alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Edward L. Klute, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 15,223.

*Evidence—when rulings will not reverse.*The rejection of competent and the undue restriction of cross-examination will not reverse in the absence of harm resulting.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Judson F. Going, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 3, 1911.

Stedman & Soelke, for plaintiff in error.

John E. W. Wayman and John L. Hopkins, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is urged as a ground of reversal of the judgment that the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to quash the information, which charges him with unlawfully keeping a house of ill fame, and also, keeping a common disorderly house, to the encouragement of idleness, drinking, and other misbehavior, contrary to the statute. In our opinion the information is sufficient and the motion to quash was properly overruled.

We think the evidence admitted to sustain the prosecution was competent under the information, which charges the defendant with two distinct offenses.

In our opinion the trial court erred in refusing to allow Mrs. Klute to testify as to the number of rooms used in connection with the saloon and hotel, and their occupants at the time in question, in substantiation of what she told Wilson and Rogers, according to their testimony, to the effect that all of the rooms were occupied on the occasion in question. Her statement, *560however, was not controverted by the prosecution, and the error was unimportant and not reversible.

We think the court erred also in improperly restricting the cross-examination of Miss Williams in one or more particulars, but the rulings of the court worked no harm to the plaintiff in error.

We cannot say that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence, or that it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

*■Affirmed.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Functional Development of the Mammary Gland.                    

*Date:*                         April 14, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter Zelazowski, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6902,                         *peter.zelazowski@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 15, 2011.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-6575 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 606.9 What are the type, duration, and limitations in the awarding of grants under this part? ( a ) ( 1 ) Under this part, the Secretary may award planning grants and two types of development grants, individual development grants and cooperative arrangement development grants.
( 2 ) Planning grants may be awarded for a period not to exceed one year.
( 3 ) Either type of development grant may be awarded for a period of five years.
( b ) ( 1 ) An institution that received an individual development grant of five years may not subsequently receive another individual development grant for a period of two years from the date on which the five-year grant terminates.
( 2 ) A cooperative arrangement grant is not considered to be an individual development grant under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1101c and 1103c)
### §158. Designation of United States attorneys and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to address abusive reaffirmations of debt and materially fraudulent statements in bankruptcy schedules

(a) In General.—The Attorney General of the United States shall designate the individuals described in subsection (b) to have primary responsibility in carrying out enforcement activities in addressing violations of section 152 or 157 relating to abusive reaffirmations of debt. In addition to addressing the violations referred to in the preceding sentence, the individuals described under subsection (b) shall address violations of section 152 or 157 relating to materially fraudulent statements in bankruptcy schedules that are intentionally false or intentionally misleading.

(b) United States Attorneys and Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.—The individuals referred to in subsection (a) are—

(1) the United States attorney for each judicial district of the United States; and

(2) an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for each field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(c) Bankruptcy Investigations.—Each United States attorney designated under this section shall, in addition to any other responsibilities, have primary responsibility for carrying out the duties of a United States attorney under section 3057.

(d) Bankruptcy Procedures.—The bankruptcy courts shall establish procedures for referring any case that may contain a materially fraudulent statement in a bankruptcy schedule to the individuals designated under this section.

(Added Pub. L. 109–8, title II, §203(b)(1), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 49.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under Title 11, Bankruptcy, before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 101 of Title 11.
Exhibit
      10.6

    

      Promissory
        Note Amendment 

       

      (Christopher
        Knight) 

       

      This
        Promissory Note Amendment (this "Amendment")
        amends
        that certain Promissory Note dated November 15, 2005 issued by DrTattoff,
        LLC
        ("Maker") to the undersigned in the original principal amount of $12,000
        (the
        "Promissory
        Note").

       

      The
        Promissory Note is due on demand by the undersigned. The undersigned hereby
        agrees that the Promissory Note shall mature and be due and payable in full
        on
        the earlier of April 1, 2008 or the closing of "Series B" round of financing
        of
        Maker that is currently contemplated by Maker in connection with and after
        the
        prospective merger by Maker with Lifesciences Opportunities Incorporated.
        

      
         

        
          	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Christopher
                  Knight	 	 	 
	
                  
Christopher
                  Knight	 	 	
                
	 	 	 	 
	Dated: July 3, 2007
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/6/2015 11:42:54 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                 Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  March 16, 2004                      /s/ David I. Fann
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: David I. Fann
                                          Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer


Date:  March 16, 2004                      /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Douglas A. Lindgren
                                          Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer


Date:  March 16, 2004                      /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Robert F. Aufenanger
                                          Title: Treasurer

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.

