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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 412 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 412

   To express the sense of the Congress in commemoration of the 75th 
               anniversary of Grand Canyon National Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 1994

 Mr. Stump (for himself, Mr. Coopersmith, Ms. English of Arizona, Mr. 
Kolbe, and Mr. Pastor) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   To express the sense of the Congress in commemoration of the 75th 
               anniversary of Grand Canyon National Park.

Whereas the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River is a feature of enormous 
        scientific interest and significance, whose unique geological, 
        biological, and cultural resources represent a natural laboratory of 
        unparalleled diversity;
Whereas Grand Canyon National Park represents an integral part of the greater 
        Colorado plateau ecosystem whose significance to the health of the 
        natural systems of the American West increases with time;
Whereas the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River is one of the most spectacular 
        examples of arid-land erosion anywhere in the world and reveals a 
        geologic record whose significance is unparalleled;
Whereas the Grand Canyon is a world Heritage Site and a natural feature of 
        international significance whose aesthetic beauty reflects the 
        aspirations of a free and independent people;
Whereas Grand Canyon National Park has received over 100 million visitors since 
        its establishment in 1919 and continues to serve the people of the 
        United States and the world in their need for a place of outstanding 
        natural beauty and refuge; and
Whereas Grand Canyon National Park was established by Act of Congress on 
        February 26, 1919: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Congress of the United States of America on this 
date salutes Grand Canyon National Park and its custodians, the 
employees of the National Park Service, in honor of the park's 75th 
anniversary year.
                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1510

To amend the Family Support Act of 1988 to ensure that priority is given

to certain community development corporations in approving applications

to conduct demonstration projects to expand the number of job opportunities available to certain low-income individuals, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 1993

Mr. MARTINEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Family Support Act of 1988 to ensure that

priority is given to certain community development corporations in approving applications to conduct demonstration projects to expand the number of job opportunities available to certain low-income individuals, 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 1510 IH

1 SECTION 1. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO EXPAND THE

2 NUMBER OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES AVAIL3 ABLE TO CERTAIN LOW-INCOME INDIVID4 UALS.

5 (a) PRIORITY IN APPROVING APPLICATIONS.—Sec6 tion 505(c) of the Family Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.

7 1315 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(3) In approving applications under this section, the

9 Secretary shall, among otherwise equivalent applications

10 given priority pursuant to paragraph (2), give priority to

11 applications of community development corporations.’’.

12 (b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 505(g) of such Act

13 (42 U.S.C. 1315 note) is amended by inserting ‘‘, and not

14 to exceed $7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1993,

15 1994, and 1995’’ before the period.

16 (c) ADDITIONAL REPORT REQUIRED.—Section

17 505(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315 note) is amended—

18 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘and the re19 port described in paragraph (3)’’ before the period;

20 and

21 (2) by adding at the end the following:

22 ‘‘(3) Not later than January 1, 1996, the Secretary

23 shall submit to the Congress a report containing a sum24 mary of the evaluations conducted under paragraph (1),

25 together with such recommendations as the Secretary de26 termines are appropriate.’’.
3

•HR 1510 IH

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.1(bw)


 


On February 22, 2005, the Company’s Compensation Committee
approved an increase in the annual base salary for David J. Anderson, the
Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer to $550,000.  The increase was made retroactive to January 1,
2005, with the increase in monthly payments taking effect on April 1,
2005, and a one time lump sum payment was made to Mr. Anderson equal to the
monthly increase for the three months of January, February and March of
2005.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1736 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to adjust 

limitations on certain Farm Service Agency guaranteed and direct loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2017 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. STRANGE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act to adjust limitations on certain Farm Service Agency 

guaranteed and direct loans. 

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 ‘‘Capital for Farmers 

5 and Ranchers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FARM LOAN FUNDING REFORM. 

7 (a) LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF FARM OWNERSHIP

8 LOANS.—Section 305(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1736 IS

1 Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1925(a)(2)) is amend2 ed— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘$300,000’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘$600,000’’; 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘$700,000’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘$2,500,000’’; and 

7 (3) by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2017’’. 

8 (b) LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF OPERATING

9 LOANS.—Section 313(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and 

10 Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1943(a)(1)) is amend11 ed— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘$300,000’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘$600,000’’; 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘$700,000’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘$2,500,000’’; and 

16 (3) by striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2017’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony C. Bowman, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.), rendered December 14, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On this appeal defendant argues only that the sentence he received upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was harsh and excessive. However, he entered his plea knowing that he would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by County Court. Furthermore, the plea was in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment. Under these circumstances, we find no *755abuse of discretion by the court in sentencing defendant to a prison term of *IV2*to 4Vi years *(see, People v Mackey,*136 AD2d 780, *lv denied*71 NY2d 899).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *963Samuel White, Also Known as Money White, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of second degree murder, first degree assault, second degree criminal use of a firearm, and second degree criminal possession of a weapon, defendant contends that his convictions for murder and assault are not supported by legally sufficient evidence and are against the weight of the evidence; that the Trial Judge erred in failing to recuse herself; that the court erred in admitting testimony concerning prior shootings in the neighborhood; that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct; and that the court erred in failing to charge justification as a defense to criminal use of a firearm.

The evidence was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification and the convictions were not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury rationally could have found that defendant was not actually or reasonably in fear that Patterson might be killed at the time defendant shot Palmer. Similarly, the jury rationally could have found that defendant was not actually or reasonably in fear of his own life at the time he killed Robinson and that defendant could have safely retreated without killing Robinson *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [1], [2] [a]).

