alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Rose Antinori et al., Defendants. Charles Ross, Appellant.

Gen. No. 41,019.

Opinion filed July 2, 1940.

Maurice L. Zaretsky, of Chicago, for appellant.

Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for appellee; Marshall V. Kearney, Jacob Shamberg, John T. Fitzgerald, Louis A. Pinderski and Brendan Q. O’Brien, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Charles Boss, appealing, questions the ruling of the trial court which refused him leave to file his petition *225in which he attacked the action of the county treasurer in refusing to accept his bids at a tax foreclosure sale.

The foreclosure proceedings were pursuant to § § 238-252 of the Revenue Act of Illinois as amended, ch. 120, pars. 719-733, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1939 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 119.735-119.749], and the decree of foreclosure and sale was entered June 29, 1939. Ross was not a party to these proceedings.

The petition alleged that the sale was conducted by the county treasurer through his representative, Edward Bicek; that the petitioner through his counsel attended the sale and made the highest and best bids for the following parcels of real estate: Parcel No. 2, $3,150; parcel 12, $1,350; parcel 14, $6,250. The petition alleges that these parcels were sold to petitioner, who offered Bicek cashier’s checks as follows: $350 for parcel 2, $150 for parcel 12, and $750 for parcel 14; that Bicek refused to accept these unless the full amounts of petitioner’s bids were paid then and there.

In *People v. Cant,*260 Ill. 497, 500, the court held that the usual practice in the foreclosing of tax liens under the Revenue Act was to decree a sale for cash to the highest bidder. The decree of foreclosure in the instant case ordered the county treasurer to sell the parcels of real estate at public auction for cash. The publication of the notice of sale stated that the sale should be for cash and chapter 120 (Illinois Revenue Act) § 247 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 119.744] provides that sales in foreclosures for delinquent taxes shall be for cash. The petitioner contends that he was entitled to withhold the balance of his bids until after the confirmation of the sale by the court. This would be unreasonable. A “cash” sale means payment in full at the time, in currency or its equivalent. The county treasurer could not under the terms of the decree accept a bid with partial payment on account and a promise to pay the balance at some future time. The decree contemplates that the sale shall be, in fact, accomplished before the *226county treasurer submits Ms report of sale to the court.

The petition filed did not present any issue to be tried by the court and the refusal to permit it to be filed was proper and the order is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

O’Connor, P. J., and Matchett, J., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.88 Proposals for legislation.

