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

Julia Rossi

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−05090

Honorable Andrea R. Wood

Claire's Stores, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, October 2, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Telephonic status hearing

held on 10/2/2020. Defendants' unopposed motion to reassign related case [17] is granted.

Case number 1:20−cv−5574 will be reassigned to this Court. Defendants' second

unopposed motion to extend the time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's

complaint [18] is granted as follows. Plaintiff shall have 21 days from the reassignment of

1:20−cv−5574 to file a consolidated amended class−action complaint in this case.

Telephonic status hearing set for 11/6/2020 at 9:15 AM. The Court will set a schedule for

Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss at the status hearing. To ensure public access to

court proceedings, members of the public and media may call in to listen to telephonic

hearings. The call−in number is (888) 557−8511 and the access code is 3547847. Counsel

of record will receive an email 30 minutes prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with

instructions to join the call. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of

the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court

proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of

court−issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future

hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice (dal, )

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-05090 Document #: 19 Filed: 10/02/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:176
General Information

1. Are you involved in cybersecurity workforce education or training (e.g., curriculumbased programs)? If so, in what capacity (including, but not limited to: community 

college or university faculty or administrator; official with a non-profit association 

focused on cybersecurity workforce needs; manufacturer or service company that relies 

on cybersecurity employees; cybersecurity curriculum developer; cybersecurity training 

institute; educator in a primary grade school; government agency that provides funding 

for cybersecurity education; or student or employee enrolled in a cybersecurity education 

or training program)? Note: Providing detailed information, including your specific 

affiliation is optional and will be made publicly available. Commenters should not 

include information they do not wish to be posted (e.g., personal or confidential business 

information) and are strongly encouraged not to include Personally Identifiable 

Information in their submissions.

Answer: 

I have created a study document from material in System Security Engineering SP 800-160 

located at CSRC.NIST.GOV. I initially created the document for learning and my belief in value 

of the topic. I felt the concise and the succinct nature of the material allowed for easy learning 

and the material could be worthwhile as a learning tool for many classes of individuals with 

various knowledge and skills. I decided to incorporate the material into a “reference” or “guide” 

manual and a mobile application. I have corresponded with NIST via email regarding my 

creation of this document and have I submitted the document to the US copyright office.

My goal is to create a guide that would be universal, concise, and useful for many people or 

organizations and not replace the original document SP 800-160 information. In contrast, I 

would use the guide as a tool to promote the csrc.nist.gov website and associated material. If 

there are proceeds from the guide I would require NIST receive a portion proceeds to advance 

information security objectives. I intend to allow NIST to review the guide prior to publication 

for public use.

Why did I choose to learn this material and why do I believe this material would be beneficial to 

others with information security aspirations?

I believe generic aspect of the material is the “ground floor” for building universal security into 

new information technology system development and utilization for comparison to existing

information system aspects and qualities.

Bill Kaiser
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4513 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To provide that in preparing an environmental assessment 

or environmental impact statement required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 with respect to any action authorizing a renewable 

energy project, no Federal agency is required to identify 

alternative project locations or actions other than the 

proposed action and the no action alternative, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 4513 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWABLE 

2 ENERGY PROJECTS. 

3 (a) COMPLIANCE WITH NEPA FOR RENEWABLE EN4 ERGY PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding any other law, in pre5 paring an environmental assessment or environmental im6 pact statement required under section 102 of the National 

7 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) with 

8 respect to any action authorizing a renewable energy 

9 project under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency— 

10 (1) no Federal agency is required to identify al11 ternative project locations or actions other than the 

12 proposed action and the no action alternative; and 

13 (2) no Federal agency is required to analyze the 

14 environmental effects of alternative locations or ac15 tions other than those submitted by the project pro16 ponent. 

17 (b) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.—In any en18 vironmental assessment or environmental impact state19 ment referred to in subsection (a), the Federal agency 

20 shall only identify and analyze the environmental effects 

21 and potential mitigation measures of— 

22 (1) the proposed action; and 

23 (2) the no action alternative. 