The Trial Judge was not "interested” in the case within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 14, and therefore was not bound to recuse herself. There was no showing that the Trial Judge knew a prospective prosecution witness or had contact with a member of the victim’s family.

Reversal is not required as a result of references to prior neighborhood shootings. The direct testimony of the People’s witness did not violate the rule of *People v Molineux*(168 NY 264), since it merely explained the background of the dispute without connecting the prior shootings to defendant. If defendant was prejudiced, it was as a result of defense counsel’s cross-examination of the witness, which established defendant’s role in the prior shootings.

Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct have no basis in the record.

Finally, with respect to defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge, we note that justification is not a defense to criminal use of a firearm in the second degree. Criminal use is a possessory offense of which the actual discharge of a firearm (i.e., the use of force) is not an essential element *(see,*Penal Law § 265.08). It is well settled that justification is not a *964defense to a weapon possession count *(People v Pons,*68 NY2d 264, 265; *People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 130). The case relied upon by defendant *(People v Morris,*109 AD2d 413) was expressly disapproved by the Court of Appeals in *Pons.*(Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
* 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. 95-20736

Summary Calendar

 

LAWRENCE P. MILES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SUNBELT NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.,

 Defendants,

SUNBELT NATIONAL BANK, 

LAUREN I. SCHVERAK and

MICHAEL B. MASSEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-92-1246

- - - - - - - - - -

June 13, 1996

Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). We earlier held that the district court’s orders

granting partial summary judgment, granting a protective order, 
No. 95-20736

- 2 -

and dismissing Lawrence Miles’s claims were not appealable final

judgments. Our earlier holding constitutes the law of the case,

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150

(5th Cir. 1993); Miles may not appeal those orders. 

Miles filed no notice of appeal following the district

court’s order closing his case. Even though the closing of the

case did not dispose of the counterclaim, it was nevertheless a

final order. See Lewis v. Beddingfield, 20 F.3d 123, 124 (5th

Cir. 1994)(indefinite stay of suit is final order); Johnson v.

Texas, 878 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir. 1989). We lack jurisdiction

to review that order. United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55

(5th Cir. 1992). 

Miles’s mandamus request is DENIED as moot. His motion to

expedite his appeal also is DENIED as moot. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000872588                                   
<NAME>                        LAS VEGAS ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK INC.
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         553,525
<SECURITIES>                                   106,199
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               659,724
<PP&E>                                         347,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                 259,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,405,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          308,181
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       36,620
<OTHER-SE>                                     48,459,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,405,780
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,727,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               940,983
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             81,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,754,530)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,754,530)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,754,530)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.72)                                 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.72)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                              200,093
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     5,763,350
<ALLOWANCES>                        125,000
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  6,469,054
<PP&E>                           18,327,549
<DEPRECIATION>                   10,776,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   14,568,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,896,374
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                           5,000
<COMMON>                             85,121
<OTHER-SE>                        4,345,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     14,568,058
<SALES>                          23,088,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 23,088,298
<CGS>                            14,529,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    14,529,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     51,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  592,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   1,450,983
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1,450,983
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      1,450,983
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .13
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BOOKER T. TRAVIS JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-601

[June 14, 2018]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; William W. Haury Jr, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 73-2431CF10A.

Booker T. Travis Jr, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000943904
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND V L.P., SERIES 3
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             241,525
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   241,525
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,017,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,886,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,017,643
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     9,501
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       28,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   178,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (197,998)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (197,998)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (197,998)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1710

JESSICA LYNNE REAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

JERRY O’NEIL,

Appellant,

v.

PAUL GAMMON; SHARON GAMMON; DIESEL ENGINE & EQUIPMENT 

REPAIR; JOHN DOES 1-20,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Danville. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (4:21-cv-00006-TTC)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessica Lynne Reavis; Jerry O’Neil, Appellants Pro Se. Clinton Wes Verity, HARMAN 

CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Jessica Lynne Reavis and Jerry O’Neil (collectively, Appellants) appeal the district 

court’s orders denying their motions to substitute parties and to reconsider. We have 

reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err. We therefore affirm 

the district court’s orders. Reavis v. Gammon, No. 4:21-cv-00006-TTC (W.D. Va. Apr. 27 

& May 25, 2021). We also deny all pending motions. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710 Doc: 42 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
House Calendar No. 36

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346

[Report No. 103–73]

A BILL

To redesignate the Federal building located on St.

tian Federal Building’’.Croix, Virgin Islands, as the ‘‘Almeric L. ChrisAPRIL 29, 1993

Reported with amendments, referred to the House

Calendar, and ordered to be printed
IB

House Calendar No. 36

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346

[Report No. 103–73]

To redesignate the Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands,

as the ‘‘Almeric L. Christian Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1993

Mr. DE LUGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

APRIL 29, 1993

Reported with amendments, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to

be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To redesignate the Federal building located on St. Croix,

Virgin Islands, as the ‘‘Almeric L. Christian Federal

Building’’.

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

•HR 1346 RH

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Is3 lands, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Almeric L.

4 Christian Federal Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

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

9 a reference to the ‘‘Almeric L. Christian Federal

10 Building’’.

11 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

12 The Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Is13 lands, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Almeric L.

14 Christian Federal Building’’.

15 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

18 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

19 reference to the ‘‘Almeric L. Christian Federal Building’’.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to designate

the Federal building located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands,

as the ‘Almeric L. Christian Federal Building’.’’