                                       27
### **CHAPTER 111—SHIPPING**

Sec.
2271.
Conspiracy to destroy vessels.
2272.
Destruction of vessel by owner.
2273.
Destruction of vessel by nonowner.
2274.
Destruction or misuse of vessel by person in charge.
2275.
Firing or tampering with vessel. 1

2276.
Breaking and entering vessel.
2277.
Explosives or dangerous weapons aboard vessels.
2278.
Explosives on vessels carrying steerage passengers.
2279.
Boarding vessels before arrival.
2280.
Violence against maritime navigation.
2280a.
Violence against maritime navigation and maritime transport involving weapons of mass destruction.
2281.
Violence against maritime fixed platforms.
2281a.
Additional offenses against maritime fixed platforms.
2282A.
Devices or dangerous substances in waters of the United States likely to destroy or damage ships or to interfere with maritime commerce.
2282B.
Violence against aids to maritime navigation.
2283.
Transportation of explosive, chemical, biological, or radioactive or nuclear materials. 1
2284.
Transportation of terrorists.
2285.
Operation of submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel without nationality  2

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2015**—Pub. L. 114–23, title VIII, §§802(b), 804(b), June 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 307, 308, added items 2280a and 2281a.

**2008**—Pub. L. 110–407, title I, §102(b), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4298, added item 2285.

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–177, title III, §§304(b)(2), 305(b), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 235, 237, added items 2282B, 2283, and 2284.

Pub. L. 109–177, title III, §304(a)(2), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 235, which directed amendment of table of sections for this chapter by adding item 2282A after item 2282, was executed by adding item 2282A after item 2281 to reflect the probable intent of Congress, because there is no item 2282.

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60019(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1979, added items 2280 and 2281.

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, §3566, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4928, substituted "vessels" for "vessel" in item 2271.

1  So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.

2  So in original. Probably should be followed by a period.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In re: Case No.

CATHY MICKENS, 19-31323-KLP

Debtor. Chapter

7

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S APPLICATION TO RETAIN BK

GLOBAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES AND DEBORAH BACCHUS OF MY

DREAM HOME REALTY, INC. TO PROCURE CONSENTED PUBLIC SALE

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 327

COMES NOW, Lynn L. Tavenner, Substitute Trustee, and files the Supplemental

Chapter 7 Trustee’s Application to Retain BK Global Real Estate Services and Deborah

Bacchus of My Dream Home Realty, Inc. to Procure Consented Public Sale Pursuant to 11

U.S.C. § 327 (the “Application”) filed on May 15, 2019 by the former Trustee, Roy M.

Terry and states as follows:

1. On or about June 28, 2019, I was substituted as the Trustee in this case.

2. Since such date I have endeavored to promptly and efficiently undertake my duties

as Trustee and in furtherance of the same have reviewed the Application filed by Mr.

Terry and noticed upon requested parties.

3. In accordance with the same, I believe it prudent to tender an order approving the

Lynn L. Tavenner, Trustee

Tavenner & Beran, PLC

20 North 8th Street, Second Floor

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Telephone: (804) 783-8300

Telecopy: (804) 783-0178

Lynn L. Tavenner, Chapter 7 Trustee 1

Case 19-31323-KLP Doc 43 Filed 10/18/19 Entered 10/18/19 16:08:09 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Application given that all objection periods have expired and no objections or requests 

for hearing were filed. 

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, as the existing Trustee, I intend to move 

forward with the Application process and tender an order approving the same, in order to

further the market process as delineated in the Application. 

LYNN L. TAVENNER, TRUSTEE 

By: /s/ Lynn L. Tavenner 

Trustee 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, I certify that on this 18th day of October 2019, 

a true copy of the foregoing Application was sent electronically to: 

Robert B. Van Arsdale, Esquire 

Office of the United States Trustee 

701 East Broad Street, Suite 4304

Richmond, Virginia 23219-1885

Christopher John Flynn 

Boleman Law Firm 

PO Box 11588 

Richmond, VA 23230

And all other parties receiving ECF notices in this case. 

/s/Lynn L. Tavenner

Lynn L. Tavenner, Trustee 

Case 19-31323-KLP Doc 43 Filed 10/18/19 Entered 10/18/19 16:08:09 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
#### Frederick W. Shepard v. The City of New York.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
(No. 77-CC-1414

#### Maurice Pendleton, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 28, 1978.*

Polos, C.J.

Claimant, an inmate of the Stateville Correctional Center, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property which he alleges were lost during the course of its transfer from State-ville Correctional Center to Cook County Jail. These items consisted of a radio, chess set, cigarettes and personal care items valued at $50.73.