The Commission will, as a matter of policy, follow the provisions of 40 CFR 1506.8 regarding the NEPA process for proposals for legislation.
PGI 237.171-3 Policy.       (b)(i) *Geographic areas of responsibility.* With regard to training for contractor personnel interacting with detainees—          (A) The Commander, U.S. Southern Command, is responsible for the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.          (B) The Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, is responsible for the Navy Consolidated Brig, Charleston, SC.          (C) The other combatant commander geographic areas of responsibility are identified in the Unified Command Plan, 1 March 2005, which can be found at: http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/.          (ii) *Point of contact information for each command:*          US Central Command (USCENTCOM)          Commander, Combined Forces Land Component Commander (CFLCC) a.k.a. Third Army, Ft. McPherson, Atlanta, GA          Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) Forward, Kuwait          POC: Lieutenant Colonel Gary Kluka          E-mail: Gary.Kluka@arifjan.arcent.army.mil          Comm: 011-965-389-6303; DSN: 318-430-6303; Alt. US numbers: 404-464-3721 or 404-464-4219          US European Command (USEUCOM)          Logistics and Security Assistance Directorate          Chief, Contingency Contracting and Contract Policy Division (USEUCOM J4-LS)          POC: Major Michael Debreczini debreczm@eucom.smil.mil          Comm: 011-49-711-680-7202; DSN: 314-0430-7202          US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM)          **Applicable to potential detainees in the United States at Navy Consolidated Brig, Charleston, SC          Headquarters, USJFCOM (J355)          Personnel Recovery & Special Operations Division (J355)          POC: Lieutenant Colonel John Maraia          Comm: 757-836-5799; DSN: 836-5799          US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM)          Not applicable to USNORTHCOM; see US Joint Forces Command          US Pacific Command (USPACOM)          Headquarters, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)          Deputy Staff Judge Advocate          POC: Lieutenant Colonel James Buckels, USAF james.buckels@pacom.mil          Comm: 808-477-1193          US Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM)          Headquarters, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)          Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay          POC: Lieutenant Commander Tony Dealicante          DealicanteTF@JTFGTMO.southcom.mil          Comm: 011-5399-9916; DSN: 660-9916          US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)          Headquarters, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)          Attn: Staff Judge Advocate          POC: Colonel Dana Chipman chipmad@socom.mil          Comm: 813-828-3288; DSN: 299-3288    **Parent topic:** PGI 237.171 Training for contractor personnel interacting with detainees.
§ 611.107 Loan terms. ( a ) All loans provided under this part shall be due and payable in full at the earlier of: ( 1 ) the projected life, in years, of the Eligible facility that is built or installed as a result of the Eligible Project carried out using funds from the loan, as determined by the Secretary; or
( 2 ) Twenty-five (25) years after the date the loan is closed.
( b ) Loans provided under the Part must bear a rate of interest that is equal to the rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturity. This rate will be determined separately for each drawdown of the loan.
( c ) A loan provided under this part may be subject to a deferral in repayment of principal for not more than 5 years after the date on which the Eligible facility that is built or installed as a result of the Eligible Project first begins operations, as determined by the Secretary.
( d ) ( 1 ) The performance of all of the Borrower's obligations under the Loan Documents shall be secured by, and shall have the priority in, such Security as provided for within the terms and conditions of the Loan Documents.
( 2 ) Accordingly, the rule states that the Secretary must have a first lien or security interest in all property acquired with loan funds. This requirement may be waived only by the Secretary on a non-delegable basis. DOE must also have a lien on any other property of the applicant pledged to secure the loan.
( 3 ) In the event of default, if recoveries from the property and revenues pledged to the repayment of the loan are insufficient to fully repay all principal and interest on the loan, then the Federal Government will have recourse to the assets and revenues of the Borrower to the same extent as senior unsecured general obligations of the Borrower.
( e ) The Borrower will be required to pay at the time of the closing of the loan a fee equal to 10 basis points of the principal amount of the loan.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 923 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 923

                To repeal the Cybersecurity Act of 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

   Mr. Amash (for himself, Mr. Massie, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
Polis, and Mr. Emmer) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to 
 the Committees on Homeland Security, Intelligence (Permanent Select), 
  Armed Services, the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Science, Space, and 
 Technology, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                To repeal the Cybersecurity Act of 2015.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2015.

    The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (division N of Public Law 114-113) 
and the amendments made by such Act are repealed, and the provisions of 
law amended by such Act are hereby restored as if such Act had not been 
enacted into law.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

