document filing system for the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

 By: /s/ Marvin A. Miller 

 Marvin A. Miller


Shipment Facts

Travel History

Track your package or shipment with FedEx Tracking https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrack/?action=track&trackingnumber...

2 of 3 8/17/2020, 9:30 AM
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00322

- CV

MANUEL DIAZ, JR. APPELLANT

V.

MELISSA ANN DIAZ APPELLEE

------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WICHITA COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

- -----------

On December 20, 2012 , we notified appellant that his brief had not been

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R.

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

unless appella nt or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dism iss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 24, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at March 31, 1999 (Unaudited)
and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the six months ended March 31,
1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,605
<SECURITIES>                                   132,404
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,009
<PP&E>                                         494,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                 357,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,220,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,132
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,682,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,220,652
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  688,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (477,419)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (477,419)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.073)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.073)   
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 SEPTEMBER 20, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-16366

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 07-02093-CV-T-27MSS

WRESTLEREUNION, LLC,

a Florida limited liability corporation, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant-Counter Defendant,

versus

LIVE NATION, INC.,

a foreign corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee,

LIVE NATION TELEVISION HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee-Counter-Claimant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 20, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of the district court

entered on behalf of defendant/appellee, Live Nation Television Holdings, Inc.

(Live Nation), against plaintiff/appellant, WrestleReunion, LLC (Wrestlereunion). 

The facts of the case involved a dispute over Live Nation’s contractual obligation

to produce and market programming of WrestleReunion’s wrestling events. After

an eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Live Nation. It found that

WrestleReunion had not proven by the greater weight of the evidence that Live

Nation had breached the contract.

We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs, and the arguments of

counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
    /s/ R. Michael Andrews, Jr.R. Michael Andrews, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: September 30, 2008
IV

H. RES. 400

Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 1998

Mr. FAZIO of California submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating minority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 that they are hereby, elected to the following standing

3 committees of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Mrs.

5 Capps of California.

6 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mrs. Capps of California.

7 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRA8 STRUCTURE: Mr. Baldacci of Maine and Mr. Berry of Ar9 kansas.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A) OF
THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Michael Cannon, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solectron Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Securities Exchange Act of1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: July 6, 2005
/s/ Michael Cannon
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 to the Memorandum of Agreement ("Amendment No. 1")
is made and entered into as of October 6, 2005 (the "Effective Date"), by and
among Western Express, Inc. ("Western") and LLL, LLC ("LLL"). Western and LLL
are sometimes individually referred to herein as a "Party," and together as the
"Parties."

                                    RECITALS

         1. LLL and Western previously entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
that provided for the rental to Western of specific trailer units owned by LLL,
with the rental period commencing on August 7, 2003 and continuing indefinitely
(the "Agreement").

         2. The Parties wish to amend the Agreement to more clearly set forth
the term and termination procedure of the Agreement.

         3. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth
in the Agreement.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
made herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is acknowledged hereby, the Parties agree as follows:

         1. TERM. Paragraph 12 of the Agreement is hereby amended such that the
term of the rental begins at 8:00 AM on August 7, 2003 and shall continue on a
month-to-month basis. The rental term shall continue on a month-to-month basis
until such time as Western gives LLL written notice of termination at which time
the Agreement shall terminate without any further action by either Party.

         2. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in one or more
copies, each of which shall be deemed an original. This Amendment No. 1 may be
executed by facsimile signature and each Party may fully rely upon such
facsimile execution; this Amendment No 1. being fully enforceable against a
Party that has executed it by facsimile.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1 is executed and delivered by
duly authorized representatives of LLL and Western as of the day and year first
above written.

                                                  LLL, LLC


                                                  By:   /s/ Roland M. Lowell
                                                      --------------------------
                                                        Roland M. Lowell


                                                  Western Express, Inc.

