alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 81-CC-1999

#### William Acoff *et al.,*Claimants, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 21, 1981.*

Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (Sheldon Roodman and Thomas Johnson, of counsel), for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Sandra L. Andina, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Roe, C. J.

This cause coming on to be heard on the stipulation by Respondent and the Court being fully advised in the premises; that 17,659 Claimants seek individual judgments in specified amounts as listed in exhibit A to their complaint; that such judgments, in the aggregate amount of $466,727.37, consist of benefits for which they applied, but did not receive, under the Illinois Department of Public Aid’s General Assistance (GA) Program between November 14, 1975, and July 31, 1976; that this stipulation arises out of settlement of U.S. District Court litigation entitled *Carey v. Quern,*75 C 3908, and that authorization for this expenditure can be found in article VI of the *365Public Aid Code. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 23, par. 6 — 1 *et seq.*

The amount due would have been paid in the regular course of business had the claim been presented to the proper office at the appropriate time.

The sole reason said claim was not previously paid is the lapse of the State funds appropriated to the Department for the period during which the debt was incurred. Had this claim been presented before the lapsing of such funds, this claim would normally have been paid, the same having been confirmed by the written report of the Department, a copy of said report being attached to the stipulation by Respondent.

It is therefore ordered that Claimants, William Acoff *et al.,*be and are hereby awarded the sums specified in exhibit A of their complaint, in an aggregate amount of $466,727.37 (four hundred sixty six thousand seven hundred twenty seven dollars and thirty seven cents).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

Release No. 35049 / November 15, 2023

In the Matter of

26NORTH BDC, INC

26NORTH DIRECT LENDING, LP

26NORTH DIRECT LENDING II LP

TIDAL NOTES ISSUER LLC

GEMINI NOTES ISSUER LLC

JORDAN NOTES ISSUER LLC

RIPPLE NOTES ISSUER LLC 

CHESTNUT NOTES ISSUER LLC and 

ELEMENT NOTES ISSUER LLC

600 Madison Avenue

26th Floor

New York, NY 10022

(File No. 812-15398)

ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 17(d) AND 57(i) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 

1940 AND RULE 17d-1 UNDER THE ACT

26North BDC, Inc., et al. filed an application on October 10, 2022, and amendments on February 

2, 2023 and August 2, 2023, requesting an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment 

Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act that would permit certain joint 

transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under 

the Act. The order would permit certain business development companies and registered closedend management investment companies (collectively, the “Regulated Funds”) to co-invest in 

portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities. 

On October 24, 2023, a notice of the filing of the application was issued (Investment Company 

Act Release No. 35036). The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing 

and stated that an order disposing of the application would be issued unless a hearing was 

ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed, and the Commission has not ordered a hearing. 

The matter has been considered and it is found on the basis of the information set forth in the 

application, as amended, that participation by the Regulated Funds in the proposed transactions 

is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and is on a basis no less 

advantageous than that of other participants.
2

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act, that 

the relief requested by 26North BDC, Inc., et al. (File No. 812-15398) is granted, effective 

immediately, subject to the conditions contained in the application, as amended.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated 

authority.

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 9, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00051-CR

JOHNATHAN WAYNE HUNT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-281528

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Johnathan Wayne Hunt of the misdemeanor offense of 

driving while intoxicated. The trial court sentenced Hunt to forty-five days in the 

Montgomery County Jail. Hunt filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

In a single issue, appellant claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence 

regarding his sobriety because that evidence was obtained after appellant was 

unlawfully detained. To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have 
2

presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the 

specific grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent. Tex. R. App. P. 

33.1(a)(1); Rothstein v. State, 267 S.W.3d 366, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2008, pet. ref’d). Preservation of error is a systemic requirement. Archie v. 

State, 221 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). To preserve error about 

illegally obtained evidence, a defendant must either file a motion to suppress and 

obtain a ruling on the motion or timely object when the State offers the evidence at 

trial. Ross v. State, 678 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Stults v. 

State, 23 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (op. 

on reh’g). Although appellant claims the admission of the evidence was "plain 

error," appellant cites no authority, and we are aware of none, abrogating this 

Court’s controlling precedent as set forth in Ross and Stults. See Saldano v. State, 

70 S.W.3d 873, 886-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Perez v. State, 13-10-00613-CR, 

2011 WL 6777944, *1-2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 21, 2011, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

The record reflects no pretrial motion to suppress was filed. In addition to 

the testimony of Deputy Kyle Stone and Trooper Derek Peterson, the videos from 

each of their patrol cars were admitted into evidence without objection. Appellant 

not only did not object to the admissibility of any evidence obtained after the 

allegedly illegal detention, but also indicated agreement on the record to his 

counsel’s decision not to object to the admission of much of that evidence. 

Accordingly, the issue was not preserved and nothing is presented for our review.

See Tex. R. App. P. 31.3(a); Sample v. State, 405 S.W.3d 295, 301 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref’d).
3

Appellant’s issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Sharon McCally

Justice

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
### §1272. Congressional declaration of purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to implement the policy set out in section 1271 of this title by instituting a national wild and scenic rivers system, by designating the initial components of that system, and by prescribing the methods by which and standards according to which additional components may be added to the system from time to time.

