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

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

Eastern Division

TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04699

Honorable John Z. Lee

TikTok Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, October 13, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: The Court has reviewed the

status report submitted by Plaintiffs' Leadership Group. In accordance with the parties'

request, the Court approves the entry of a protective order similar to that issued in Hong v.

ByteDance, Inc. (5:19−cv−7792). The parties should submit a proposed protective order

in Word format to the proposed order inbox and contact the Courtroom Deputy when they

have done so. The Court also approves the entry of an order governing time and expense

recording as proposed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs should submit a proposed protective order in

Word format to the proposed order inbox and contact the Courtroom Deputy when they

have done so. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint is due on or before 11/23/20.

The Court orders the parties to file a joint written status report by 12/3/20. The report,

which shall be as concise as possible, shall set forth: (1) the current deadlines imposed by

the Court and whether the matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge in any fashion

(e,g., for discovery supervision; for resolution of a motion; for settlement; etc.); (2) the

progress of discovery, if discovery is ongoing; (3) the status of briefing on unresolved

motions, if any; (4) whether the parties have engaged or are engaging in settlement

discussions and the status of those discussions; (5) for cases without any future court

dates, an agreed proposed schedule; (6) for cases that have future court dates and if the

parties believe there is good cause to extend the current deadlines, a proposed amended

schedule and the basis for the request; (7) a request for any agreed action that the Court

can take without a hearing; (8) and whether the parties believe a telephonic hearing or

in−person hearing is necessary within the next 60 days, and, if so, the issue(s) that

warrants discussion and the parties' respective positions. Mailed notice(ca, )

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.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 97 Filed: 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1809
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 97 Filed: 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1810
MEP Advisory Board Meeting 

April 30, 2017

Hyatt Regency Denver at the Convention Center

650 15th St, Denver, CO 80202

9:00 – 9:05 Meeting Logistics • Cheryl Gendron, NIST MEP

9:05 – 9:30 Welcome and Introductions

• Opening Remarks

• Board and Audience Introductions 

• Welcome New Board Members

• Vickie Wessel, Chair, MEP Advisory Board 

• Phil Singerman, Associate Director for 

Innovation and Industry Services, NIST

• Carroll Thomas, Director, NIST MEP

9:30 – 10:10 Board Assessments

Discuss history of this activity, importance of 

MEP Advisory Board & Center Board 

interactions

• Lisë Stewart, EisnerAmper LLP

10:10 – 11:10 MEP Advisory Board / Center Advisory 

Board Discussions

Learning Organization – how do we 

leverage the system and NIST MEP to meet 

the goal of developing our capabilities as a 

high-performance system and learning 

organization.

Technology – as we move forward into 

Manufacturing 4.0, we’ve got some 

approaches in place, what are centers 

experiencing that we can learn from, support 

more, engage in differently?

Workforce – as we look at client needs, 

workforce is a growing concern, everything 

from the pipeline for new workers to skills of 

incumbent workers, as a constraint of 

manufacturing company survival and growth 

– what might we be doing in this arena that 

doesn’t take away from our core skills and 

roles?

MEP Advisory Board Members to lead 

discussion

11:10 – 11:30 Break

11:30 – 12:00 Debrief out from Activity

What did the MEP Advisory Board hear?

MEP Advisory Board Members

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch Break 

1:00 – 2:00 MEP Strategic Plan 2017-2022; Board 

Feedback & Discussion

• Vickie Wessel, Chair, MEP Advisory Board
2:00 – 2:30 Connecting User Facilities and Labs with 

SMMs; Board Feedback & Discussion

• Bernadine Hawes, MEP Advisory Board

2:30 – 3:00 MEP Learning Organization; Board 

Feedback & Discussion

• Carolyn Cason, MEP Advisory Board

3:00– 3:15 Break

3:15 – 3:45 NIST MEP Advisory Board Governance; 

Board Feedback and Discussion

• Annual Report

• Charter Updates

• Bylaws Draft 

• Vickie Wessel, Chair, MEP Advisory Board

• Tommy Lee & Kathay Rennels, MEP 

Advisory Board

3:45 – 4:15 Open Items / Future Topics & 

Subcommittees

• Vickie Wessel, Chair, MEP Advisory Board 

4:15 – 4:30 Wrap-up/Public Comments • Vickie Wessel, Chair, MEP Advisory Board 

• Carroll Thomas, Director, NIST MEP
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Directors and Officers of Millipore Corporation (the
Corporation), do hereby constitute and appoint Martin D. Madaus, Charles F. Wagner, Jr. and Jeffrey Rudin and each of them individually, their true and lawful attorneys and agents to execute on behalf of the Corporation the Form 10-K
Annual Report of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, and all such amendments or additional instruments related thereto which such attorneys and agents may deem to be necessary and desirable to enable the Corporation to
comply with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any regulations, orders, or other requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder in connection with the preparation and filing of
said documents, including specifically, but without limitation of the foregoing, power and authority to sign the names of each of such Directors and Officers on his behalf, as such Director or Officer, as indicated below to the said Form 10-K Annual
Report or documents filed or to be filed as a part of or in connection with such Form 10-K Annual Report; and each of the undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorneys and agents shall do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.