That Respondent has filed with the Court a stipulation by Respondent as well as a departmental report indicating that the, “Department of Corrections has no evidence to refute the allegations contained in Claimant’s verified complaint.”

*691Claimant’s prima facie case therefore stand unrebutted.

It is therefore ordered, that Claimant be, and hereby is awarded the sum of $50.73.
### **[CHAPTER 231—REPEALED]**
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 71 Lower Tribunal No. 13

- CF

- 18002

_____________________________
E DRICKA L ESHAYE C OOK , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County

.

Bruce Kyle , Judge.
February 6, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. SMITH, BROWNLEE and GA N NAM , JJ., c oncur.

Jason T. Forman , of Law O ffices of Jason T. Forman, P.A.
, F ort Lauderdale , for Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and B lain A. Goff , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FO R REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
§ 222.15 How are the filing deadlines affected by requests for other forms of relief? Unless the Secretary (or the Secretary's delegatee) extends the applicable time limit in writing— ( a ) A request for forgiveness of an overpayment under § 222.14 does not extend the time within which an applicant must file a request for an administrative hearing under § 222.151; and
( b ) A request for an administrative hearing under § 222.151, or for reconsideration under § 222.152, does not extend the time within which an applicant must file a request for forgiveness under § 222.14.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7712)
[62 FR 35413, July 1, 1997]
# C_2023032EN.01000101.xml

| 27.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2022-2023 SESSION

Sittings of 22 to 23 June 2022

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
J

- A16014

- 17 2018 PA Super 84

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. IN RE: PETITION OF SANDRA NAVARR A

BY THE LIMITED GUARDIAN OF HER

ESTATE

,

APPEAL OF: CHRIS NAVARRA, LINDA D’AUGOSTINE, JOANNE M. NAVARRA,

RICHARD E. NAVARRA AND CHARLENE

A. SHELLEDY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 13 07 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order e ntered August 25, 2016

, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Orphans’ Court at No(s): 109 of 2014 O.C.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER,* J.

DISSENTING OPINION BY STRASSBURGE R, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2018

Although the result reached by the Majority is certainly a fai r one, it

does not comport with the statute. Accordingly, I am constrained to dissent.

The issue of whether the orphans’ court has the authority to substitute

its judgment for that of that of Wife in order to disinherit Husband’s legatees

is governed by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5536(b). Although the statute has some broad

language, the only section concerning the modification of a will provides that

the court may modify “by m eans of codicil or trust amendment, as the case

may be, the terms of the incapacitated person’s will ... as the court may

deem advisable in light of changes in applicable tax laws.” 20 Pa.C.S.

§ 5536(b)(11). If the legislature desired that the orphans’ cour t could

substitute its judgment to modify a will in situations other than those

involving tax laws, the legislature could easily have included that in theJ

- A16014

- 17

- 2

-

statute. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

. 1 However, the legislature did

not do so . Thus, I w ould reverse the order of the orphans’ court as to the

four legatees over whom the orphans’ court had jurisdiction.

1 “The maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius , establishes the inference that, where certain things are designated in a statute, all omissions should be understood as exclusions. The maxim is one of longstanding application, and it is essentially an application of common sense and logic.” Commonwealth v. Ostrosky , 866 A.2d 423, 430 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding “the legislature’s decision to expressly designate that repeated threats or course of threats can violate the statute, indicates that they did not intend to punish a single such incident”).
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4865 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4865

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to qualify homeless youth 
and veterans who are full-time students for purposes of the low-income 
                          housing tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2019

     Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois (for himself and Mr. Wenstrup) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to qualify homeless youth 
and veterans who are full-time students for purposes of the low-income 
                          housing tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Housing for Homeless Students Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. HOMELESS YOUTH AND VETERANS WHO ARE FULL-TIME STUDENTS 
              QUALIFIED FOR PURPOSES OF THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX 
              CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 42(i)(3)(D) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subclauses (II) and 
(III) as subclauses (IV) and (V), respectively, and by inserting after 
subclause (I) the following new subclauses:
                                    ``(II) a full-time student who, 
                                during any portion of the 7-year period 
                                ending with the commencement of such 
                                individual's continuous occupation of 
                                any low-income unit or units, was an 
                                individual described in section 725(2) 
                                of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
                                Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)),
                                    ``(III) a full-time student who, 
                                during any portion of the 5-year period 
                                ending with the commencement of such 
                                individual's continuous occupation of 
                                any low-income unit or units, was an 
                                individual described in section 
                                2002(a)(1) of title 38, United States 
                                Code,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to determinations made before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### §§ 336.3-336.8 [Reserved]