(Pub. L. 90–542, §1(c), Oct. 2, 1968, 82 Stat. 906.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section consists of subsec. (c) of section 1 of Pub. L. 90–542. Subsecs. (a) and (b) of section 1 are classified to section 1271 and section 1271 note, respectively.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

)

LARRY LYLE LASKO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1850 (PLF)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF JUSTICE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

 

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. #17] is

GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint as against Tioga County Sheriff’s

Department, Dan Eiklor, Patrick Hogan and John and Jane Does is DISMISSED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered for defendant.

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ 

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: February 17, 2010
§ 646.218 Simplified procedure for accelerating grade crossing improvements. ( a ) The procedure set forth in this section is encouraged for use in simplifying and accelerating the processing of single or multiple grade crossing improvements.
( b ) Eligible preliminary engineering costs may include those incurred in selecting crossings to be improved, determining the type of improvement for each crossing, estimating the cost and preparing the required agreement.
( c ) The written agreement between a State and a railroad shall contain as a minimum: ( 1 ) Identification of each crossing location.
( 2 ) Description of improvement and estimate of cost for each crossing location.
( 3 ) Estimated schedule for completion of work at each location.
( d ) Following programming, authorization and approval of the agreement under § 646.218(c), FHWA may authorize construction, including acquisition of warning device materials, with the condition that work at any particular location will not be undertaken until the proposed or executed State-railroad agreement under § 646.216(d)(2) is found satisfactory by FHWA and the final plans, specifications, and estimates are approved and with the condition that only material actually incorporated into the project will be eligible for Federal participation.
( e ) Work programmed and authorized under this simplified procedure should include only that which can reasonably be expected to reach the construction stage within one year and be completed within two years after the initial authorization date.
Michigan Supreme 

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 17, 2015

Order 

March 17, 2015

150775(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

RICHARD CLARE PATHIC, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 150775

COA: 323817

Isabella CC: 2013-002436-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant for leave to file a 

supplement brief is GRANTED. The supplement brief submitted on March 6, 2015, is 

accepted for filing.
#### Frank D. Creamer and William N. Kenyon, Composing the Firm of Frank D. Creamer & Company, Appellants, v. Jacob Kulla, Respondent, Impleaded with Abraham Cohen, Defendant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Wo opinion. Jenks, P. J.,Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
## Update **on the**

**CAFO NPDES Permit Regulation**  **Development**

**Program March 13, 2008**  

## Update **on the CAFO NPDES Permit**  **Regulation Development** 

**Program March 13, 2008** 

## Regulatory **History for CAFOs**

**EP A**  **issues regulations for**  **CAFOs**

**Wa terkeeper**  **court decision on CAFO**  **lawsuits EP**  **A pr** **oposes revisions to CAFO**  **regulations to addr ess**  **court ruling EP**  **A revises**  **CAFO regulations** 

**EP A**  **issues “Unified National**  **Strategy for**

**A FOs”**  **w/ USDA**  **Lawsuits br** **ought against 2003**  **regulations 2006/08** 

**2005 2003**  **2003/4 1999**  **1974/76**3 

# Major **Emphasis in**  **NPDES CAFO Permitting**   

## Addressing water quality impacts from CAFOs due to surface water runoff  

## EPA’s 2003 CAFO NPDES regulations estimated to reduce:  

### Phosphorus by 56 mill lbs annually  

### Nitrogen by 100 mill lbs annually  

### Sediment by over two bill lbs annually4 

# Waterkeeper **court case**   

## Both environmental and industry groups filed suits against the 2003 CAFO NPDES regulations  

## Waterkeeper court decision

-- February 28, 20055 

## EPA’s **Waterkeeper Rulemaking**   

## The revised rule will address the court’s mandate to:  

### Remove the unilateral requirement for all CAFOs to get permits  

### Make NMPs part of the permitting process  

## EPA proposed rules published June 30, 2006, and March 7, 2008.6 

# Extensive **stakeholder outreach**   

## Consultation with USDA in rule development  

## Coordination with USDA on implementation of “Manure Management Planner”  

## $8 mill grant for technical assistance to livestock operators7 

# Moving **towards a**  **comprehensive approach** 
 EPA solicited public comment on multimedia approach in 2006 CAFO permitting proposal – feedback indicated general support but contained limited practical suggestions  Challenges arise because statutes do not readily lend themselves to integration:  Clean Water Act prescribes 5-year permit terms  Clean Water Act prescribes specific process for public involvement  Clean Water Act allows general permits (GPs) for broad classes of facilities—these categories may not overlap across statutes
### §4911. Exemptions

Notwithstanding any prohibition, suspension, or quota under this chapter on the importation of a species of exotic bird, the Secretary may, through the issuance of import permits, authorize the importation of a bird of the species if the Secretary determines that such importation is not detrimental to the survival of the species and the bird is being imported exclusively for any of the following purposes:

(1) Scientific research.