    In the table of contents of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2016 (Public Law 114-113), strike the item relating to division N.
                                 <all>
```
226 So.2d 769

#### Austin B. WISE v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN et al.

No. 49995.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: The Travelers Insurance Company and Superior Casing Crews, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Assumption. 224 So.2d 33.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3108

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Leo G. Willis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 4, 1998 

 Filed: February 9, 1998

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leo G. Willis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his 1

guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Willis&s counsel

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising errors

related to the district court&s criminal history calculation; counsel has moved to

withdraw. We affirm.
-2-

Reviewing the district court&s construction and interpretation of Chapter Four of

the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines de novo, see United States v. Jones, 87 F.3d 247, 248

(8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 374 (1996), we agree that the

convictions represented in paragraphs 53 and 55 of Willis&s presentence report were

separate, as the offenses occurred a year apart, were separated by an intervening arrest,

and were prosecuted under separate docket numbers. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3) (1997); United States v. Aguilera, 48 F.3d 327, 330

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 117 (1995); United States v. McComber, 996 F.2d

946, 947 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam).

We also agree that--because Willis stipulated to his participation in the

conspiracy from October 1994 until July 1996, and because he was sentenced on his

state convictions in September 1995 and paroled in January 1996--Willis committed

the present offense while he was under a criminal justice sentence, and within two

years after his release from imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.1(d),(e) (1997); cf. United States v. Early, 77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th Cir.1996) (per

curiam) (defendant who did not challenge plea agreement was bound by stipulations

therein); United States v. Tolson, 988 F.2d 1494, 1499-1501 (7th Cir. 1993) (defendant

who pleaded guilty to conspiracy spanning specific dates properly received criminal

history points under § 4A1.1(d) for committing conspiracy while on probation).

Having carefully reviewed counsel’s submission and the record in accordance

with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Counsel&s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court

is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
2007-1468.

#### State v. Cruzado.

Lorain App. No. 06CA008952, 2007-Ohio-3120. Discretionary appeal accepted; cause held for the decision in 2007-0052, *State v. Simpkins,*Cuyahoga App. No. 87692, 2006-Ohio-6028; and briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
Webinar Attendees: The Commercial/Industrial Pumps Working Group Meeting

Meeting Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Email

Johnson, Erica N/A Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL)

902 Battelle Blvd Richland WA 99354 N/A N/A

Menzer, Mark Director of Public 

Meeting Affairs

Danfoss 11655 Crossroads Circle Baltimore MD 21220-2863 410-931-6779 N/A

Rivest, Michael C. Managing Director Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street, NW, 

Suite 700

Washington DC 20036 202-973-2426 202-973-2401

Sdano, Arnold R. Chief Engineer Pentair Engineered Flow 3601 Fairbanks Avenue Kansas City KS 66106 913-748-4152 913-748-4039

Vuppuluri, Prem N/A N/A 2455 George Washington 

Way

Richland WA 99354 N/A N/A
#### Adam W. Miller, Appellee, v. Elmer H. Odell, Appellant.

Gen. No. 9,570.

*296opinion filed June 28, 1940;

rehearing denied August 1, 1940.

F. A. Ortman and Adsit, Thompson & Herr, for appellant; Neale Hanley and Baker, Niven & Crabtree, for appellee.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Wolfe.

“Not to be published in full.”
§ 709.23 Obtaining consent to a polygraph examination. DOE may not administer a polygraph examination unless DOE: ( a ) Notifies the covered person of the polygraph examination in writing in accordance with § 709.21 of this part; and
( b ) Obtains written consent from the covered person prior to the polygraph examination.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 923 

To repeal the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. AMASH (for himself, Mr. MASSIE, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. 

POLIS, and Mr. EMMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition 

to the Committees on Homeland Security, Intelligence (Permanent Select), Armed Services, the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Science, Space, and 

Technology, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2015. 

4 The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (division N of Public 

5 Law 114–113) and the amendments made by such Act 

6 are repealed, and the provisions of law amended by such 

7 Act are hereby restored as if such Act had not been en8 acted into law. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 923 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

2 In the table of contents of the Consolidated Appro3 priations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114–113), strike the item 

4 relating to division N. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
AP9 R04

- 30

- 92 S: \ FormsLib \ Civil Bureau \ Civil Courts & Post Judg ment \ Post Trial \ Appeal Status Card Revised 01

- 18

- 2013 R **DATE 3/26/2015** 

**NOTICE OF APPEALS**

**ASSIGNMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS** 

**TO: 1ST**  **COURT OF APPEALS**

**From: Deputy Clerk:**  **MICHELLE LOPEZ** 

**Chris Daniel, District Clerk**

**Harris County, T E X A S**



## CAUSE **: 2010** 

**- 21712** 

**VOLUME PAGE**  **OR IMAGE #**  **64463315**

**DUE 4/3/2015**  **ATTORNEY 20981000** 

**NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 1ST** 

**DATE JUDGMENT SIGNED: 2/27/2015** 

**MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DATE FILED n/a** 

**REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED n/a** 

**NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 3/25/2015** 

**NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 10** 

**FILE ORDERED :**  **YES NO**  **IMAGED FILED: YES**  **NO**

**CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: D, O**  **A**

CHRIS DANIEL

