alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Law Office of the 

COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2650 S. CALIFORNIA • 7TM FLOOR • CHICAGO, IL 60608 • TEL: 773.869.3217 or 6989 • FAX: 773.869.3247 

Hon. Abishi C. Cunningham, Jr. (Ret.) • Public Defender 

November 16, 2010 

Mr. Brij Patnaik, Esq. 

Jenner & Block 

353 North Clark, 41st Fir. 

Chicago, Illinois 60610 

Dear Mr. Patnaik: 

Enclosed please find copies of the Adam Gray, file you 

requested. We were unsuccessful in locating the complete 

file. Therefore, I am sending you copies of all documents in 

our possession. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 773/869.3412 

(secretary) or 869.6989 (main number). 

Sincerely , 

yL^trm/ ft. - ^ -. — 

CRYSTAL H. MARCHIGIANI, Chief . ^ 

Homicide Task Force 

jca 

\

End, 

Case: 1:12-cv-01743 Document #: 30-4 Filed: 07/12/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:378
Case: 1:12-cr-00146 Document #: 5 Filed: 04/03/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:41
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge George M. Marovich Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1463 DATE 3/12/2012

CASE

TITLE

Willis v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Petitioner Walter Willis’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis [4] is denied. His motion [5] for

appointment of counsel is denied. 

 

 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Frequent litigator Walter Willis (“Willis”) seeks leave to file in forma pauperis his complaint against

defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). For his complaint, Willis filled

out and filed the court’s form complaint for violation of constitutional rights. Although Willis’s allegations

are not entirely clear, he alleges that Lawrence Stunkel (who is not a defendant but seems to have been an

attorney at Hines VA Hospital) violated Willis’s privacy rights by releasing medical records. Willis seeks to

hold HHS liable because it “knew what Stunkel had done and did nothing about it.”

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, when determining whether a petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis, the

Court engages in a two-step analysis. First, the Court examines whether the petitioner has sufficiently

demonstrated that he is impoverished within the meaning of the statute. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). Second, the Court considers whether the complaint is frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

25, 31 (1992); Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 324. 

The Court denies Willis’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, because he failed to answer all of the

questions on the in forma pauperis application. Specifically, Willis failed to answer question 2.b., which

concerns his most recent employment. The Court will not grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis without a

complete application. Because the Court is denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court also

denies Willis’s motion for appointment of counsel.

The Court also notes that if it had granted Willis leave to proceed without paying the filing fee, it

would have had to dismiss the case immediately. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must dismiss any

case if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court

interprets Willis’s complaint to be a Bivens claim against HHS. The problem, though, is that one cannot

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

bring a Bivens suit against a federal agency. Federal Dep’t Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). The

Court cannot decipher any other claim against HHS 

The Court also notes that it is aware that Willis has filed other complaints related to the alleged

conduct of Lawrence Stunkel (“Stunkel”). On the day he filed this complaint, Willis filed two other

complaints (case 12 C 1450 before Judge Pallmeyer and case 12 C 1452 before Judge Norgle) arising out of

Stunkel’s conduct. This Court agrees with Judge Pallmeyer’s admonition that Willis may file only one

lawsuit arising out of any transaction or occurrence. 

Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $37,382,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $3,738,200 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).

# DATES:

January 21, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Grengs (202-326-2612), Bureau of Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination.

Authority:15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5)

April J. Tabor,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-01172 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
#### In the Matter of Anne M. Litof, Respondent, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and Robert M. Weitz, Appellant.

In a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law: (1) to invalidate a petition designating Robert M. Weitz as a candidate of the Democratic party in the primary election to be held June 2, 1964 for the public office of Member of the Assembly in the Twelfth Assembly District, Queens County; and (2) for other related relief, in which the said designee Weitz interposed a counterclaim to validate certain signatures on the designating petition, he appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 25, 1964 after a hearing, which granted the application, and which *inter alia*invalidated the designating petition, and dismissed his counterclaim. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs; and judgment directed denying the application (to invalidate the designating petition), granting the counterclaim of the designee Weitz to validate certain signatures on the petition, and declaring the petition to be valid. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. We find that there was insufficient proof to establish that any fraud or deception was practiced upon any subscriber to the petition or that any subscriber was actually deceived. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**CYoshitomi - Department of Education Regulatory Negotiations**

**Conference Agenda**

**Topic 1:   DOE Regulatory Negotiations: Accreditation - Alternative Standards and Waivers Part C**

Should institutions be required to meet minimum performance requirements (such as no outstanding program reviews, sufficient financial responsibility scores, or sufficient cohort default rates), in order to qualify for waivers?

