alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Bankruptcy Court 

Eastern District of Virginia 

In re Case No. 

 Debtor(s) Chapter 

ORDER ON REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT

 The debtor(s) _________________________________________________ filed 

 (Name(s) of debtor(s)) 

___________________________________________________ on _____________________________ 

 (Date filed) 

made between the debtor(s) and the creditor ________________________________________________. 

 (Name of creditor) 

The court held the hearing required by 11 U.S.C. §524(d) or §524(m), on notice to the debtor(s) and the 

creditor on ______________________. 

 (Date) 

COURT ORDER: The court grants the debtor’s motion under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(6)(A) 

and approves the reaffirmation agreement described above as not 

imposing an undue hardship on the debtor(s) or a dependent of the 

debtor(s) and as being in the best interest of the debtor(s). 

 The court grants the debtor’s motion under 11 U.S.C. §524(k)(8) and 

 approves the reaffirmation agreement described above. 

 The court reviewed the presumption of undue hardship and does not 

 disapprove the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. §524(m). 

 The court disapproves the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. 

 §524(m) 

 The court does not approve the reaffirmation agreement. 

 Sets the matter for a hearing on ____________________________. 

 BY THE COURT 

Date: _______________________ _____________________________________ 

 United States Bankruptcy Judge

 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

 ENTERED ON DOCKET: ____________________ 

[2400Cedva ver. 12/15] 

Lillie Evans Tingen 17-33539-KLP

7

Lillie Evans Tingen

reaffirmation documents August 11, 2017

Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.

September 6, 2017

✔

✔ The Court finds that the Debtor has complied with the duties imposed

by 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(6) and 362(h) with respect to the creditor’s

claim, and 11 U.S.C. § 521(d) is thus inapplicable. See In re

Husain,364 BR 211 (Bankr. E.D. Va.); In re Isom, Case No. 07-31469,

2007 WL 2110318 (Bankr. E.D. Va.July 27, 2007).

Sep 14 2017 /s/ Keith L. Phillips

Sep 14 2017

Case 17-33539-KLP Doc 16 Filed 09/14/17 Entered 09/14/17 11:12:11 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
§ 644.31 What are unallowable costs? Costs that are unallowable under the Educational Opportunity Centers program include, but are not limited to, the following: ( a ) Tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms of direct financial support for participants.
( b ) Research not directly related to the evaluation or improvement of the project.
( c ) Construction, renovation, and remodeling of any facilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-16)
### Part I—Definitions and National Customs Automation Program
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.                  

###### Armed Forces Retirement Home

# AGENCY:

Armed Forces Retirement Home.

# ACTION:

Notice of Members of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Review Board (PRB).

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to U.S.C. 431(c)(4), this notice announces the appointment of members of the combined PRB for the Armed Forces Retirement Home. The                               ( print page 18517)                            Board reviews the performance appraisals of career and non-career senior executives. The Board recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses and other appropriate personnel actions.                    

*Composition of PRB:*                         The Board shall consist of at least three voting members. In the case of an appraisal appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees. The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:                    

## Primary Members

Cynthia Z. Springer, Executive Director, Administrative Resource Center, Bureau of Public Debt Debra L. Hines, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of Public Debt Kimberly A. McCoy, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Information Technology, Bureau of Public Debt.

## Alternate Members

Keith Rake, Deputy Executive Director, Administrative Resource Center, Bureau of Public Debt Matt Miller, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Information Technology, Bureau of Public Debt.

# DATES:

Membership is effective on the date of this notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven McManus, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Armed Forces Retirement Home, Box 1303, Washington, DC 20011, (202) 730-3533.

This notice does not meet the Armed Forces Retirement Home's criteria for significant regulations.

Dated: March 17, 2011.

Steve McManus,

Acting Chief Operating Officer, Armed Forces Retirement Home.

[FR Doc. 2011-7719 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8250-01-M
(No. 7089

#### Bowman Products Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 17, 1973.*

Cardóse and Cardóse, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                        5189
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               112400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            150000
<PP&E>                                       73669
<DEPRECIATION>                               41130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              300128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     24047141
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    166929
<OTHER-SE>                               (23913942)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                300128
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            112400
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2034495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           3940206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            395933
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2409825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (8668059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (8668059)
<DISCONTINUED>                              510000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (8158059)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.24)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

We have issued our report dated January 31, 2006, except for note 13 for which the date is February 3, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements of VitalStream Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this "Form 10-K"). We hereby consent to inclusion of said report in this Form 10-K and the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of VitalStream Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8, File No. 333-82218 and on Form S-2, file No. 333-117456.

