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

In re: § Case No.

§

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Rutledge, Korey C 10 B 01053

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

§

§

Debtor

Marilyn O. Marshall, 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 01/13/2010.

 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 converted on 02/08/2010.

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

 7) Number of months case was pending: 1.

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

 9) Total value of assets exempted: $90.00.

 10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without full payment: $0.

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

EASTERN DIVISION

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

Case 10-01053 Doc 16 Filed 02/10/10 Entered 02/10/10 13:17:17 Desc Page 1

 of 4
Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor

Receipts:

$0

Less amount refunded to debtor $0

NET RECEIPTS: $0

Attorney's Fees Paid Through the Plan

Expenses of Administration:

$0

Court Costs $0

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0

Other $0

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Int.

Paid

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Principal

Paid

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

Case 10-01053 Doc 16 Filed 02/10/10 Entered 02/10/10 13:17:17 Desc Page 2

 of 4
Mortgage Ongoing

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

$0

Interest

Paid

Claim

Allowed

Principal

Paid

Secured Payments:

$0 $0

Mortgage Arrearage $0 $0 $0

Debt Secured by Vehicle $0 $0 $0

All Other Secured $0 $0 $0

TOTAL SECURED: $0 $0 $0

Domestic Support Arrearage $0

Priority Unsecured Payments:

$0 $0

Domestic Support Ongoing $0 $0 $0

All Other Priority $0 $0 $0

TOTAL PRIORITY: $0 $0 $0

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS: $0 $0 $0

Expenses of Administration

Disbursements:

$0

Disbursements to Creditors $0

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS: $0

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

Case 10-01053 Doc 16 Filed 02/10/10 Entered 02/10/10 13:17:17 Desc Page 3

 of 4
 12) The trustee certifies that 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. 

 This Uniform Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork 

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

STATEMENT:

Date: February 10, 2010

Trustee

By:

/s/ MARILYN O. MARSHALL

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

Case 10-01053 Doc 16 Filed 02/10/10 Entered 02/10/10 13:17:17 Desc Page 4

 of 4
#### In the Matter of John Brooks, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[944 NYS2d 801]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric, J.), entered August 3, 2011 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying petitioner’s grievance.

Petitioner, an inmate at Groveland Correctional Facility in Livingston County, filed a grievance in February 2011 to, among other things, challenge the rate of pay for his employment in the food service program. His grievance was ultimately denied by the Central Office Review Committee after which petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Our review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such determination was arbitrary and capricious or without a rational basis *(see Matter of Abreu v Hogan,*91 AD3d 996 [2012]; *Matter of Pride v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*91 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2012]). Initially, we reject petitioner’s contention that a Supreme Court judgment issued in 2000 was controlling regarding his rate of pay. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. *15794310, which prescribes food service pay rates, was revised in 2001, and petitioner acknowledges that he left and returned to food service after the revision was enacted. Accordingly, we find the 2000 judgment inapplicable. To the extent that petitioner challenges the Central Office Review Committee’s interpretation of the 2001 revisions to Directive No. 4310, his argument is unpreserved based upon his failure to raise it during the administrative proceedings or in his petition *(see Matter of Bunting v Fischer,*84 AD3d 1631, 1632 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 709 [2011]; *Matter of Binkley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*64 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 886 [2009]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Rose, J.R, Spain, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
SCPW-20-0000628
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

THOMAS FRANK SCHMIDT and LORINNA JHINCIL SCHMIDT, Petitioners,

vs. THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai # i , Respondent Judge,
and HSC, INC., a Hawai # i Corporation; RICHARD HENDERSON, SR.;

and ELEANOR R.J. HENDERSON, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 3CC061000228)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna and Wilson, JJ., Circuit Judge Catal do, assigned in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Remigio, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Thomas Frank Schmidt and Lorinna Jhincil Schmidt’s motion for reconsideration, filed on November 23, 2020, the documents submitted in support thereof, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 2, 2020. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Catherine H. Remigio /s/ Lisa W. Cataldo Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000628 02-DEC-2020 12:06 PM Dkt. 24 ODMR
Description of Third Amendment to the Amended & Restated Employment Agreement




 Exhibit 10.18 
 Description of Third Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement of David R. Lumley, effective as of August 28, 2009 
 Effective as of August 28, 2009, the board of directors of Spectrum Brands, Inc. reinstated the annual base salary of David R. Lumley to $600,000,
which reinstatement amended that certain Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective as of February 24, 2009, by and between Spectrum Brands, Inc. and David R. Lumley.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 332 

Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Mrs. HAGAN (for herself and Mr. KIRK) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education 

Week. 

Whereas the National Education Association has designated 

November 13 through November 19, 2011, as the 90th 

annual observance of American Education Week; 

Whereas public schools are the backbone of the Nation’s democracy, providing young people with the tools they need 

to maintain the Nation’s precious values of freedom, civility, and equality; 

Whereas by equipping young people in the United States with 

both practical skills and broader intellectual abilities, 

public schools give them hope for, and access to, a productive future; 

Whereas people working in the field of public education, be 

they teachers, principals, higher education faculty and 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 332 ATS 

staff, custodians, substitute educators, bus drivers, clerical workers, food service professionals, workers in skilled 

trades, health and student service workers, security 

guards, technical employees, or librarians, work tirelessly 

to serve children and communities throughout the Nation 

with care and professionalism; and 

Whereas public schools are community linchpins, bringing together adults, children, educators, volunteers, business 

leaders, and elected officials in a common enterprise: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of American 

3 Education Week; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe National Education Week by reflecting on 

6 the positive impact of all those who work together to 

7 educate children. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38053-38054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15244]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB209]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project, 
San Francisco, California