|                                                 |  |          |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -------- |  | -----------------
|Signature                                        |  | Title    |  | Date             
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    MARTIN D.
MADAUS Martin D. Madaus         |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    DANIEL
BELLUS Daniel Bellus               |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    ROBERT C.
BISHOP Robert C. Bishop         |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    MELVIN D.
BOOTH Melvin D. Booth           |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    ROLF
CLASSON Rolf Classon                 |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    MAUREEN A.
HENDRICKS Maureen A. Hendricks |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    MARK
HOFFMAN Mark Hoffman                 |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    JOHN F.
RENO John F. Reno                 |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    EDWARD M.
SCOLNICK Edward M. Scolnick     |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
|                                                 |  |         
|/S/    KAREN E.
WELKE Karen E. Welke             |  | Director |  | February 11, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28433]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 15, 2014.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community 
Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Byron B. Webb, III, Emden, Missouri, as Trustee of the Byron B. 
Webb, III Separate Property Trust, dated April 26, 2004, and Victoria 
Webb Sack, Del Mar, California, as Trustee of the Victoria Webb Sack 
Separate Property Recoverable Stock Trust, dated June 12, 2008; to 
acquire voting shares of Byron B. Webb, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of HomeBank, both in Palmyra, Missouri.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. The Virgil A. Lair and Mary A. Lair Irrevocable Trust dated 
August 15, 2013, Chanute, Kansas; Gregory D. Lair, Piqua, Kansas; Casey 
A. Lair, Neodesha, Kansas; Mark T. Lair, Chanute, Kansas; and Jill A. 
Aylward, Chanute, Kansas; all individually and as trustees; to retain 
voting shares of Southeast Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
retain voting shares of Bank of Commerce, both in Chanute, Kansas; 
Chetopa State Bank & Trust Company, Chetopa, Kansas; and First Neodesha 
Bank, Neodesha, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 28, 
2014.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-28433 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
1

The Honorable Michael B. Thornton, United States Tax Court Judge.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1682

___________

Mohammad J. Hashemi; *

Nahid Hashemi, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* Tax Court.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 2004

 Filed: March 18, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mohammad and Nahid Hashemi appeal the tax court’s1

 order granting the

motion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) for the entry of a

decision. The Hashemis admit they have no quarrel with the tax years underlying the

Commissioner’s motion, and we agree with the tax court that it lacked jurisdiction

over the Hashemis’ challenges involving other tax years. See 26 U.S.C. § 6214(a),

(b) (tax court lacks jurisdiction to determine overpayment or underpayment for years

for which notice of deficiency has not been sent to taxpayer); Spector v. Comm’r, 790
-2-

F.2d 51, 52 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (tax court is court of limited jurisdiction), cert.

denied, 479 U.S. 884 (1986). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
10385.

#### Hensley *v.*Watkins.

Jenkins, P. J.

Watkins sued Hensley on a promissory note for $150 which by its terms was conditioned upon the consummation of a sale by Watkins for Hensley to Scott of certain lands belonging to Hensley for the sum of $450. The defendant pleaded failure of consideration in that the sale referred to had not been effected by the plaintiff. He sought to establish by parol the existence of a disputed contemporaneous written agreement whereby it had been agreed that the sale was required to be effected not later than the month of June, 1909, whereas the defendant contended that in point of fact a sale of the land was not effected until after the expiration of that time, and then to a different party, and without the aid or assistance of the plaintiff. The evidence of the defendant himself showed, however, that when the note sued on was signed, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant a $500 bond of the Cartecay Iron Company, with the understanding that “it was to make the Scott purchase go through.” The defendant admitted that he continued to hold the bond and to collect the interest thereon until he had received the entire purchase-price of the land, *596$50 of which had been paid by Scott, through Watkins, and accepted by the defendant subsequently to 1909, and the remaining $400 was later paid to the defendant by Scott himself, after which the defendant turned over the $500 bond to Scott. The defendant admitted that he had thus received from Scott the entire purchase-price of the land, together with the equivalent of interest thereon by reason of the interest collected by him on the $500 bond belonging to the plaintiff. The deed when finally executed was made, with the approval of Scott, to a new and different person. The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. *Held:*Irrespective of the disputed issues of fact raised by the evidence in reference to the existence of the contemporaneous written agreement, and upon the question as to whether or not the defendant had called off the deal with the plaintiff prior to the actual sale, under the admitted facts above set forth as to the defendant’s subsequent conduct, he could not be allowed to dispute the claim as made; and the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Complaint; from Gilmer superior court—Judge Morris. February 8, 1919.