24 (c) PUBLIC COMMENT.—In preparing an environ25 mental assessment or environmental impact statement re26 ferred to in subsection (a), the Federal agency shall only 
3 

HR 4513 RFS 

1 consider public comments that specifically address the pre2 ferred action and that are filed within 20 days after publi3 cation of a draft environmental assessment or draft envi4 ronmental impact statement. Notwithstanding any other 

5 law, compliance with this subsection is deemed to satisfy 

6 section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act 

7 of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) and the applicable regula8 tions and administrative guidelines with respect to pro9 posed renewable energy projects. 

10 (d) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

11 term ‘‘renewable energy project’’— 

12 (1) means any proposal to utilize an energy 

13 source other than nuclear power, coal, oil, or natural 

14 gas; and 

15 (2) includes but is not be limited to the use of 

16 wind, solar, geothermal, or tidal forces to generate 

17 energy. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier FIGUEROA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10568.

D.C. No. CR-00-20123-RMW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001 1.

Decided May 30, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Javier Figueroa-Garcia appeals the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Figueroa-Garcia contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the *570district court improperly imposed a sentence that exceeds 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)’s two-year statutory maximum based upon a finding that Figueroa-Garcia had been deported subsequent to having been convicted of an aggravated felony, when an aggravated felony had not been alleged in the indictment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or established during the plea hearing by Figueroa-Garcia’s admission. Figueroa-Garcia also contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), as construed by the Supreme Court in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is unconstitutional on its face after *Apprendi*because it permits the statutory maximum set forth in subsection (a) to be increased based upon enhancement facts that are not afforded the due process protection of offense elements. These contentions are foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1503, — L.Ed.2d — (2001).3

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

3

. Figueroa-Garcia’s motion to stay this appeal pending resolution of certiorari in *Pacheco-Zepeda*is DENIED as moot. *See Pacheco-Zepeda v. United States,*- U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001) (denying *certiorari).*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4403 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4403

      To suspend temporarily the duty on Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol 
                        Methoxyphenol Triazine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2004

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol 
                        Methoxyphenol Triazine.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.05      Bis-                Free         Free             No change        l2/31/07          ''.
                         Ethylhexyloxyphen
                         ol Methoxyphenol
                         Triazine (CAS No.
                         187393-00-6)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.69.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 15,687.

#### Ayers et al. *v.*Hamilton.

*Contract.*— Extension *of Time.*— Forbearance *to Sue.*— An agreement to extend the time of payment of a debt for a limited period of time, even if • founded upon a sufficient consideration, is, in substance, an agreement not to sue within that time, and can not he pleaded in bar óf an action brought within that time. The only remedy for the violation of such an agreement is an action for damages.

From the Rush Circuit Court.

*W. A. Cullen*and *J. D. Megee,*for appellants.

*J. A. New*and *H. E.*Barrett, for appellee.

Miller, J.

This was a suit brought by the appellee to foreclose a mortgage.

Two errors are assigned and discussed in the briefs of counsel:

1st. That the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the first paragraph of answer.

2d. That the court erred in overruling the appellants' motion for a new trial.

The first paragraph of answer counted upon a written agreement extending the time for the payment of the note, secured by the mortgage in suit, to a period subsequent to the time of the bringing of this action.

This agreement was a mere contract of forbearance, executed long after the maturity of the note.

It is well settled that an agreement to extend the time of payment of a debt for a limited period of time, even if founded upon a sufficient consideration, is, in substance, an agreement not to sue within that time, and can not be pleaded in bar of an action brought within that time. The only remedy for the violation of such an agreement is an action for damages. *Vogel*v. Harris, 112 Ind. 494; *Williams*v. *Scott,*83 Ind. 405; *Mills*v. Todd, 83 Ind. 25; *Irons*v. *Woodfill,*32 Ind. 40.

*99Filed April 5, 1892.

The question discussed under the second assignment of error is the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding and judgment.

