alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Instructions, Form 2070 

12/23 

CERTIFICATE OF RETENTION OF DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

This form may be used in chapter 11 cases. Unless a trustee is appointed, the debtor is 

automatically continued in possession pursuant to section 1101(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 

U.S.C. § 1101(1)). 

When evidence of debtor in possession status is required, this certificate may be used in

accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2011. 

Applicable Law and Rules

1. Section 1101(1) of the Code states: 

“debtor in possession” means debtor, except when a person that has qualified 

under section 322 of [the Bankruptcy Code] is serving as trustee in this case. 

2. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2011(a) provides: 

Whenever evidence is required that a debtor is a debtor in possession or that a 

trustee has qualified, the clerk may so certify and the certificate shall constitute

conclusive evidence of that fact.

Fee

There is a charge of $12 for certification.1 Bankruptcy Court Miscellaneous Fee 

Schedule, Item 2. This amount must be paid in cash or by check or money order made payable 

to “Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court.” PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH THROUGH THE MAIL.

In addition, many bankruptcy courts accept credit cards for payment of court fees by attorneys 

and law firms.

General Information for the Clerk

This form is to be used when the chapter 11 debtor requests that it be certified as a debtor 

in possession. Section 1101 of the Bankruptcy Code and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2011 permit the clerk 

to make the certification ONLY if no trustee has been appointed and ONLY in a chapter 11 case.

1 The $12 fee is current as of December 1, 2023. Check uscourts.gov or the 

Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, which is published as an appendix after section 1930 of the Judicial 

Code (28 U.S.C. § 1930), for the current fee.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences (1754).                    

*Date/Time:*                         May 17-18, 2001.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 320, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. James Rodman, Division of Environment Biology, Room 635, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8491.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: April 24, 2001.

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-10559 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### *In re*CLARKE, Bennett D.C.

(MR 20939)

Chicago, IL

Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Review Board is allowed. Respondent Bennett D.C. Clarke *686is transferred to inactive status until further order of the Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 758.
#### David Meister, Appellant, v City of New York et al., al., Respondents.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated April 2, 1986, which denied the plaintiffs motion to dispense with the filing of a notice of claim and to amend the caption and the complaint, and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs decedent, a teacher, requested that a student who had threatened her be removed from her class. On February 8, 1983, she was advised that the School Based Support Team of the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York had recommended the student’s transfer to a special education program. On February 24, 1983, the student, who had not yet been removed from the class, attacked the plaintiffs decedent and injured her.

The undisputed facts established that the defendants did not assume an affirmative duty to protect the plaintiffs decedent from the student in question. The defendants initiated the process by which the student could be removed from the plaintiffs decedent’s class, but it did not notify her that the student would, in fact, be removed. Therefore, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted *(see, Cuffy v City of New York,*69 NY2d 255, *mot to amend remittitur dismissed*70 NY2d 667). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Summary of Amended Relocation Benefits for
Robert J. Driessnack, Chief Financial Officer

Relocation benefits previously disclosed.Our Chief Financial Officer, Robert J. Driessnack, joined the Company on January 19, 2009. The compensation arrangements
for Mr. Driessnack include eligibility to receive full relocation benefits in accordance with our standard program, under which we will reimburse

Ÿ
Certain costs associated with transporting and storing normal household goods,
Ÿ
Broker’s commissions and closing costs on the sale of his current residence, and
Ÿ
Loan fees and closing costs for the purchase of a new residence.

We also will reimburse Mr. Driessnack for additional federal income tax liability incurred if certain moving expenses and other relocation benefits are included in his earned income, subject to limitations based on actual salary and other deductions.

Under our Company relocation program, Mr. Driessnack must reimburse us for a pro rata portion of relocation costs incurred by the Company if he terminates his employment within one year from his start date.