FacilitatePro Conference Report
§ 634.22 Termination or denial of registration. Installation commanders or their designated representatives will terminate POV registration or deny initial registration under the following conditions (decal and tabs will be removed from the vehicle when registration is terminated): ( a ) The owner fails to comply with the registration requirements.
( b ) The owner sells or disposes of the POV, is released from active duty, separated from the Service, or terminates civilian employment with a military Service or DOD agency. Army and Air Force personnel on a permanent change of station will retain the DD Form 2220 if the vehicle is moved to their new duty station.
( c ) The owner is other than an active duty military or civilian employee and discontinues regular operations of the POV on the installation.
( d ) The owner's state, overseas command, or host nation driver's license is suspended or revoked, or the installation driving privilege is revoked. Air Force does not require removal of the DD Form 2220 when driving privileges are suspended for an individual. When vehicle registration is terminated in conjunction with the revocation of installation driving privileges, the affected person must apply to re-register the POV after the revocation expires. Registration should not be terminated if other family members having installation driving privileges require use of the vehicle.
#### Jody Stashin, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Dorothy Weinstein, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services and medical expenses, the City of New York and certain other of the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made January 21,1964 on the court’s own motion after a pretrial hearing, which granted plaintiffs a preference in trial pursuant to rule 8 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules, and directed that the action be placed on the Ready Day Calendar for a date certain. Order reversed, without costs, and preference vacated, without prejudice to a future application for a preference in trial, if plaintiffs be so advised. In our opinion, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that at the pretrial hearing defendants acted arbitrarily and not in good faith with respect to settlement of the action. If so advised, plaintiffs may apply for a preference under rule 8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, either upon papers on a formal motion for such relief or upon some *686stenographic or other iecord indicating adequate grounds for. the granting of a preference *(Wolff*v. *Laverne, Inc.,*17 A D 2d 213). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00153-CV

IN RE Daniel ALDERETE, JR., Relator

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 14, 2024

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 26, 2024, relator filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. This court has 

determined the relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition for a writ of 

mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

PER CURIAM

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016-CI-05227, styled Analisa M. Alderete v. Daniel Alderete, Jr., in the 

37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Nadine Melissa Nieto presiding.
1 

Issue #10 - Direct Loan IDR Repayment Simplification 

Issue and Proposed Solution 

• Current Direct loan IDR plans provide helpful relief to borrowers having difficulty making 

payment. 

• Loan servicers have extensive experience with providing IDR plans to assist borrowers with 

making payment and prevent loan default. 

• The primary problem with existing plans is the complexity due to overlapping and confusing 

plan feature variations each with its own nuances (e.g., payment calculation, qualifications, 

enrollment criteria, forgiveness period).

• The complexity negatively impacts borrower understanding of repayment plan options which 

requires lengthy and complex forms and communications (e.g., currently a 10 page IDR 

application). 

• Combining the best features of the existing Direct loan income-driven repayment plans into a 

single plan for Direct loan borrowers (summarized below) is the right next step to resolving 

the complexity and improving borrower understating of the income driven repayment option. 

New ICR Plan Summary

Feature New Plan Requirement

Eligible loans Direct, except parent PLUS. Consolidated parent 

PLUS that are subsequently re-consolidated may 

qualify.

Partial financial hardship (PFH) No requirement to demonstrate a hardship.

Discretionary income Amount by which income exceeds 150% of 

Poverty Guideline. Includes spouse income if 

taxes filed jointly, unless separated, or cannot 

access spouse’s income.

Family size Includes spouse, unless spouse income is excluded 

(i.e., separated, or cannot access spouse’s income).

IDR payment 10% of discretionary income.

Maximum payment cap for increased 

income 

Payment may not exceed 10-year standard 

payment using balance at start of plan.