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of an incidental harassment authorization 
application.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the City and County of San 
Francisco, California (San Francisco) has withdrawn its application for 
an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally harass 
marine mammals during construction activities associated with the 
Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project in San Francisco, California. 
Accordingly, NMFS has withdrawn its related proposed IHA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the 
original application and supporting documents (including NMFS Federal 
Register notices of the original proposed and final authorizations, and 
the previous IHA) may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 10, 2021 NMFS received an IHA 
application from San Francisco for the taking of marine mammals 
incidental to the Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project in San Francisco, 
California. The requested IHA would have authorized take, by Level B 
harassment only, of seven marine mammal species as a result of the 
specified activity. NMFS published a notice of the proposed IHA in the 
Federal Register (86 FR 28752) on May 28, 2021. On July 13, 2021, NMFS 
received notice from San Francisco withdrawing their IHA application 
for the proposed action after they had completed all of the pile 
driving associated with the project and before the expiration of their 
prior IHA (85 FR 44043; July 21, 2020). Therefore, NMFS has withdrawn 
its proposed IHA for the action.


[[Page 38054]]


    Dated: July 13, 2021.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15244 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leone CAREY; et al., Defendants, and John Carey; et al., Applicants for Intervention-Appellants.

No. 10-16278.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 1, 2011.

Kari D. Larson, Esquire, Richard Far-ber, Esquire, Supervisory, Steven W. Parks, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leone Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.

Michael Carey, Redding, CA, pro se.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Carey, Byron Carey, and George Carey (“the Careys”) appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion to intervene in the government’s action to foreclose federal tax liens against Michael and Leone Carey. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson,*131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Careys’ motion to intervene was untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the district court granted summary judgment, and the Careys provided no explanation for their delay. *See id.*at 1302-07 (motion was untimely where there was a twenty-seven month delay, which the intervenor failed adequately to explain).

Contrary to the Careys’ contentions, the district court had jurisdiction. *See*26 U.S.C. § 7403(a), (c) (providing for jurisdiction over cases by the United States to enforce tax liens against a debtor’s property); 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) (providing district courts with jurisdiction to issue writs necessary to enforce the internal revenue laws).

The Careys’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:8
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:9
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:10
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:11
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:12
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:13
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:14
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:15
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:16
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:17
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:18
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:19
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:20
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:21
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:22
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:23
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:24
Case: 1:01-cv-08406 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/01/01 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:25
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 993 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent the extension 

of the tax collection period merely because the taxpayer is a member 

of the Armed Forces who is hospitalized as a result of combat zone 

injuries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent 

the extension of the tax collection period merely because 

the taxpayer is a member of the Armed Forces who 

is hospitalized as a result of combat zone injuries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wounded Warrior Tax 

5 Equity Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 993 IS

1 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF EXTENSION OF TAX COLLECTION 

2 PERIOD FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES WHO ARE HOSPITALIZED AS A RE4 SULT OF COMBAT ZONE INJURIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7508(e) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) COLLECTION PERIOD AFTER ASSESSMENT

9 NOT EXTENDED AS A RESULT OF HOSPITALIZA10 TION.—With respect to any period of continuous 

11 qualified hospitalization described in subsection (a) 

12 and the next 180 days thereafter, subsection (a) 

13 shall not apply in the application of section 6502.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxes assessed before, on, or 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.02


          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 Transmeta Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Svend-Olav
Carlsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented therein.




                                                   By:     /s/Svend-Olav Carlsen
                                                      --------------------------
                                                              Svend-Olav Carlsen
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                                  March 27, 2003
# C_2021062EN.01001101.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of TR

(Case C-416/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for optional non-execution - Exceptions - Mandatory execution - Sentence imposed in absentia - Escape of the person being prosecuted - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Articles 8 and 9 - Right to be present at the trial - Requirements in the event of conviction in absentia - Verification on surrender of the convicted person)

(2021/C 62/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

TR

Intervener: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, where the person concerned has prevented the service of summons on him in person and has failed to appear in person at the trial on account of his escape to the executing Member State, on the sole ground that that authority does not have the assurance that, in the event of surrender to the issuing Member State, the right to a new trial, as defined under Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, will be respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Angelo D. Soluri, Appellant, v Superformula Products, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 712]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 28, 2011, which ruled, among other things, that claimant has a mild permanent partial disability.

Claimant was injured in a work-related accident in 2001. He thereafter filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits and the claim was established for injury to his low back and left hip. The degree of claimant’s disability was brought into question, and he was initially determined to have a total permanent disability. The workers’ compensation carrier sought review of this determination. Due to significant differences in the medical opinions provided, the Workers’ Compensation Board referred the case to an impartial specialist for an opinion on the degree of claimant’s disability. Thereafter, the Board determined that claimant has a mild permanent partial disability. Claimant now appeals.

Claimant argues that the Board improperly relied upon the opinion of the impartial specialist because he did not refer to the Board’s medical guidelines. We disagree. While the guidelines provide useful criteria to be used in assessing a claimant’s degree of disability, the ultimate determination rests with the Board and must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of VanDermark v Frontier Ins. Co.,*60 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2009]; *Matter of Hare v Champion Intl.,*50 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 863 [2008]). Consistent with the reports of two other physicians who examined claimant, the impartial specialist indicated that there were no objective or physiological findings to explain claimant’s complaints of pain *1293and concluded that he has a mild partial disability. The impartial specialist was asked about the criteria set forth in the guidelines regarding total permanent disability and his testimony reflected that claimant did not meet the criteria. Inasmuch as the Board is empowered to resolve conflicting medical opinions and the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, we will not disturb it *(see Matter of Visic v O’Nero & Sons Constr. Co.,*74 AD3d 1646, 1647 [2010]; *Matter of Hare v Champion Intl.,*50 AD3d at 1254-1255).

Peters, P.J., Spain, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.