 

 

 

 

ROSE, SNYDER & JACOBS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         607,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  343,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                   130,644
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,723,712
<PP&E>                                         648,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                 280,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,373,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          271,162
<BONDS>                                         34,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,153
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,057,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,373,641
<SALES>                                        583,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,396
<CGS>                                           42,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,442,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (856,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (856,554)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (856,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1




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
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David M. McClanahan, Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, that:





1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
      David M. McClanahanDavid
      M. McClanahanChairman
      (Principal Executive Officer)March
      11, 2009
#### Hugh Doak, appellee, v. James Reynolds et al., appellants.

Filed April 6, 1899.

No. 8853.

Executions: Appraisement: List op Liens. If in the appraisement of real estate preliminary to a sale thereof under execution or to carry out a decree of foreclosure no incumbrances are deducted, that no certificates of liens were obtained or filed is not a forceful objection for a defendant, the owner of the equity, to confirmation of the sale; but if incumbrances are deducted, certificates of the liens must be obtained and the copy of the appraisement, inclusive of applications for certificates of liens and the certificates, filed with the clerk of the district court prior to the advertisement of notice of the sale.

Appeal from the district court of Harlan county. Heard below before Beall, J.

*Reversed.*

*R. L. Keester,*for appellants.

*JoJm*Everson, *contra.*

Harrison, C. J.

In this, an action in the district court of Harlan county to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, a decree was rendered and an order of sale of the premises, subjected to the operation of the lien, was issued, pursuant to the directions of which the sheriff of said county made a sale of the property, and after his return of the order objections to the confirmation of the sale were filed. On hearing, these objections were overruled and the sale confirmed. From the order of confirmation this appeal has been perfected.

*394The sale was of date March *2,*1896. The first publication of the notice of the sale was on January 30, 1896. One of the objections to the sale was that the requisite certificates of liens were not deposited or filed with the clerk of the district court prior to the publication of the notice of sale. The record discloses that the certificates of liens were filed March 2, 1896, the date of sale. It is provided by statute: “The officer holding such appraisement shall forthwith deposit a copy thereof, including his application to the officers enumerated in section three of this act, and their official certificates as in said section pro Added, in the office of the clerk of the court from which such execution issued.” (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 491rl) The provisions of the law are mandatory, and that they be observed is essential. *(Burkett v. Clark,*46 Neb. 466; *First Nat. Bank of Broken Bow v. Hamer,*51 Neb. 23; *Reuland v. Waugh,*52 Neb. 358; *Walker v. Patch,*52 Neb. 763.) It is true that where no incumbrances are deducted and no certificates of liens are obtained or filed, the defendants, owners of the equity, have no good reason to object, for it is not prejudicial; but if incumbrances are deducted, the certificates should be obtained and a copy of the appraisement, inclusive of applications for certificates and the certificates, filed at the prescribed time. *(Burkett v. Clark, supra.)*

There were other errors, or, to say the least, irregularities in the requisite preliminary proceedings of the sale, to which there were objections, which are now urged, but Ave do not deem it necessary to discuss them at this time. The order of confirmation must be reversed and the cause remanded. The sale should be set aside.

Reversed and remanded.
§ 642.26 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant? ( a ) The Secretary sets the amount of a grant on the basis of— ( 1 ) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for a new grant; and
( 2 ) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second year of a project period.
( b ) The Secretary uses the available funds to set the amount of the grant at the lesser of— ( 1 ) 170,000; or
( 2 ) The amount requested by the applicant.
[75 FR 65774, Oct. 26, 2010]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 185

 199

 238

 259

 300

 317

 341

 344

 335

 398

 424

 438

 411

 442

 376

 309

 323

 331

 344

 383

 374

 297

 262

 259

 279

 320

 371

 357

 281

 264

 275

 156

 164

 184

 181

 178

 173

 172

 170

 167

 163

 166

 166

 176

 164

 164

 166

 156

 155

 159

 162

 162

 167

 173

 174

 174

 178

 190

 191

 195

 194

 199

 169

 179

 201

 209

 223

 230

 257

 248

 243

 241

 270

 276

 284

 270

 238

 217

 212

 214

 221

 238

 242

 214

 210

 215

 226

 242

 266

 247

 233

 223

 230

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 1, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 120

 127

 140

 145

 154

 158

 175

 169

 166

 165

 183

 187

 192

 183

 163

 150

 147

 148

 153

 163

 166

 148

 146

 149

 156

 166

 180

 169

 160

 154

 158

TOTAL 7,188

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
Scoping Workshop Public Meeting on Plans for Developing

Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

January 24, 2007 - Washington, DC

DOE Actions in response to requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Sec. 325 of EPCA as revised by .