(2) As a personally owned pet of an individual who is returning to the United States after being continuously out of the country for a minimum of one year, except that an individual may not import more than 2 exotic birds under this paragraph in any year.

(3) Zoological breeding or display programs.

(4) Cooperative breeding programs that are—

(A) designed to promote the conservation of the species and maintain the species in the wild by enhancing the propagation and survival of the species; and

(B) developed and administered by, or in conjunction with, an avicultural, conservation, or zoological organization that meets standards developed by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 102–440, title I, §112, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2230.)
#### § 661.43 Can other sources of funds be used to finance a queued project in advance of receipt of TTFBP funds?

Yes. A Tribe can use other sources of funds, including TTP construction funds, on a project that has been approved for funding and placed on the queue and then be reimbursed when TTFBP funds become available. If TTP construction funds are used for this purpose, the funds must be identified on an FHWA approved TTP TIP prior to their expenditure.
### §459b–8. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 459b to 459b–8 of this title; except that no more than $42,917,575 shall be appropriated for the acquisition of land and waters and improvements thereon, and interests therein, and incidental costs relating thereto, in accordance with the provisions of such sections.

(Pub. L. 87–126, §9, Aug. 7, 1961, 75 Stat. 293; Pub. L. 91–252, May 14, 1970, 84 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 98–141, §3, Oct. 31, 1983, 97 Stat. 909.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 98–141 substituted "$42,917,575" for "$33,500,000".

1970—Pub. L. 91–252 substituted "$33,500,000" for "$16,000,000".
### §482l. Perfection of mining claims within forest

Valid mining claims within the said lands, existing on June 10, 1949, and thereafter maintained in compliance with the law under which they were initiated and the laws of the State of New Mexico, may be perfected under sections 482j to 482l of this title, or under the laws under which they were initiated, as the claimant may desire.

(June 10, 1949, ch. 190, §3, 63 Stat. 169.)
§ 103.16 Collection, use and storage of biometric information. ( a ) *Use of biometric information.* An individual may be required to submit biometric information by law, regulation, Federal Register notice or the form instructions applicable to the request type or if required in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9). DHS may collect and store for present or future use, by electronic or other means, the biometric information submitted by an individual. DHS may use this biometric information to conduct background and security checks, adjudicate immigration and naturalization benefits, and perform other functions related to administering and enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws.
( b ) *Individuals residing abroad.* An individual who is required to provide biometric information and who is residing outside of the United States must report to a DHS-designated location to have his or her biometric information collected, whether by electronic or non-electronic means.
[76 FR 53782, Aug. 29, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 73331, Oct. 24, 2016]
#### Henrietta Balish, Appellant, v. Advance Fuel Oil Corporation, Respondent.

*684Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur. •
# L_2006365EN.01S00301.xml

| 21.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 365/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 365/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

From 1 January 2007, the structure of the Official Journal will be modified in the direction of a clearer classification of the acts published which preserves, nevertheless, essential continuity.

The new structure, with examples illustrating its use in the classification of acts, can be consulted on the EUR-Lex site on the following address:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm

---
### §430uu–3. Jurisdiction

There is hereby retroceded to the State of Montana, effective when accepted by said State in accordance with its laws, such jurisdiction as has been ceded by such State to the United States over any lands within the boundaries of the Big Hole National Battlefield reserving in the United States, however, concurrent legislative jurisdiction over such lands.

(Pub. L. 88–24, §4, May 17, 1963, 77 Stat. 19.)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of HMI Industries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A (the "Report") for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Kirk W. Foley,
Principal Executive 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:

      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.

                                                     /s/ Kirk W. Foley
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Kirk W. Foley
                                                     Principal Executive Officer
                                                     December 17, 2004
(No. 81-CV-0984

#### *In re*Application of Jane Krill.

*Order filed February 8, 1982.*

Jane Krill, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Maureen Cain, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Poch, J.

This claim arises out of an incident that occurred on April 18, 1981. Jane Krill seeks compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Crime Victims Compensation Act, hereafter referred to as the Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 71 *et seq.*

This Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on May 22, 1981, on the form prescribed by the Court, and an investigatory report of the Attorney General of Illinois which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted to the Court, the Court finds:

1. That on April 18, 1981, the victim was found lying unconscious in his bed at 111 1/2 North 6th Street, Springfield, Illinois. Mr. Pauley was taken to St: Joseph’s Hospital where he remained in a comatose state until his death on April 23, 1981. The Sangamon County coroner’s office determined that the victim’s death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage causing brain damage combined with severe bronchopneumonia. A coroner’s inquest was held regard*553ing the victim’s death. Testimony at the inquest indicated that the victim’s death was not due to violence; however, the jury ruled the exact nature of his death as undetermined.

2. That in order for a Claimant to be eligible for compensation under the Act, there must be evidence of one of the violent crimes specifically set forth under section 2(c) of the Act.

3. That the victim’s death was not attributable to one of the violent crimes specifically set forth under section 2(c) of the Act.

4. That the Claimant has not met a required condition precedent for compensation under the Act.

It is hereby ordered, that this claim be, and is hereby denied.