                                                  By:   /s/ Nelda Jennette
                                                      --------------------------
                                                        Nelda Jennette

                                        1
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-133527 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 1, 2007, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on
the financial statements and includes an explanatory paragraph that describes the recapitalization of the Company), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 2006.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 
|                          
|Boise, Idaho March 5, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30267 Conference Calendar

KENNETH STONE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1649-K

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Stone, Louisiana prisoner # 85667, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. Stone filed the application to challenge his conviction on heroin possession and distribution charges. The district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) as to whether Campbell v. Louisiana , 523 U.S. 392 (1998), applied retroactively to Stone’s claims. Stone argues that Campbell announced a new rule of law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) and submits that the ruleNo. 01-30267 -2- of Campbell applies retroactively. He contends that his application was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) as it was filed within one year of the date that the right was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Campbell
. In Campbell the Supreme Court held, on direct review from a criminal conviction, that a white defendant possessed standing to object to discrimination against black people in the selection of his grand jury. See Campbell , 523 U.S. at 400. After the grant of COA, we held that Campbell does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Peterson v. Cain , 302 F.3d 508, 512-15 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 886 (2003). The holding of Peterson disposes of the issue on which COA was granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

DYNAMEX INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
(In Thousands except Per Share Amounts)
(Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                       April 30,                           April 30,
                                           --------------------------------     --------------------------------
                                                1998              1997               1998              1997
                                           --------------    --------------     --------------    --------------
<S>                                        <C>               <C>                <C>               <C>           
Net Income                                 $        1,642    $        1,168     $        3,649    $        2,130
                                           ==============    ==============     ==============    ==============

Weighted Average Common shares
   Outstanding                                      7,412             6,966              7,395             6,465

Common Share Equivalents Related to
   Options and Warrants                               217               109                195               187
                                           --------------    --------------     --------------    --------------

Common Shares and Common Share
   Equivalents                                      7,629             7,075              7,590             6,652
                                           ==============    ==============     ==============    ==============

Common Stock Price used under Treasury
   Stock Method                            $        11.89    $         7.94     $        10.31    $         9.22
                                           ==============    ==============     ==============    ==============

Net Income per Common Share:
   Basic                                   $         0.22    $         0.17     $         0.49    $         0.33
                                           ==============    ==============     ==============    ==============
   Diluted
                                           $         0.22    $         0.17     $         0.48    $         0.32
                                           ==============    ==============     ==============    ==============
</TABLE>
DNA Workshop Agenda

November 09, 2020

Time Slot Title Speaker Time 

(mins)

10 – 10:15 am Welcome and Introduction to the Applied Genetics 

Group Peter Vallone 15

10:20 – 10:50 am Not your standard Standard: Using SRM 2391d: 

PCR-Based DNA Profiling Standard in Your Lab Becky Steffen 30

10:55 – 11:25 am Making the best use of all of your curves: SRM 2372a 

Human DNA Quantitation Standard Erica Romsos 30

11:30 – 12:00 pm A Tour of STRBase 2.0 Lisa Borsuk 30

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch Break 60

1:00 – 1:30 pm Exploring DNA Interpretation Software Using the 

PROVEDIt Dataset Sarah Riman 30

1:35 – 2:05 pm Sequencing Workflows for Forensics Peter Vallone 30

2:10 – 2:40 pm SNPchat: the forensic marker that could be your BFF Katherine Gettings 30

2:45 – 3:15 pm Mitochondrial DNA Sequencing: the Next Generation Kevin Kiesler 30

3:20 – 4:00 pm AGG Panel: Q & A all 40
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00044-CV 

NOAH LEE DUNLAP, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

SONDRA JEAN DUNLAP, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

Moore County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CL71-15, Honorable Delwin T. McGee, Presiding 

 

April 18, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Noah Lee Dunlap, appeals from the trial court’s order enforcing and 

modifying child support obligations. Appellant’s brief was due on March 22, 2019, but 

was not filed. By letter dated March 29, 2019, this court notified appellant that the appeal 

would be dismissed for want of prosecution if his brief was not received by April 8. To 

date, neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time to file same has been received by 

the court. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

Per Curiam
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2529

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Miqueal Harwell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

____________ Submitted: November 27, 2023 Filed: November 30, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Miqueal Harwell appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to suppress

evidence after he pled guilty to a firearm offense, pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an appeal waiver. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Upon careful review , we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing validity and applicability of appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and it would not result in miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1998), and found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Noelle C. Collins, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-