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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1388 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the increase 

in expensing of certain depreciable business assets enacted by the Jobs 

and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2003 and extended by the 

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the increase in expensing of certain depreciable business assets enacted by the Jobs and Growth 

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2003 and extended by the 

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Ex5 pensing Permanency Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1388 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS 

2 MADE PERMANENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar 

5 limitation) is amended by striking ‘‘$25,000 ($100,000 in 

6 the case of taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 

7 2008)’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

8 (b) INCREASE IN QUALIFYING INVESTMENT AT

9 WHICH PHASEOUT BEGINS.—Paragraph (2) of section 

10 179(b) of such Code (relating to reduction in limitation) 

11 is amended by striking ‘‘$200,000 ($400,000 in the case 

12 of taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘$400,000’’. 

14 (c) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—Section 

15 179(b)(5)(A) of such Code (relating to inflation adjust16 ments) is amended by striking ‘‘and before 2006’’. 

17 (d) REVOCATION OF ELECTION.—Section 179(c)(2) 

18 of such Code (relating to election irrevocable) is amended 

19 by striking ‘‘and before 2006’’. 

20 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

22 of this Act. 

Æ
Joseph WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6787.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7848

THOMAS HARLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA02-1341) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Harley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Harley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Harley that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Harley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Harley has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Harley’s motion asking the court to consider documents as an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Emerging Risks

• Farmland Price Bubble• U.S. Federal Debt / 

Government Bond Bubble

• State and Municipal Budgets 

Muni Credit Risk
0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,500

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 199

In 2010 dollars, present farmland values exceed the twbooms of the 20th century.

Farmland Value Per Acre2010 dollars

Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Data are as of January 1 each ye

that has been inflation-adjusted by the FDIC.

Peak-to-trough declines:- Each more than 40 percent
0

50

100150200250300350

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Indexed inflation-adjusted values (1960=100)

Unlike the 1970s, current increases in farmland values houtpaced increases in aggregate farm real estate debt.

Aggregate farm real 

National per-acre farmland 

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service. 

are as of January 1 each year. Farm real estate debt values are as of year-end each yea

which is year-to-date as of 11-30-2010. Nominal data that has been inflation-adjusted by 
The Farm Credit System and commercial banks dominate agriculture lending

Farm Real Estate Debt

• Total: $134.5B 

– Farm Credit System: $58.4B, 43.4%– Commercial Banks: $50.3B, 37.4%– Life Insurance Companies: $14.2B, 10.6%– Individuals and Others: $8.7B, 6.5%– Farm Service Agency: $2.3B, 1.7%– Storage Facility Loans: $.5B, 0.4%

Farm Production Debt• Total: $110.8B

– Commercial Banks: $57.0, 51.5%– Farm Credit System: $39.9B, 36.0%– Individuals and Others: $11.1B, 10.0%– Farm Service Agency: $2.8B, 2.5%

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), November 30, 20
10-Year Treasury Note Yield at Constant Mat

% p.a.

80 85 90 95 00 05 

Source: Federal Reserve Board /Haver Analytics

1612

840
Gross Federal Debt as a Percentage of GD

Debt Held by the Public

90 95 00 05 10 15 

Sources: CBO /Haver

100

80604020

Projecti

95

100105110

Jan 10 Apr 10 Jul 10 Oct 10 

Municipal Bond Exchange-Traded Fund (i-Shares MUB 

Source: Bloomberg

2010 peak: 107.17

Nov. 16, 2010: 100.54

Dec. 14, 2010: 97.3

Jan. 14, 2011
Cesar Manuel CRUZ-RASCON, aka Cesar Cruz-Razon, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10284.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.A****CERTIFICATION**I, James C. Yardley, certify that:     1. I havereviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 6, 2008         */s/ James C. Yardley*   James C. Yardley   President and Chief Executive Officer
The Hon orable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 West ernDistrict of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2684

___________ Shirley J. Miller, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Kenneth S. Apfel, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 3, 1998 Filed: March 19, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Shirley J. Miller appeals the district court & s grant of summary judgment affirming 1 the Social Security Commis sioner & s decision to deny Miller & s applications for disability ins urance benefits and supplemental security income after a hearing before a n administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Miller argues the ALJ failed to propound an accurate hypothetical question to the vocational expert (VE) during the hearing , because in describing impairments and functional limitations the ALJ failed to-2-

include Miller & s headaches and dizziness. Miller also contends, given her extensiv e history of head injuries and statements in the record as to depression, there was sufficient basis to raise an issue as to her mental and psychological capacity to engage in work

related activities. Having carefully review ed the record, we conclude the Commissioner & s decision is supported by substanti al evidence in the record as a whole. See McClees v. Shalala , 2 F.3d 301, 302 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard o f review). Although the ALJ did not include Miller & s headaches in the hypothetical posed to the VE, the ALJ expres sly found Miller & s testimony as to the severity of her impairments and attendant symptoms not credible, and that finding was supported by the record as a whole. See House v. Shalala , 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1994) (ALJ was not required to include claimant & s subjective complaints of he adaches in hypothetical question posed to VE where ALJ & s discrediting o f complaints of disabling headaches was supported by record a s whole); Miller v. Shalala , 8 F.3d 611, 613-14 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (VE & s testimony amounts to substantial evidence if question asked included precisely impairments that ALJ accepted as true).