Sec. 135 of EPACT 2005 (Public Law No. 109-58)

(u) BATTERY CHARGER AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLY

ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION.-(1)(A) Not later than 18 months

after August 8, 2005, the Secretary shall, after providing notice and an

opportunity for comment, prescribe, by rule, definitions and test procedures

for the power use of battery chargers and external power supplies.

(B) In establishing the test procedures under subparagraph (A), the Secretary

shall: (i) consider existing definitions and test procedures used for measuring

energy consumption in standby mode and other modes; and

(42 U.S.C. 6295(u) (1) (A) and (B)(i), emphasis added)

(ii) assess the current and projected future market for battery chargers and

external power supplies.

(C) The assessment under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall include-

(i) estimates of the significance of potential energy savings from technical

improvements to battery chargers and external power supplies; and

(ii) suggested product classes for energy conservation standards.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(u) (1) (B) (ii) and (C), emphasis added)

(D) Not later than 18 months after August 8, 2005, the Secretary shall hold a

scoping workshop to discuss and receive comments on plans for developing

energy conservation standards for energy use for battery chargers and

external power supplies.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(D), emphasis added)

(E)(i) Not later than 3 years after August 8, 2005, the Secretary shall issue a

final rule that determines whether energy conservation standards shall be

issued for battery chargers and external power supplies or classes of battery

chargers and external power supplies.

(42 US.C 6295(u)(1)(E)(i), emphasis added)

(ii) For each product class, any energy conservation standards issued under

clause (i) shall be set at the lowest level of energy use that- (I) meets the

criteria and procedures of subsections (o), (p), (q), (r), (s), and (t) of this

section; and (II) would result in significant overall annual energy savings,

considering standby mode and other operating modes.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(ii))

DOE Action

En Masse Test Procedure

NOPR: 7/25/06

Final Rule: 12/8/06

(Deadline: 2/8/07)

"Current and Projected

Future Market for BCs and

EPSs" Web-published

12/29/06 for Scoping

Workshop.

Scoping Workshop held

1/24/07. "Plans for

Developing a Energy

Conservation Standards"

Web-published 12/29/06

for Scoping Workshop.

(Deadline: 2/8/07)

Determination Analysis on

BCs and EPSs

(Deadline: 8/8/08)

(Only implemented if a

positive determination)

 EERE-2006-DET-0136 COMMENT 17.4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VINCENT YANT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 245 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of September, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2057

___________ Wendell Dwayne O’Neal, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Nina C. Cook, Unknown Manager or * Supervision Employee; Radisson Hotel; * City of St. Paul; Manuel Cervantes; * John J. Choi; Yileng Vang; Capital City * Properties, 345 St. Peters Street, * Appeals from the United States Landmark Towers, St. Paul, * District Court for the Minnesota 55102; St. Paul Port * District of Minnesota. Authority Prpty.; Unknown Manager; * Unknown Security Person, 701 Carlson * [UNPUBLISHED] Parkway, Minnetonka, Minnesota * 55305; Shari Moore; Crestline Hotel * Mgmt.; Carlson, jointly; severally; * and, as agents; principal, municipality * and officially, * * Appellees. * *

___________ No. 09-2059

___________ Wendell Dwayne O’Neal, * * Appellant, * *-2- v. * * City of St. Paul; Yileng Vang, P.O.; * Ramsey County, a municipality; Susan * Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney; * Patricia Leski, Claims Administrator; * Bob Fletcher, Ramsey Sheriff; Greg * Slatter, Ramsey Sheriff Deputy; * Unknown Ramsey Dpty. Sheriff, * Records Department (Administration), * * Appellees. * *

___________ No. 09-2060

___________ Wendell Dwayne O’Neal, * * Appellant, * * v. * * City of St. Paul, a municipality; Manuel * Cervantes, former St. Paul Attorney; * Teresa Skarda, Chief Asst. Atty. Crim. * Div.; Andrea Miller, Asst. City * Attorney; George T. Stephenson, Jdg. * 2nd Jdcl. Dist. Court; John J. Choi; * Jessica McConnelly, St. Paul Chief of * Police; Ramsey County, a municipality; * Mr. Gill, Sprvsr., Ramsey Pub Dfndr. * Office; Autumn X. Nelson, Ramsey * Public Defender; Unknown Student *1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -3- Attorney, jointly, severally, officially as * agents and municipalities, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 17, 2009 Filed: December 11, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Wende ll O’Neal challenges adverse judgments entered in three separate acti ons, all of which asserted clai ms arising from alleged civil rights and other violations in connection with O’Neal’s arrest and conviction for trespassing in August 2005, and hi s subsequent efforts to obt ain records related to the incident. Following careful review of the district court’s 1 judgments and O’Neal’s arguments on appeal, we find no basis for re versal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. O’Neal’s pending motions are denied.

______________________________