alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

JOSEPH ANDREW FELTON, III

Debtor(s)

Case No. 16-27013

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Tom Vaughn, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the 

administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as follows:

1) The case was filed on 08/23/2016.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was dismissed on 09/22/2016.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 0.

7) Number of months case was pending: 2.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 16-27013 Doc 20 Filed 10/25/16 Entered 10/25/16 14:31:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $0.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00

NET RECEIPTS: $0.00

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0.00

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0.00

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 16-27013 Doc 20 Filed 10/25/16 Entered 10/25/16 14:31:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $0.00

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $0.00

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 10/25/2016

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By:/s/ Tom Vaughn

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (09/01/2009)

Case 16-27013 Doc 20 Filed 10/25/16 Entered 10/25/16 14:31:48 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
#### State *vs.*Charles Hallock.

October Term, 1897.

Present: Ross, C. J., Rowell, Munson, Start and Thompson, JJ.

*Arson*— Prior *Attempts*— Motion *for Verdict.*

Evidence of previous unsuccessful attempts to commit the same crime is admissible.

In a prosecution for arson, for procuring the burning of a barn, the State may show that some six weeks before the barn was burned the house on the same premises was set on fire, in connection with evidence that the respondent had predicted that the buildings would burn and had tried to hire others to bum them.

The attempt to burn the house was also admissible as tending to show that the fire by which the barn was burned was incendiary.

The evidence of the State, although wholly circumstantial, tended to ■ prove the respondent’s guilt, and the court properly refused to direct a verdict.

Prosecution for arson. Trial by jury at the December Term, 1896, Addison County, *Tyler,*J., presiding. Verdict, guilty. The respondent excepted.

*W. W. Ryder*and *D.J. Foster*for the respondent.

*F. L. Fish,*State’s Attorney, for the State.

Thompson, J.

The respondent was convicted of arson by 'having procured one Brown to burn the bam of one Labor. Against the exception of the respondent, the State was permitted to show that about six weeks prior to the time *160when the barn was burned, the ell part of Labor’s dwelling-house, on the same premises, was set on fire. This evidence was admitted in connection with other evidence on the part of the State tending to show that before the fire in the ell part, the respondent had predicted that Labor’s buildings would burn and had tried to induce and hire other persons to burn them. The evidence also tended to show that the fire in the ell part was of incendiary origin. This evidence, with that tending to show a motive on the part of the respondent to commit the crime, had a tendency to connect him with the attempt, and if believed was pertinent upon the question of whether he participated in the burning of the barn — as a part of his scheme to burn all of Labor’s buildings, which scheme he had attempted to carry out in the unsuccessful attempt to burn the ell part. Evidence of previous unsuccessful attempts to commit the same crime for which the respondent is on trial, is admissible. *State*v. Ward, 61 Vt. 181; Stephen’s Dig. Ev. (Chase’s Ed.) Art. 10, note 2. The attempt to burn the ell part was also admissible on the question whether the fire by which the barn was burnt was accidental or incendiary in its origin. There was no error in admitting it. ■

We have carefully examined all the evidence in the case, and find no error in the refusal of the court below to direct a verdict for this defendant. While the evidence implicating him was wholly circumstantial, yet it disclosed such a motive, threats, declarations and conduct on his part, as tended to prove him guilty of the offense charged. Standing thus, it was for the jury, not the court,- to say whether his guilt was established beyond a reasonable .doubt.

*Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings below and that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions.*
§ 1235.3 Statement of policy. ( a ) Expenditures of locally generated non-Federal contributions required by the Director as matching funds must meet the requirements specified in ACTION's Grant Management and Program Operations Handbook, ACTION Order 2650.2, as amended, and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended. Copies of ACTION's Grants Management and Program Operations Handbook, ACTION Order 2650.2, as amended, are available at ACTION, 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 9200, Washington, DC 20525.
( b ) All expenditures by the grantee of Federal and non-Federal funds (including expenditures from excess locally generated contributions) in support of the grant are subject to ACTION authorized audits.
( c ) ACTION will not restrict the manner in which locally generated contributions in excess of the required match are expended if these expenditures are not inconsistent with the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended.
§ 1182.11 Procedures for appealing a refusal to amend or correct an Institute record. ( a ) You may appeal a refusal to amend or correct a record to the Director. Such appeal must be made in writing within 10 business days of your receipt of the initial refusal to amend or correct your record. Your appeal should be sent to the Office of the General Counsel (see § 1182.3), should indicate that it is an appeal, and should include the basis for the appeal.
( b ) The Director will review your request to amend or correct the record, the General Counsel's refusal, and any other pertinent material relating to the appeal. No hearing will be held.
( c ) The Director shall render his or her decision on your appeal within 30 business days of its receipt by the Institute, unless the Director, for good cause shown, extends the 30-day period. Should the Director extend the appeal period, you will be informed in writing of the extension and the circumstances of the delay.
( d ) If the Director determines that the record that is the subject of the appeal should be amended or corrected, the record will be so modified, and you will be informed in writing of the amendment or correction. Where an accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be informed of the corrective action taken.
( e ) If your appeal is denied, you will be informed in writing of the following: ( 1 ) The denial and the reasons for the denial;
( 2 ) That you may submit to the Institute a concise statement setting forth the reasons for your disagreement as to the disputed record. Under the procedures set forth in paragraph (f) of this section, your statement will be disclosed whenever the disputed record is disclosed; and
( 3 ) That you may seek judicial review of the Director's determination under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(a).
( f ) Whenever you submit a statement of disagreement to the Institute in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the record will be annotated to indicate that it is disputed. In any subsequent disclosure, a copy of your statement of disagreement will be disclosed with the record. If the Institute deems it appropriate, a concise statement of the Director's reasons for denying our appeal also may be disclosed with the record. While you will have access to this statement of the Director's reasons for denying your appeal, such statement will not be subject to correction or amendment. Where an accounting was made of prior disclosures of the record, all previous recipients of the record will be provided a copy of your statement of disagreement, as well as any statement of the Director's reasons for denying your appeal.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1303

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1303 appear at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024.

#### § 1303.43 Use of grant funds to pay fees.

If a recipient seeks to use Federal funds for reasonable fees and costs necessary to submit an application under §§ 1303.42 and 1303.44, they must be granted approval from the responsible HHS official. Once approval is granted to use Federal funds to submit an application, the funds are allowable regardless of the outcome of the preliminary eligibility under § 1303.42 and the application under § 1303.44.

[89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024]
#### § 1004.31 Hitchhiking.

Hitchhiking or soliciting transportation is prohibited except in designated areas and under conditions established by the Board.
No. 5129.

#### John Carnes *v.*The State.

Local Option Law—Practice.—It devolves upon the State, in prosecuting violations of the local option law, to establish the fact that the order of *450the commissioners court for the holding of the election was based upon a legal petition; and that proof must appear of record on appeal.

Opinion delivered June 4, 1887.

Appeal from the County Court of Comanche. Tried below before the Hon. L. H. Brewer, County Judge.

The opinion discloses the case. The penalty assessed against the appellant was a fine of forty dollars.

*W. 0. Hamilton,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

This is a conviction for the violation of the local option law. Numerous errors are assigned and urged against the validity of the conviction, several of which attack the legality of the election adopting said law in the precinct in which the offense is alleged "to have occurred. It is not necessary to a disposition of this appeal that we should notice and determine these supposed errors. We find, upon an inspection of the record, that the State failed to prove on the trial that, in ordering the election, the commissioners court acted upon a valid petition,—that is, a petition signed by the requisite number of qualified voters in the justice’s precinct for which said election was ordered. (Rev. Stat., art. 3227.) There is a petition set forth in the statement of facts, but there is no proof that it was signed by twenty, or any other number, of qualified voters of said justice’s precinct. It was incumbent upon the State to show a valid petition in order to show the jurisdiction of the commissioners court to order said election. (McMillan v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 375.)

Because in this particular the evidence does not sustain the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### Driggs, appellant, v. Simson *et al.*

*Mortgage—lien, how discharged—rights of purchasers*— *Judgment.*

*A*judgment being recovered upon a bond given in connection with a mortgage, an execution was issued thereon, levied upon certain land, the land sold and the execution returned satisfied, and the judgment canceled. Subsequently, and while the judgment appeared by the record to be satisfied, and the mortgage discharged, the mortgagor sold and conveyed the mortgaged property to purchasers who paid a full consideration therefor, and went into *787possession. *Held,*that snch purchasers took a good title to the premises, free and clear of the lien of the mortgage, and that an action to foreclose the same as against them would not lie.

