alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2967 

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 

Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2005 

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan (for herself, Mr. WATT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. 

ABERCROMBIE, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE

JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. HONDA, Mr. UPTON, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. 

WATSON, Mr. CAMP, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HOLT, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. 

SCHWARZ of Michigan, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. EHLERS, and Mr. 

KNOLLENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott 

Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott 

5 Street in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal Building’’. 
2 

•HR 2967 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Rosa Parks Federal Building’’. 

Æ
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50703 Summary Calendar

_____________________

RODNEY LEE McDOWELL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM H. BROOK,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CA-125

_________________________________________________________________
January 22, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rodney Lee McDowell appeals the district court's dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, which the court below construed as a

request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Neither federal habeas

nor a civil rights suit offer McDowell any remedy. S ee Orellana v.

Kyle , 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S.Ct. 736

(1996); Thomas v. Torres
, 717 F.2d 248, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1983),

cert. denied

, 456 U.S. 1010 (1984). Thus, assuming the certificate-2-

o f appealability (“COA”) requirement applies and that McDowell' s

notice of appeal is an implicit request for such ( see F ED

. R. A PP

.
P. 22(b)), a COA is DENIED.

McDowell's appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R.

42.2.

We caution McDowell that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will i nvite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, McDowell is further cautioned to

review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous.

COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

200 

KA 14-01665 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIE R. SCOTT, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

KATHLEEN E. CASEY, BARKER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIE R. SCOTT, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J.

Murphy, III, J.), rendered November 4, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the first degree

(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.10 [1]). Although defendant waived his

right to appeal, County Court permitted defendant to reserve the right

to challenge on appeal the court’s disqualification of defense counsel

and, thus, we conclude that the waiver of the right to appeal does not

encompass that challenge (see generally People v Sudlik, 129 AD3d

1548, 1549). We nevertheless reject the contention of defendant in

his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court abused its

discretion in granting the People’s motion to disqualify defense

counsel based on his prior representation of the victim’s mother, a

potential prosecution witness (see People v Watson, ___ NY3d ___, ___

[Feb. 11, 2016]; People v Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 326-330). Finally,

we conclude that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal encompasses

his contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied due

process of law based on the People’s alleged discovery violation (see

People v Vanvleet, 126 AD3d 1359, 1360, lv denied 26 NY3d 1012).

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### §881. Cost of survey of grants to railroads; payment

Before any land granted to any railroad company by the United States shall be conveyed to such company, or any persons entitled thereto under any of the acts incorporating or relating to said company, unless such company is exempted by law from the payment of such cost, there shall first be paid into the Treasury of the United States the cost of surveying, selecting, and conveying the same by the said company or persons in interest.

(July 15, 1870, ch. 292, 16 Stat. 305; July 31, 1876, ch. 246, 19 Stat. 121.)
### §327. Filing irrigation plan; association of entrymen

At the time of filing the declaration required in section 321 of this title the party shall also file a map of said land, which shall exhibit a plan showing the mode of contemplated irrigation, and which plan shall be sufficient to thoroughly irrigate and reclaim said land, and prepare it to raise ordinary agricultural corps, and shall also show the source of the water to be used for irrigation and reclamation. Persons entering or proposing to enter separate sections, or fractional parts of sections, of desert lands, may associate together in the construction of canals and ditches for irrigating and reclaiming all of said tracts, and may file a joint map or maps showing their plan of internal improvements.

(Mar. 3, 1877, ch. 107, §4, as added Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §2, 26 Stat. 1096.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Existing Claims; Repeals

Act Mar. 3, 1877, ch. 107, §6, as added by act Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §2, 26 Stat. 1097, provided that existing claims should not be affected by act Mar. 3, 1891, but might be perfected under sections 321 to 323 of this title, or under sections 325 and 327 to 329 of this title, at the option of the claimant, and also repealed all acts and parts of acts in conflict with act Mar. 3, 1891.

#### Section as Unaffected by Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE

ASSOCIATION INTER-INSURANCE

BUREAU, as subrogee of

George Cogan, and Mary

Frances Allen,,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOHN GUEST USA INC.; FRANKE

CONSUMER PRODUCTS INC. and

DOES 1 THROUGH 25 inclusive,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-2432 BZ

ORDER RESCHEDULING 

JURY TRIAL AND

PRETRIAL MATTERS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. DATES

Trial Date: Monday, 3/14/2011, 7 days

Pretrial Conference: Tuesday, 2/22/2011, 4:00 p.m.

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: Wednesday, 12/15/2010

Last Day for Expert Discovery: Friday, 11/5/2010

Last Day for Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Friday, 10/29/2010

Last Day for Expert Disclosure: Friday, 10/22/2010

Close of Non-expert Discovery: Friday, 10/15/2010

Case 3:09-cv-02432-BZ Document 44 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. The trial scheduled for November 8, 2010 and the

pretrial conference scheduled for October 26, 2010 are

VACATED. 

Dated: July 9, 2010

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CSAA V. GUEST\SEC PRETRIAL ORD.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02432-BZ Document 44 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2
1 C09-02015 EMC

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE 

Moreno, et al v. Rancho Grande, et al 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ADAM WANG (BAR NO. 201233) 

ADAM PEDERSEN (BAR NO. 261901) 

12 South First Street, Suite 708 

SAN JOSE, CA 95113 

Tel: (408) 421-3403 

Fax: (408) 351-0261 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORENO, et. al., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

RANCHO GRANDE et. al., 

 Defendants 

Case No.: C09-02015 EMC

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

EXTEND TIME TO MEDIATE & 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Parties, through counsel, hereby request as follows: 

1. Parties held the initial Case Management Conference on November 4, 2010. 

2. At that conference parties made clear their desire to work to resolve the matter 

through the court’s ADR process. 

3. Parties were referred to the Court’s mediation program. 

4. Parties have participated in a pre-mediation phone conference and have set a 

tentative mediation date of Friday, March 5th, 2010 

5. The current date for the completion of mediation is February 1, 2010, and 

currently parties have a further CMC set for February 3, 2010. 

6. Therefore, parties respectfully request that the court both continue the further 

CMC and extend the deadline to mediate for an additional 60 days so that the 

parties may complete mediation on March 5th, 2010 prior to the further CMC. 

Case 3:09-cv-02015-EMC Document 19 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 2
 1 C09-02015 EMC

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE 

Moreno, et al v. Rancho Grande, et al 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Respectfully submitted: 

Dated: 1/28/2010 By: /s/ Adam Pedersen__________ 

ADAM PEDERSEN 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Dated: 1/28/2010 By: /s/ Kerry Kennedy __________ 

KERRY KENNEDY 

Attorney for Defendant 

 

______________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Pursuant to Parties’ request, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Initial Case 

Management Conference currently scheduled on February 3, 2010 be continued for 60 days. It is 

further ordered that the parties shall have an additional 60 days to complete mediation. 

 

Dated: _____________ _________________________ 

 Honorable E. M. Chen 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02015-EMC Document 19 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 318

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent 

Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit 

of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 318 EH 

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING 

2 CASTLE NUGENT FARMS. 

3 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

4 (1) Castle Nugent Farms, located on the south5 eastern shore of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, is 

6 the largest parcel of privately-held land in the Virgin 

7 Islands and has been an operating cattle ranch for 

8 50 years. 

9 (2) This land has the largest and healthiest 

10 fringing coral reef anywhere in the Virgin Islands. 

11 (3) It consists of Caribbean dry forest and 

12 pasturelands with considerable cultural resources in13 cluding both pre-Columbian and post-European set14 tlement. 

15 (4) Castle Nugent Farms contains a large his16 toric 17th century Danish estate house that sits on 

17 over 4 miles of pristine Caribbean oceanfront prop18 erty. 

19 (5) In addition to being an area for turtle nest20 ing and night heron nesting, it is the home for the 

21 Senepol cattle breed, a unique breed of cattle that 

22 was developed on St. Croix in the early 1900’s to 

23 adapt to the island’s climate. 

24 (b) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall carry 

25 out a study regarding the suitability and feasibility of des-
3

•HR 318 EH 

1 ignating Castle Nugent Farms as a unit of the National 

2 Park System. 

3 (c) STUDY PROCESS AND COMPLETION.—Section 

4 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall 

5 apply to the conduct and completion of the study required 

6 by this section.

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 318

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 

and for other purposes.lands, as a unit of the National Park System, tle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Isthe suitability and feasibility of designating Cas-
§ 3286.203 Installation license required. ( a ) *Installation license required.* ( 1 ) Any individual or entity that engages in the business of directing, supervising, or controlling initial installations of new manufactured homes in a state without a qualifying installation program must itself have, or must employ someone who has, a valid manufactured home installation license issued in accordance with the requirements of this subpart C. For each installation covered under these requirements, the licensed installer, and any company that employs the licensed installer, will be responsible for the proper and competent performance of all employees working under the licensed installer's supervision and for assuring that the installation work complies with this part.
( 2 ) A business that employs a licensed installer to represent the business and hold the installer's license retains primary responsibility for performance of the installation work in compliance with the requirements of this part.
( 3 ) A license is not required for individuals working as direct employees of a licensed installer or for the company that employs a licensed installer, provided that those individuals are supervised by a licensed installer.
( 4 ) The installer must display an original or a copy of a valid installation license at the site of the installation while performing work related to the installation of the home.
( 5 ) The installer is responsible for understanding and following, as applicable, the approved manufacturer installation instructions and any alternative installation design and instructions that have been certified by a professional engineer or registered architect, that have been approved by the manufacturer and DAPIA as providing a level of protection for residents of the home that equals or exceeds the protection provided by the federal installation standards in part 3285 of this chapter.
( b ) *Installation license not required.* An installation license is not required for: ( 1 ) Site preparation that is not subject to the requirements of part 3285 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Connection of utilities to the manufactured home;
( 3 ) Add-ons subject to the requirements of § 3282.8(j) of this chapter;
( 4 ) Temporary installations on dealer, distributor, manufacturer, or other sales or storage lots, when the manufactured home is not serving as an occupied residence;
( 5 ) Home maintenance, repairs, or corrections, or other noninstallation-related work performed by the home manufacturer under warranty or other obligations or service agreements;
( 6 ) Installations performed by authorized representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to provide emergency housing after a natural disaster; or
( 7 ) Work performed at the home site that is not covered by the federal installation standards in part 3285 of this chapter or the requirements of this part.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 30, 2007 | /s/                Robert K. Moskovitz                                              |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Name:                Robert K. Moskovitz                                            |
|                                | Title:                Chief Financial Officer of the General                Partner |
§ 27.117 Transfer of title and possession. ( a ) If the Secretary is the successful bidder, the foreclosure commissioner shall issue a deed to the Secretary upon receipt of the amount needed to pay the costs of tax liens and prior liens, as set forth in 12 U.S.C. 3762(a)(2) and (a)(3). If the Secretary is not the successful bidder, the foreclosure commissioner shall issue a deed to the purchaser or purchasers upon receipt of the entire purchase price in accordance with the terms of the sale as provided in the Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale.
( b ) The register of deeds or other appropriate official in the county where the property is located shall, upon tendering of the customary recording fees, accept all instruments pertaining to the foreclosure which are submitted by the foreclosure commissioner for recordation. The instruments to be accepted shall include, but not be limited to, the foreclosure commissioner's deed. If the foreclosure commissioner elects to include the recitations required under the Statute (12 U.S.C. 3764) in an affidavit or an addendum to the deed, the affidavit or addendum shall be accepted along with the deed for recordation. The Clerk of the Court or other appropriate official shall cancel all liens as requested by the foreclosure commissioner.
#### Fowler *et al. v.*Parks *et al.*

Lumpkin, J.

1. There was no error in allowing the two amendments to the petition.

2. Agency can not be proved by testimony of the sayings of the purported agent; but under the pleadings and evidence, including the claim of right asserted by one of the defendants, the admission in evidence, at an interlocutory hearing, of the statements of certain persons who cut and removed wood from land, that they were acting under the direction of a named principal, will not require a reversal.

3. -Where the plaintiffs alleged that they claimed title to land under the provisions of a will, the fact that they did not allege that such will had been probated was not sufficient to cause the exclusion from evidence of a certified copy of the will and probate, when offered upon an interlocutory application for injunction by the devisees to protect their possession.

4. Under the pleadings and evidence there was no abuse of discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction.

5. The presiding judge granted an injunction, with a restraining order also against the plaintiffs, and required them to give a bond, so as to preserve the status until the final trial. He did not pass upon the demurrers as such, or make specific rulings of law as the basis of his decision; nor is the case so clearly controlled by a question of law as to require this court to deal with it upon that basis. The order granted by the presiding judge (with a correction hereinafter indicated) being authorized, under the pleadings and evidence, as a preservative exercise of discretion, pendente lite, this court will not reverse it or undertake to determine finally the ultimate rights of the parties or to decide the various questions raised by the demurrer.

6. The part of the order requiring a bond to be given is not accurately *787adjusted to the ruling which the judge made in granting the injunction, in that it requires “the defendants” to give to “the plaintiffs” (naming one of the defendants) a bond conditioned to pay such defendant any and-all amounts of rent that may be recovered against them “for the use of seven-eighths interest in said land,” etc. The plaintiffs claimed undivided interests. The defendants claimed the entire title. As the plaintiffs were left in possession under the protection of an injunction, if a bond was required of them it should have covered the use of the land, and not of seven-eighths interest in it, leaving out of view the other eighth interest, the possession of the latter accompanying that of the seven-eighths. But this will not require a reversal. Direction is given that the words “seven-eighths interest in” be eliminated from the order, and the inaccurate reference to the parties be corrected.

October 16, 1912.

Injunction. Before Judge Frank Park. Worth superior court. April 6, 1912.

*Payton, Hay & Nottingham,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Perry, Foy & Monk,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed, with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*
DAVID WAYNE KIZZIRE,

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. 1D16-2746

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Levy County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.