We have read the evidence and find that it is conflicting upon every issue joined in the pleadings. We can not, therefore, disturb the judgment on this account.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.A


                            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 on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2003, of ANR Pipeline Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John W.
Somerhalder II, Chairman of the Board, certify (i) that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



                                                  /s/ John W. Somerhalder II
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              John W. Somerhalder II
                                              Chairman of the Board
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)

                                              March 15, 2004



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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,702,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,950
<INVENTORY>                                    136,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,285,206
<PP&E>                                       9,603,988
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,899,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,758,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,166,087
<BONDS>                                      4,889,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,434,893
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,727,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,764,998
<SALES>                                     14,552,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,552,265
<CGS>                                        1,531,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,368,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,692,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             512,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,132,621
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,132,621
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,132,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STACIE MARIE GRAY f/k/a,

3 STACIE MARIE SANDOVAL, n/k/a

4 STACIE MARIE IVEY,

5 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

6 v. NO. 33,348 consolidated

7 with NO. 33,670

8 MARTIN CHRISTOPHER SANDOVAL, 

9 Defendant-Appellee. 

10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

11 Elizabeth E. Whitefield, District Judge

12 Stacie Marie Gray

13 Fort Collins, CO

14 Pro Se Appellant

15 Leslie Becker

16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Appellee

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 ZAMORA, Judge.
2

1 {1} Appellant Stacie Marie Ivey [RP 300] (Mother) appeals pro se from the district

2 court’s October 4, 2013, minute order [RP 370] and the February 17, 2014, final

3 minute order [Ct.App.File, blue tab] that address matters relating to child support,

4 travel expenses, and attorney fees. Our second calendar notice proposed to affirm. {2}

5 Mother did not file a second memorandum in opposition to the second notice.

6 Instead, Mother initiated a second appeal and filed a docketing statement in this Court

7 in Ct.App.No. 33,670 (Case #2), where she appeals from the same district court orders

8 at issue in this case. Because Mother is appealing from the same orders in both this

9 case and in Case #2, we HEREBY CONSOLIDATE the appeals under this case,

10 Ct.App.No. 33,348.

11 {3} As for the merits of Mother’s arguments, for the same reasons extensively

12 discussed in our second calendar notice, we affirm. Mother did not file a

13 memorandum in opposition to our second notice and we are not persuaded by her

14 arguments. We therefore affirm. 

15 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 _______________________________

17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

18 WE CONCUR:
3

1 ___________________________________

2 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

3 ___________________________________

4 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 12.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.

                                         COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                                                                                  PRO FORMA 
                                                                PERIOD                              PERIOD
                                                            FROM INCEPTION      PRO FORMA       FROM INCEPTION
                                           THREE MONTHS    (APRIL 22, 1997)    THREE MONTHS    (APRIL 22, 1997)
                                               ENDED           THROUGH            ENDED            THROUGH
                                             MARCH 31,       DECEMBER 31,        MARCH 31,       DECEMBER 31,
                                               1998             1997               1998              1997
                                            ------------  ----------------    -------------    -------------
<S>                                         <C>           <C>                 <C>               <C>
Earnings:
  Net loss                                  $ (8,395,214) $     (3,687,960)   $ (11,415,916)   $ (26,233,079)
  Add: Fixed charges                           4,669,079                --        7,689,781       22,545,119
                                            ------------  ----------------    -------------    -------------
                                              (3,726,135)       (3,687,960)      (3,726,135)      (3,687,960)

Fixed charges:
  Interest in indebtedness                     4,951,366                --        7,848,284       21,691,023
  Amortization of debt discount and debt
    issuance costs                               185,247                --          309,031          854,096
  Interest portion of rental and lease
    expense                                           --                --               --               --
                                            ------------  ----------------    -------------    -------------
                                               5,136,613                --        8,157,315       22,545,119
Deficiency of earnings available to
    cover fixed charges                     $ (8,862,748) $     (3,687,960)   $ (11,883,450)   $ (26,233,079)
                                            ============  ================    =============    =============

</TABLE>