Extended relocation benefits.Our relocation program covers temporary housing costs and other housing benefits for up to six months. Due to the recent dramatic slow-down
in the housing market, employees relocating to accept jobs with the Company have had difficulty selling their prior home. During 2009, we have extended relocation benefits on a case-by-case basis for some non-executive employees.

In July 2009, the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors approved the extension of relocation benefits for Mr. Driessnack. The extension is for an additional twelve months, for a total period of up to eighteen months of relocation benefits, subject to all the terms and conditions of the relocation program.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TORRANCE ADDERLY

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 782

[ June 13, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Thomas Michael Lynch

V , Judge; L.T. Case No. 98

- 14916CF10A

.

Torrance Adderly, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, K LINGENSMITH and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 06-12

IN RE: RULES OF ADMISSION AND PRACTICE

O R D E R

Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. §§ 7263(b) and 7264(a) and consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§ 2071(b) and (e), the Court has determined that there is an immediate need to amend Rule 2(a)(1)

of its Rules of Admission and Practice. It is 

ORDERED that the attached amendment to Rule 2(a)(1) is published and will be effective

as of the date of this order. 

Public comment on this amendment is invited. Comments must be submitted to the Clerk

of the Court by May 16, 2012, at comments@uscourts.cavc.gov or 625 Indiana Avenue, NW,

Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004.

DATED: April 16, 2012 FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
Attachment to Miscellaneous Order No. 06-12 (only affected subsection shown)

RULE 2. COMMITTEE ON ADMISSION AND PRACTICE

(a) Appointment

(1) The Chief Judge, with the concurrence of the Court, shall appoint members of the Court's

bar to serve as members of the Committee on Admission and Practice, and designate one member

as the Chair. The number of members on the Committee shall be determined by the Chief Judge in

consultation with (concurrence not required) the Court. The Committee shall perform its duties in

panels of three members. The members of each panel shall be selected by the Clerk at random. Any

member selected at random may, for justifiable reason as determined bytheCommittee Chair, decide

not to serve as a member of a particular panel. The Clerk shall select at random a replacement for

that panel member. The Committee Chair shall appoint a chair for each panel.
ERIC SCOTT MYERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2290

__________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Eric Scott Myers, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
#### QUIGLEY, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Sophia Quigley against the city of Rochester.

No opinion. Order granting new trial appealed from affirmed, with costs of this appeal to the respondent to abide the event. See 27 N. Y. Supp. 1120, mem.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6016 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6016

 To provide for a GAO investigation and audit of the operations of the 
   fund created by BP to compensate persons affected by the Gulf oil 
                                 spill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

Mr. Brady of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a GAO investigation and audit of the operations of the 
   fund created by BP to compensate persons affected by the Gulf oil 
                                 spill.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Audit the BP Fund Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION AND AUDIT.

    (a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct an ongoing 
independent investigation and audit of the operations of the fund 
created by BP to compensate persons affected by the Gulf oil spill, as 
those operations take place to determine their effectiveness, including 
the timeliness of claim payments and the accuracy of those operations 
in determining amounts of damages compensated.
    (b) Use of Subpoena Power.--The Comptroller General may use any 
investigative powers, including those of subpoena granted to the 
Comptroller General for the purposes of other investigations and 
audits, to conduct this investigation and audit.
    (c) Report to Congress.--Each month during the operations, and once 
after all those operations are completed, the Comptroller General shall 
report to Congress on the effectiveness of those operations.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) BP should fully cooperate with the Comptroller General 
        to assure that the BP relief fund is accurately, expediently, 
        and efficiently compensating Gulf coast victims of the BP oil 
        spill for their losses; and
            (2) the costs incurred by the Comptroller General to carry 
        out responsibilities under this Act should be reimbursed by BP.
                                 <all>
```
#### WARD, Respondent, v. MYERS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by John D. Ward against Charles H. Myers.

No opinion. Motion to strike case from calendar, and for affirmance on. ground of nonservice of printed papers, granted on default.
Redesigned

Green Card 2023

Before

Redesign

Display updated artwork for the 

Statue of Liberty.

Display data fields in different 

places than on previous versions 

of the cards.

No longer display the cardholder’s 

fingerprint on the front.

Have new tactile printing that is 

better integrated with the artwork.

Have enhanced optically variable 

ink and new highly secure 

holographic images on the front 

and back of the cards.

Have a new layer reveal feature 

with a partial window on the back 

photo box.

For more information about the 2023 Green Card Redesign, visit uscis.gov.
**Exhibit 10.3**

**AMENDMENTTO THEUNOVA, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN**

The UNOVA, Inc.Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in thefollowing manner, in accordance with Section 11.1 of the Plan, andeffective as of June 30, 2006, except where another date is providedherein.

1.                                       Section 2.34is hereby amended by adding the following new definition with all subsequentsections in Article II renumbered accordingly:

Section 2.34                                “Rule of 70Employee” shall have the same meaning as under Section 3.35 of theIntermec Pension Plan, except that, for purposes of the Supplemental Plan, suchindividual must also be an Active Participant on June 30, 2006.

2.                                       Article 3is hereby amended by adding the following new section to the end thereof:

Section 3.3                                      Supplemental PlanClosed to New Participants  Notwithstandingthe above, any key employee who, on or after July 1, 2006,  commences employment with, is re-hired by theCompany shall not be eligible to participate in the Supplemental Plan.

3.             Article IV is hereby amended by adding thefollowing new Section 4.7.

Section 4.7             Benefit Freeze for Employeesother than Rule of 70 Employees.

Notwithstanding the above, effective July 1,2006, no further benefits shall accrue under Article IV, V, or VI of thePlan with regard to any key employee who is not a Rule of 70 Employee.

 

# IN WITNESS WHEREOF,INTERMEC, Inc., by its duly authorized representative, has caused thisAmendment to be executed in its name and on its behalf on this 29th dayof June, 2006.

 
|        | INTERMEC, INC. |
|--------|----------------|
|   |           |
|   |           |
|        | By             | /s/ Larry D. Brady |   |
|   |           | Larry D. Brady |
|   |           | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Castro, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bianchi, J.), rendered January 3, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The sole issue raised by the defendant on this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the factual recitation in his plea of guilty. The defendant failed to preserve this claim for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Moore,*91 AD2d 1050).

In any event, the defendant’s contention is meritless. The actions admitted in the guilty plea were more than adequate to support the conviction. The defendant admitted, in his own words, that he sold a plastic bag containing $25 worth of *840cocaine to an undercover police officer. Thus, the defendant’s own recital of the circumstances of the crime established all the elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty, and there is no basis to disturb the court’s acceptance of the plea *(see, People v Demonde,*111 AD2d 867, 868). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Growth Fund 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000201529
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL GROWTH FUND
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          43,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,705)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         30,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,374)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,389
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,248
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    28.25<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6400 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 North 6th Street in St. Louis, Missouri, 

as the ‘‘Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office’’. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6400 RFS

1 SECTION 1. EARL WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 111 North 6th Street in St. 

4 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Earl Wilson, Jr. Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 7, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### KLEMM v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

July 27, 1894.)

Action by Anthony Klemm, as administrator, etc., against the New York Central *&*Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion for reargument granted. See 28 N. Y. Supp. 851.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6330 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6330

 To make permanent the reduced individual income tax rate on dividends.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

 Mr. Garrett of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Coffman of 
 Colorado, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Gingrey 
  of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
Texas, Mr. Pence, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Carter, 
 Mrs. Schmidt, and Mr. Posey) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make permanent the reduced individual income tax rate on dividends.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving American Income on 
Dividends Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. REDUCED INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE ON DIVIDENDS MADE PERMANENT.

    The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (relating 
to sunset of title) is amended by striking section 303.
                                 <all>
```