In add ition, there was no evidence Miller sought treatment for a menta l impairment, and she affirmatively stated at the hearing that she did not suffer from any mental problems. The ALJ therefore was not required to c omplete a Psychiatric Review Tec hniqueForm based on Miller & s potential mental problems. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b). We affirm the judgment of the district court.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1796 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1796

 To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route of the 
Mississippi River from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the 
Gulf of Mexico for study for potential addition to the National Trails 
 System as a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

Ms. McCollum of Minnesota (for herself, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Corrine Brown 
of Florida, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Berry, and Mr. 
    Sabo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route of the 
Mississippi River from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the 
Gulf of Mexico for study for potential addition to the National Trails 
 System as a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mississippi River Trail Study Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ROUTE OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FOR STUDY FOR 
              POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.

    (a) Designation.--Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the first paragraph after paragraph 
        (40) as paragraph (41) and, in such paragraph, by striking 
        ``The'' and inserting ``Long Walk Trail.--The'';
            (2) by redesignating the second paragraph after paragraph 
        (40) as paragraph (42); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(43) Mississippi River Trail.--The route of the Mississippi River 
from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico.''.
    (b) Relation to Other Studies.--The study required by the amendment 
made by this section is intended to complement, and not duplicate, 
other studies of the scenic or historical importance of the Mississippi 
River that may be underway or undertaken.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2018

No. 04-17-00586-CV

Juan Garcia MORENO,

Appellant

v.

Juan Garcia MORENO,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1988-CI-17672

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief 

is due February 20, 2018.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1785 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-Xylidine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4-Xylidine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,4-XYLIDINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.04.55 2,4-Xylidine (CAS No. 95– 

68–1) (provided for in subheading 2921.49.10) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply to articles entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 1785 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Alfred Milton RIVERA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Warden BLEDSOE, United States Penitentiary—Lee, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-7802.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 4, 2006.

Alfred Milton Rivera, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Milton Rivera, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order that construed his petition he labeled as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissed it as *317successive. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rivera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*

*DISMISSED*

*

 To the extent Rivera may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, such a motion should be filed in the circuit in which he was sentenced.
Jamal Lataz KING, petitioner, v. Lloyd RAPELJE, Warden.

No. 12-10011.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MAURICE C. BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-196-TLS

)

JESSE WHITE d/b/a Illinois Secretary )

of State, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] against Defendant Jesse

White in his official capacity as the Illinois Secretary of State, along with a Petition to Proceed

Without Pre-Payment of Fees and Costs [ECF No. 4]. In assessing whether the Plaintiff may

proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must look to the sufficiency of the Complaint to determine

whether it can be construed as stating a claim for which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). District courts have the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to screen

complaints even before service of the complaint on the defendant and must dismiss the

complaint if it fails to state a claim. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999); see also

Butler v. City of Milwaukee, 295 Fed. Appx. 838, 839–40 (7th Cir. 2008) (stating that it was

“wholly within the district court’s authority to dismiss [on its own motion] for failure to state a

claim”).

Although the Complaint is somewhat difficult to follow, the Plaintiff appears to be

seeking money damages—described by the Plaintiff as “punitive damages”—due to the
suspension of his driver’s license and certain incidents arising therefrom.1

 (Compl. 8.) By

seeking money damages against an Illinois state official in his official capacity, the Plaintiff is

effectively seeking money damages against the State of Illinois. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.

159, 169 (1985). Such a claim cannot be maintained under the Eleventh Amendment. Id.

(“Absent waiver by the State or valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars a

damages action against a State in federal court.”) For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES

the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 4] and

DISMISSES the Complaint [ECF No. 1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

SO ORDERED on December 18, 2015.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

1

The Court notes that the Plaintiff has filed at least eight separate lawsuits in federal district court

over the last two years (including the present lawsuit). See Brown v. Bunich (2:14-cv-334); Brown v. 21st

Century Mortg. Corp. (2:15-cv-118); Brown v. BP Amoco Corp. (2:15-cv-179); Brown v. Indiana (2:15-

cv-200); Brown v. Dart (2:15-cv-208); Brown v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (2:15-cv-361); Brown v.

Alvarez (2:15-cv-370).

2
John ROBINSON, petitioner, v. NEW JERSEY.

No. 12-9872.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 1 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 2 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 3 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 4 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 5 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 6 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 7 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 8 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 9 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 10 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 11 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 12 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 13 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 14 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 15 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 16 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 17 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 18 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 19 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 20 of 21

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 134   filed 03/05/15   page 21 of 21