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/ MICHELLE LOPEZ

**MICHELLE LOPEZ**  **, Deputy**

**BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED** 

**BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED** 

**– GOVERNMENT** 

**C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED** 

**D**

**- ACCELERATED APPEAL** 

**OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED** 

**O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL** )

**NA AMENDED**  **NOTICE OF APPEAL**

# J WEB I NT 65.10 CIVIL SYSTEM │ CIVIL CASE INTAKE │ MARCH 26, 2015 LOPEZ, MICHELLE ASHLEY 

## INT 65.10

(2) CONNECTION(S) FOUND.

CASE NUM: PJN: TRANS NUM: CURRENT COURT:

CASE TYPE: CASE STATUS:

STYLE: VS

PJN PER/CONN NO COC BAR PERSON NAME



### g **f e**  **d c**  **b**

**g f**  **e d**  **c b** 



### Submit Query 

### 1 Total Pages 

### Submit Query **Submit Query Submit Query**  **Submit Query 6**  

### 1 **Submit Query Submit Query**  **Submit Query Submit Query** 

INACTIVE ATY INQ ACT ENTRY ISS SERV DOC

PTY ADDR

Harris County Information Technology Center (ITC) Justice Applications 

## Page 1 of 1 Harris County (JWEB) Justice Applications (INT6510)

3/ 26/ 2015 http://civil.jweb.harriscountytx.gov/INT/INT6510.aspx?GV_CASE_NUM=201021712
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 611 

Condemning, in the strongest possible terms, Iranian President Mahmoud 

Ahmadinejad’s outrageous and despicable statements directed toward Israel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2005 

Mr. DENT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning, in the strongest possible terms, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s outrageous and despicable 

statements directed toward Israel. 

Whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran has, in the past, threatened Israel with nuclear attack and has aggressively pursued a clandestine effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons; 

Whereas Iran funds, trains, and openly supports terrorist 

groups that are determined to destroy Israel; 

Whereas on October 26, 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared that 

‘‘Israel must be wiped off the map’’, described Israel as 

‘‘a disgraceful blot [on] the face of the Islamic world’’, 

and declared that ‘‘[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will 

burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury’’; and 
2 

•HRES 611 IH 

Whereas on December 14, 2005, President Ahmadinejad continued his relentless attack on Israel by saying that the 

Holocaust was a myth and that the Jewish state should 

be moved to Europe or North America; Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) condemns, in the strongest possible terms, 

3 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s out4 rageous and despicable statements directed toward 

5 Israel and demands that he repudiate them; 

6 (2) reaffirms the unwavering alliance between 

7 the United States and Israel and reasserts the com8 mitment of the United States to defend the right of 

9 Israel to exist as a free and democratic state in the 

10 Middle East; 

11 (3) condemns, in the strongest possible terms, 

12 those world leaders such as Iranian President 

13 Ahmadinejad who espouse or encourage anti-Semi14 tism; and 

15 (4) reaffirms the existence of the Holocaust as 

16 an historical event and condemns those who deny 

17 that it occurred. 

Æ
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.9

     

    
 

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 18 TO THE

     

    ALLTEL
      CORPORATION

     

    SEVERANCE
      PAY PLAN

     

    Effective
      as of July 16, 2006, the Alltel Corporation Severance Pay Plan is amended in
      the
      following respects: 

     

    1.
      Section I (8) of the Plan is amended to add the following new paragraph to
      the
      end thereof:

     

    "Pursuant
      to the Employee Benefits Agreement by and between Alltel Corporation and Alltel
      Holding Corp. dated as of December 8, 2005, a Participant shall not experience
      a
      QTE and the Participant shall not become entitled to a benefit under the Plan
      solely by reason of any transaction or series of transactions contemplated
      by
      the Distribution Agreement by and between Alltel Corporation and Alltel Holding
      Corp. dated as of December 8, 2005 and the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
      as
      of December 8, 2005, among Alltel Corporation, Alltel Holding Corp. and Valor
      Communications Group, Inc." 

     

    2. Section
      XVII (2) of the Plan is amended to add the following new paragraph to the end
      thereof:

     

    "Pursuant
      to the Employee Benefits Agreement by and between Alltel Corporation and Alltel
      Holding Corp. dated as of December 8, 2005, a Participant shall not experience
      a
      SQTE and the Participant shall not become entitled to a benefit under the Plan
      solely by reason of any transaction or series of transactions contemplated
      by
      the Distribution Agreement by and between Alltel Corporation and Alltel Holding
      Corp. dated as of December 8, 2005 and the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
      as
      of December 8, 2005, among Alltel Corporation, Alltel Holding Corp. and Valor
      Communications Group, Inc."

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the date first set
      forth
      above. 

     

    ALLTEL
      CORPORATION 

    


    


    


    By:
      /s/ Scott T. Ford                

    Name: 
      Scott T. Ford

    Title:   
      President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81318-81319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32373]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Express Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Postal Service notice of filing of a request with the Postal 
Regulatory

[[Page 81319]]

Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of 
Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's 
Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).

DATES: December 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[reg] hereby 
gives notice that on December 16, 2010, it filed with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to 
Add Express Mail Contract 10 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at http://www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2011-12, CP2011-48.

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2010-32373 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P