*Held,*also, that the record showing, at the time the defendants purchased, that the judgment was paid and satisfied, they had a right to act and rely upon it, and that a proceeding by the plaintiff, twelve years afterward, to vacate such satisfaction, could not overreach or affect the title of the defendants previously obtained in good faith.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant rendered upon the decision of a justice upon a trial by the court without a jury. The action was brought by Eoswell W. Driggs against John Simson and others, to foreclose a mortgage upon premises owned by defendant and conveyed to him by the grantee of the mortgagor, executed by one Broughton to one Jacobs, to secure the payment of a sum of money. An action was brought upon the bond accompanying said mortgage, and a judgment obtained against the mortgagor upon which execution was issued and returned *“*satisfied,” after which defendant and Simson purchased and received title to the premises. By an order of the court the return was afterward canceled.

*Morey & Baker,*for appellant.

*Williams & Potter,*for respondent.

E. Darwin Smith, J.

The head-note gives the points passed upon in the opinion, and the 'judgment was affirmed as being correct upon the fac ts found by the judge at circuit.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 66958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9256]



[[Page 66958]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project.
    Date: December 5, 2006.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Office of 
Scientific Review/Natcher, 45 Center Drive, 3AN-18, Bethesda, MD 
20892. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Brian R. Pike, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center 
Drive, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-3907. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d0d14161f0f3d101c141153131415531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5020393b3222103d31393c7e3e39387e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 13, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-9256 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________________

)

RUDY TAKALA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-1715 (BAH)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

On May 31, 2018, Defendant Federal Election Commission made a final production of 

records responsive to Plaintiff Rudy Takala’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request,

number 2017-003. Subsequent to that production, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant were able 

to resolve all remaining issues regarding the adequacy of Defendant’s search and response. 

Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties 

stipulate and agree to dismiss this action with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, 

attorney fees, and expenses. This stipulation applies to FOIA request number 2017-003. 

//

//

Case 1:17-cv-01715-BAH Document 21 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 3
2

Dated: June 19, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. James Valvo, III

RUSSEL JAMES VALVO, III,

D.C. Bar #1017390

LEE A. STEVEN, 

D.C. BAR #468543

CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE

1875 Eye Street, NW, Ste. 800

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-400-2723

Fax: 202-330-5842

james.valvo@causeofaction.org

lee.steven@causeofaction.org

Counsel for Plaintiff Rudy Takala

JESSIE K. LIU, 

D.C. Bar #472845 

United States Attorney

DANIEL F. VAN HORN, 

D.C. Bar #924092 

Chief, Civil Division 

/s/ Johnny H. Walker

JOHNNY H. WALKER, 

D.C. Bar #991325 

Assistant United States Attorney 

555 4th Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20530 

Telephone: 202-252-2575 

johnny.walker@usdoj.gov

LISA J. STEVENSON, 

D.C. Bar #457628 

Acting General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

KEVIN DEELEY 

Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

CHARLES KITCHER, 

D.C. Bar #986226 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

ckitcher@fec.gov 

/s/ Greg J. Mueller

GREG J. MUELLER, 

D.C. Bar #462840 

Attorney 

gmueller@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20463 

202-694-1650

Counsel for Defendant Federal 

Election Commission

Case 1:17-cv-01715-BAH Document 21 Filed 06/19/18 Page 2 of 3
3

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing document to be electronically filed with the 

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by using the 

ECF system, thereby serving all persons required to be served.

Date: June 19, 2018 /s/ R. James Valvo, III 

R. James Valvo, III

Case 1:17-cv-01715-BAH Document 21 Filed 06/19/18 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 67640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9375]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-06-058]


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: December 4, 2006 at 2 p.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to Be Considered:
    1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681, and 682 (Second 
Review)(Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain)--
briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit 
its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of 
Commerce on or before December 15, 2006.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: November 20, 2006.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-9375 Filed 11-20-06; 12:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 27 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 27

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Federal 
  Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor relating to 
  ``Rescission of Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal 
            Opportunity Clause's Religious Exemption Rule''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 11, 2023

  Mr. Budd introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Federal 
  Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor relating to 
  ``Rescission of Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal 
            Opportunity Clause's Religious Exemption Rule''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of 
the Department of Labor relating to ``Rescission of Implementing Legal 
Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause's Religious 
Exemption Rule'' (88 Fed. Reg. 12842 (March 1, 2023)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```