Untimely recertification 10-year standard payment using balance at start of 

plan.

Recertification frequency Annual.

Leaving and changing of plans May change plans any time. No catch-up payment 

when IDR resumes.

Interest capitalization during IDR and 

when leaving IDR

No capitalization for failure to recertify or change 

plans.

Interest capitalization at end of 

deferment or forbearance

No capitalization after forbearance. Capitalization 

after deferment (i.e., according to issue #3).

Interest capitalization limit Not to exceed 10% of the loan balance when the 

loan enters the IDR plan.
2 

Feature New Plan Requirement

Interest subsidy Subsidized loans: 100% of unpaid interest for first 

consecutive 3 years when payment calculation is 

less than accrued interest. 50% thereafter.

Unsubsidized loans: 50% of unpaid interest when 

payment calculation is less than accrued interest.

Loan forgiveness 20 years of qualified Direct loan repayment.
----- F o r wa r ded b y B r i an S h r a g e r / R T P / U S E PA

/ U S on 02 / 18 / 2011 03 : 04 PM

-----

F r o m: " B u f

f, Da v e " < D B u f

f @ G O LD E R

. c o m> T o: " E c h o l s , M abel E

. " < M abel

_ E

.

_ Ec hol s @ o m b

. eop

. go v> C c: J i m E dd i nge r / R T P / U SEP A

/ U S @ E P A

, Br ian S h r age r / R T P / U S EP A

/ U S @ EPA Da t e: 02 / 16 / 2011 10 : 23 AM S ubje c t: S uga r I n du s t ry

- O MB M ee t ing F eb

. 15 ( 2)

Ms

. Ec hol s , a tt a c hed i s t he r e m ainin g do c u m en t p r o v ided a t t he m ee t ing.

Da v id A

. B u f

f, P

. E

. , Q

. E

. P

. | Pr in c i p al E ng i nee r | G o lde r A ss o c ia t es I n c. 602 6 N W 1 s t P l a c e , G a i ne sv ille

, F lo r id a , U S A 32607 T e l : + 1 ( 35 2 ) 33 6

- 5600 e x t. 2 1145 F a x : + 1 ( 3 5 2 ) 3 3 6

- 6603 | Cel l : + 1 352 514

- 5 6 00 | E : dbu ff @ gol d e r

. c om | www

. golde r

. c om

W o r k S a f

e , Ho m e S a fe

T h i s e m ai l t r an sm i ss ion i s c on f id e n t i a l a nd m a y c on t ain p r op r ie t a ry in f o rm a t ion f

o r t he e x c l u s i v e u s e o f t he in t ende d r e c ip i en t

. A n y u s e, di s t r ibu t ion o r c op y ing o f t hi s t r an sm i ss ion

, o t h e r t han b y t h e i n t en d ed

r e c ipi e n t

, i s s t r i c t l y p r oh i bi t ed

. I f y ou a r e no t t he in t ended

r e c ipi e n t

, plea s e no t i f

y t he s e nde r and dele t e all c opie s

. E le c t r onic

m edia i s s u s c e p t i b le t o unau t ho r i z e d m odi f i c a t ion

, de t e r io r a t ion

, a nd in c o m pa t ibi l i t y

. A cc o r din g l y , t he ele c t r o ni c m ed i a v e rs ion o f an y wo rk p r odu c t m a y no t be r elied upon.

P lea s e c on s ide r t h e e n v i r on m en t be f o r e p r in t ing t hi s e m a il.

( S e e a tt a c hed f i le : F S I B o i le r M A C T Rep o r t. pd f)

### T h e r

e p o r t

, “ B O I L E R M A C T R E P O R T : Ba g ass e B o il e rs S h o u l d b e R

e g u l a t e d i n a S e p ara t e Sub c a t e g o r y und e r t h e B o il e r M A C T R u l e s B e c a u s e t h ey ar e a U n i qu e Cl ass o f B

o il e rs ” c a n b e f o und a t

E P A

- H Q- O A R- 2002

- 0058

- 18 4 1
§ 536.29 Revision of filed claims. ( a ) *General.* A revision or change of a previously filed claim may constitute an amendment or a new claim. Upon receipt, the CJA must determine whether a new claim has been filed. If so, the claim must be logged with a new number and acknowledged in accordance with § 536.27.
( b ) *New claim.* A new claim is filed whenever the writing alleges a new theory of liability, a new tortfeasor, a new party claimant, a different date or location for the claims incident, or other basic element that constitutes an allegation of a different tort not originally alleged. If the allegation is made verbally or by e-mail, the claimant will be informed in writing that a new SF 95 must be filed. A new claim must be filed not later than two years from the accrual date under the FTCA. Filing a new claim creates an additional six month period during which suit may not be filed.
( c ) *Amendment.* An increase or decrease in the amount claimed constitutes an amendment, not a new claim. Similarly, the addition of required information not on the original claim constitutes an amendment. Examples are date of birth, marital status, military status, names of witnesses, claimant's address, description, or location of property or insurance information. An amendment may be filed before or after the two year SOL has run unless final action has been taken. A new number will not be assigned to an amended claim; however, a change in the amount will be annotated in the database.
Note to § 536.29 :
See the parallel discussion at DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-8.
#### **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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Tellabs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Krish A. Prabhu, the ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| ***/s/ Krish A. Prabhu*** |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Krish  A. Prabhu          |
| Chief  Executive Officer  |
| Date:  February 28, 2006  |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
In the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

Steve A. Wilhelm, 

plaintiff,

– v –

BNSF Railway Company,

defendant.

12 cv 1893

Judge Shadur

Magistrate Judge Gilbert

Jury trial demanded

Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), plaintiff and defendant, by

their respective counsel, stipulate that this case be voluntarily dismissed with prejudice,

each party to bear its own costs and fees.

So Stipulated:

Steve A. Wilhelm,

plaintiff,

By: /s/David L. Lee 

David L. Lee, ARDC #1604422

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. LEE

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 801

Chicago, IL 60604

312-347-4400

d-lee@davidleelaw.com

Charles A. Collins (MN #17954)

CHARLES A. COLLINS, P.A.

410 Labor & Professional Center

411 Main Street

St. Paul, MN 55102

651-225-1125

chas@qwestoffice.net

BNSF Railway Company,

defendant,

By: /s/Benjamin J. Coleman 

Benjamin J. Coleman, ARDC #6303079

JONES DAY

77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3500

Chicago, IL 60601

312-269-4361

bjcoleman@jonesday.com

Case: 1:12-cv-01893 Document #: 45 Filed: 11/11/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:309
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lawrence F. Carroll, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for reconsideration of his motion to dispense with printing on his appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. Motion denied. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1553

#### Editorial Note:

Forms referenced in part 1553 do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

#### 1553.232-75 EPA Form 1900-68, notice of contract costs suspended and/or disallowed.

As prescribed in 1532.170(b), the Contracting Officer shall insert EPA Form 1900-68 in all cost-reimbursement type and fixed-rate type contracts.

[61 FR 29318, June 10, 1996]
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge - Map 2 of 3

Route 2 - Hospital Road Hunt Map

0 215 430 860 1,290 1,720

Meters

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Miles

Legend

Parking

Refuge Boundary

Shotgun, archery and primitive firearms hunting for deer, turkey, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, rabbit, and woodcock

Archery deer hunting, shotgun hunting for turkey, ruffed grouse, gray squirrel, rabbit, and woodcock

Archery hunting only for deer and turkey

Route 2
#### In the Matter of George Busking, Respondent, v. Howard Kronimus et al., Constituting the Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Massapequa Fire District, Appellants.

In a proceeding by petitioner, a volunteer fireman, pursuant to article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to annul the determination of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Massapequa Fire District, made after a hearing held pursuant to statute (General Municipal Law, § 2094), dismissing him from the local Fire Department because of misconduct, the board appeals from a judgment (denominated in the record as an order) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 24, 1963, which granted the application, annulled the determination and remanded the proceeding to the board for a new hearing. The court’s decision was based upon the ground that the board violated petitioner’s rights in denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him at the hearing. Judgment affirmed, with costs *(Matter of Hecht*v. *Monaghan,*307 N. Y. 461, 470). If a new hearing is held, it should be open to the public (cf. *Morgan*v. *United States,*304 U. S. 1,14-15; 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, § 412). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [41 Misc 2d 985.]