. *George F. Gober, Herbert Clay,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. H. Burtz, D. W. Blair,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to January 4, 2022)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

None Available

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4489 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4489

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to mandate a life sentence for 
                         repeat sex offenders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2004

  Mr. Graves introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to mandate a life sentence for 
                         repeat sex offenders.

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

SECTION 1. MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR REPEAT SEX OFFENDERS.

    Subsection (a) of section 2247 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Mandatory Life Sentence.--The term of imprisonment for a 
violation of this chapter after a prior sex offense conviction shall be 
life.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 3, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Point Communications Limited Partnership as
of December 31, 1996 and for the year then ended.

PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP

/s/ Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP


Milwaukee, Wisconsin
July 6, 1998
#### Geo. W. Jones *v.*Geo. T. Hunston, etc.

Corporations — Subscribers for Stock — Calls for Payment.

It is not material whether a subscriber for stock had notice of calls made on the 'subscribers for payment, where his contract is to pay as the president and directors may direct.

Corporations — Officers Agents of Stockholders.

The president and directors of a turnpike company are the agents of stockholders who are hound to know what the officers-do.

Corporations — Stockholders—Want of Knowledge.

A stockholder of a turnpike company can not be allowed to -rely on his want of- knowledge touching a matter concerning which he should -have informed himself, when it is within his power to do- so.

APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 10, 1873.

*285
      *DeHaven, for appellant.*

*Weeb & Barber, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Appellant, being a stockholder in the Turnpike Company, must have known whether or not it had ever been organized. In fact, the paper upon which he subscribed the stock shows that the money for the road had been made at the time of the subscription and in effect recognizes the existence of a president and board of directors for the company.

It is not material whether appellant had notice or not of the calls made on the subscription for the payment of their stock. His-contract was to pay as the president and directors might direct. Being a stockholder in the company, the president and directors were his agents, and he was bound to know what tjiey did in the premises. Besides this he can not be allowed to rely on his want of knowledge or information touching a matter about which he should have informed himself, it being manifestly within his power to do so. *Wing v. Dugan,*8 Bush 584.

The denial that the road was built on the route specified in the writing, and in accordance with the agreement of the parties, is too general. It raises no issue. If any departures had been made from the terms, of his subscription he should have specified what they were, so that the court might have determined whether or not they were material.

The remaining defenses attempted to be set up. are such as the company might have made in a suit against it by the contractor, but which can not avail a stockholder in an action against him by the company to compel him' to pay his stock.

The demurrer was properly sustained and appellant, failing to answer further, the judgment against him went as a matter of course.

It is therefore *affirmed.*
NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM (NWIRP)

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION (NACWIR)

MEETING #3

VIA WEBMEETING

JULY 31, 2017

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

AGENDA

Meeting Goals: 

• Develop assessments and recommendations on trends and developments in the natural, 

engineering, and social sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation.

• Develop assessments and recommendations on the priorities of the NWIRP Strategic Plan.

All times are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)

Monday, July 31, 2017

Time Topic Discussion Leader

1:00-1:05 pm Call to Order

Welcome 

Joannie Chin

Deputy Director

Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST)

Designated Federal Officer

1:05-1:10 pm Review Agenda 

Meeting Goals 

Tim Reinhold

NACWIR Chairperson

Sr. Vice President for Research 

and Chief Engineer

Insurance Institute for Business 

and Home Safety

1:10-2:25 pm Discuss Priorities of the NWIRP Strategic 

Plan

Tim Reinhold 

2:25-2:40 pm Public Comment Period Joannie Chin

2:40-2:45 pm Break

2:45-3:45 pm Reach Consensus on Recommendations and 

Suggestions

Finalize Committee Report

Tim Reinhold 

3:45-4:00 pm Wrap-up

Action Items

Next Meeting

Tim Reinhold

4:00 pm Adjourn
Exhibit 32(b)





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 Annual Report of EnviroStar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Venerando J. Indelicato, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





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





September 26, 2011





/s/ Venerando J. IndelicatoVenerando J. IndelicatoPrincipal Financial Officer
Order entered February 10, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00682-CV

BB FIT, LP D/B/A MATTISON AVENUE SALON SUITES AND SPA AND 

MATTISON AVENUE HOLDINGS CONSOLIDATED, LLC, Appellants

V.

EREP PRESTON TRAIL II, LLC, KENNETH ASELTON, AND 

ASELK CONSULTING, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12409

ORDER

Before the Court is the February 9, 2023 unopposed second motion of 

appellee EREP Preston Trail II, LLC for an extension of time to file its brief. We 

GRANT the motion and extend the time to March 16, 2023. We caution appellee 

that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE