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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 176

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning National

Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 9, 1995

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

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 ‘‘Corning National Fish

5 Hatchery Conveyance Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF THE CORNING NATIONAL FISH

7 HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of

9 the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without

10 reimbursement and by no later than December 31, 1995,
2

S 176 IS

1 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

2 to the property described in subsection (b), for use by the

3 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the State

4 of Arkansas fish culture program.

5 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

6 to in subsection (a) is the property formally known as the

7 Corning National Fish Hatchery, (popularly known as the

8 William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one

9 mile west of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State High10 way 67 in Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 137.34

11 acres, (more or less) and all improvements and related

12 personal property under the control of the Secretary that

13 is located on that property, including buildings, structures,

14 and equipment.

15 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—

16 All right, title, and interest in property described in sub17 section (b) shall revert to the United States if the property

18 ceases to be used as part of the State of Arkansas fish

19 culture program. The State of Arkansas shall ensure that

20 the property reverting to the United States is in substan21 tially the same or better condition as the time of the trans22 fer.

Æ
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136570 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136570 COA: 280564 Kent CC: 03-011789-FH SONNY AMES BAEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0001011888
<NAME>                       DIATIDE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                 1
<CURRENCY>                   U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,857,973
<SECURITIES>                                13,674,629
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,978,214
<PP&E>                                       2,761,233
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,734,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,015,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,098,005
<BONDS>                                          9,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,103
<COMMON>                                        10,540
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,885,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,015,668
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,140,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,934,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,619
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,988,697)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,988,697)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,988,697)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification Pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  i.
    
    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act 1934; andii.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company.
  Dated: May 15, 2008
    /s/ William A. ShopoffName:
    William A. ShopoffTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

                    The Office of the Federal Register published a correction in the                     **Federal Register**                     of January 2, 2024, which corrected the date in notice document 2023-27742 [88 FR 87393] from January 29, 2024, to February 1, 2024, as the due date for comments to be received. However, the due date needs to match the date sent out in the associated scoping letters to the public and tribes, a date which was set to coordinate with the closing date of the national old growth amendment Notice of Intent.                

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 18, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-27742, on page 87393, in the second column toward the end under                     **DATES**                    , is listed “Comments concerning the scope of the analysis are most valuable to the Forest Service if received by January 29, 2024.” In the                     **Federal Register**                     of January 2, 2024, in FR Doc. C1-2023-27742, on page 43, in the first column, January 29, 2024, is corrected to February 1, 2024. The                     **DATES**                     caption should read instead:                

# DATES:

Comments concerning the scope of the analysis are most valuable to the Forest Service if received by February 2, 2024.

Dated: January 4, 2024.

Jacqueline Emanuel,

Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

[FR Doc. 2024-00311 Filed 1-9-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANNY LEE CAESAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES ARMY; BOARD OF 

THE CORRECTION OF MILITARY 

RECORDS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 16-16505 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00201-LJOBAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Danny Lee Caesar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his military 

service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16505 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s federal claims because 

members of the armed forces may not file suit against the government for injuries 

incurred during service. See Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(Feres doctrine bars members of the armed forces from bringing “an action against 

the Government or armed services personnel for injuries during activity under the 

control or supervision of a commanding officer.” (internal citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Caesar’s breach of contract claim

because money damages are not an available remedy for the government’s breach 

of an enlistment contract. See Jablon v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th 

Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
 § 302 CERTIFICATION
             Date:  September 9, 2008
    /s/ Joseph SciroccoJoseph SciroccoChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31.3
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the periodended November 30, 2003 of Emmis Operating Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 14, 2004   /s/ JEFFREY H. SMULYAN Jeffrey H. Smulyan Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
6
ROBERT GRAY,

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. 1D16-3766

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2017.

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

Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Fontaine DAVIS; Eric H. Washington; Jerilyn North, Jimmie Braden, Audrey Lee, Early Davis, Brandi Swanson, Susan Moorehead, Anne Young, Mary M. Carder, Theresa Rodigou, Kathleen J. Bradshaw, Patricia Murray, International Association of Black Firefighters-San Francisco Chapter, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-15113.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1993.

Before GOODWIN, FLETCHER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND VACATING PORTION OF OPINION

ORDER

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ petition for rehearing is denied.

However, in light of the parties’ settlement of plaintiff-appellees’ claims to expert witness fees while the court had under consideration whether to take en banc the issue of retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) to provide explicitly for the award of expert fees as part of costs, we vacate as moot that portion of the opinion that affirms the district court’s award of expert witness fees in this case.

Upon remand to the district court, we direct that, as part of the remand, it vacate that portion of its judgment that awarded expert witness fees. *See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,*340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
NUMBER 13-17-00035-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

SERGIO REYES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 331st District Court 

of Travis County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the State’s fourth motion for extension of time to 

file the brief in this matter.1 The State’s brief in this matter was originally due on August 

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). 
2

27, 2018. The State has previously requested and received three extensions of time to 

file the brief. 

The Court, having fully examined and considered the extensions previously 

granted in this cause, is of the opinion that the State’s motion for extension of time should 

be granted with order. 

Accordingly, we GRANT the State’s fourth motion for extension of time and 

ORDER the State to file the brief on or before December 27, 2018. No further extensions 

will be granted in this matter absent exigent circumstances. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

3

rd day of December, 2018.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1631 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 538
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1631

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel EXTREME, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 1996

   Mr. Pell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             July 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel EXTREME, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106 through 12108 of 
title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel EXTREME, United States 
official number 1022278.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 538

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1631

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel EXTREME, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1843 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1843

To provide for the allocation of funds from the Mass Transit Account of 
            the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 1996

   Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
  Jeffords, and Mr. Cochran) introduced the following bill; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 
                                 Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the allocation of funds from the Mass Transit Account of 
            the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ALLOCATION OF MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT FUNDS.

    (a) Minimum Allocation.--The Secretary of Transportation shall take 
such actions as may be necessary to ensure that, in each fiscal year, 
each State's percentage of the total apportionments to all States from 
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund established by 
section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is not less than 80 
percent of the State's estimated tax payment attributable to highway 
users in the State paid into that Account in the most recent year for 
which data are available.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any State 
whose contribution to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust 
Fund established by section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
in the applicable fiscal year is greater than or equal to $45,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Richard Leland NEAL, a single man, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William J. EKSTROM, Jr.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-16607.

D.C. No. CV-01-00203-RCB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided Feb. 13, 2003.

Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Leland Neal appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order to amend the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Neal failed to provide a short, clear, and concise statement of his claims, even after instructions from the district court. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Neal’s amended complaint with prejudice. *See id.*at 1178-79 (affirming dismissal with prejudice of prolix and confusing complaint that did not comply with rule 8(a)); *Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins.,*651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir.1981) (affirming dismissal of second complaint that was “equally as verbose, confusing and conclusory as the initial complaint.”). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the entire complaint for violation of Rule 8 and the court’s orders, we do not address Neal’s other contentions regarding the dismissal. *See McHenry,*84 F.3d at 1180.

We have reviewed Neal’s proposed second amended complaint, and agree with the district court that leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to file a second amended complaint. *See Bonin v. Calderon,*59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Neal’s motion for reconsideration because none of the applicable grounds for relief exist. *See School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,*1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

We reject Neal’s remaining contentions on appeal, and deny Neal’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s November 20, 2002 order.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.