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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1581 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1581

 To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new Form 1040S.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2005

    Mr. Simmons (for himself, Mr. Foley, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Burton of 
 Indiana, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Brown of 
    Ohio, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Cox, Mr. Bass, Mr. 
 Boustany, Ms. Carson, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, 
and Mr. Reynolds) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new Form 1040S.

    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 ``Simplify Tax Filing for Seniors Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FORM 1040S FOR SENIORS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's 
delegate) shall make available a form, to be known as ``Form 1040S'', 
for use by individuals to file the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Such form shall be as similar as 
practicable to Form 1040EZ, except that--
            (1) the form shall be available to individuals who have 
        attained age 65 as of the close of the taxable year,
            (2) the form may be used even if income for the taxable 
        year includes--
                    (A) social security benefits (as defined in section 
                86(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
                    (B) distributions from qualified retirement plans 
                (as defined in section 4974(c) of such Code), annuities 
                or other such deferred payment arrangements,
                    (C) interest and dividends, or
                    (D) capital gains and losses taken into account in 
                determining adjusted net capital gain (as defined in 
                section 1(h)(3)), and
            (3) the form shall be available without regard to the 
        amount of any item of taxable income or the total amount of 
        taxable income for the taxable year.
    (b) Effective Date.--The form required by subsection (a) shall be 
made available for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 2:13-CR-76

)

JASON ROSSITER, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Amended Motion for

Modification or Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

3582(c)(2) and Guideline Amendment 782, filed by Jason Rossiter on

March 9, 2015. (DE # 22). For the reasons set forth below,

Defendant’s request for a sentencing modification is DENIED. 

Defendant, Jason Rossiter, pled guilty to a violation of Title

18 U.S.C. section 1952. The charge to which Rossiter pled guilty

provides for a maximum sentence of five years of imprisonment. 

Jason Rossiter’s guideline range would have been 235-293 months,

but he received a sentence of only 60 months because it was the

maximum term of imprisonment available under the statute. Upon

receiving the instant request, this Court directed the United

States Probation Office to provide the Court with a copy of

Defendant’s original Presentence Report (PSR) (with any addenda,

previous updates and/or supplements), along with a current
supplement addressing the impact of Amendment 782 upon Defendant’s

sentence. (See DE #24.) The Probation Office filed the sentencing

reduction addendum (DE #25) indicating Defendant is not entitled to

a reduction of sentence because, absent the statutory maximum, his

guideline range even after the amendment is applied would be 188-

235 months. 

In sum, the maximum term of imprisonment permitted by 18

U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) dictates a sentence far lower than the

Guideline range that would otherwise result, even with the

amendment. Accordingly, Defendant is not eligible for a reduction

under § 3582(c)(2), pursuant to Amendment 782 of the United States

Sentencing Guidelines.

DATED: June 10, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

2
Lori Rappaport LaCROIX, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ; Lori Rappaport LaCroix, petitioner, v. Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., et al.; Lori Rappaport LaCroix, petitioner, v. Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., et al.; and Lori Rappaport LaCroix, petitioner, v. Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., et al.

No. 13-6179.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cr-00012-TLS-SLC

)

GUADALUPE QUINTANILLA )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on April 1, 2016, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant

be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have sentence

imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and Recommendation

be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled before Judge Theresa

L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation

are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 1st day of April 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E F/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R I C K ME ND OZ A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 30238 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c r - 0 0 1 2 4 - LRS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on L onnyR . S uko, C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B e f o r e : G O O D W I N , W A L L A C E , a n dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R ic kM e n d o z aap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te 5 0 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f am ix tu r e o rs u b s ta n c e c o n ta in in g ad e te c tab le



# FI LED DE C 23 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE F/ Res ea r ch 08- 30238 2 am ou ntof m etham ph et am i ne and 5 00 gram s or m ore of am i xture or s ub st ance c ont a i ni ng ade t e c t abl e a m ountof c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846. P ur s ua ntt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), M en d o za ’s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l of re cord. M endo zahas f i l ed a pro se supp l em ent al bri ef , and the go vernm enthas f i l ed an answ er i ng bri ef

. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s ua ntt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED . H ow ever , w e RE MAND t o the di s tr i c tc ourtf or the l i m i t ed pu rpose of c orre ct i ng the j ud gm entt o cl ar i fythatM endo zaw as c o n v ic te do f

v io la tin g 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d8 4 6 .
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28429-28430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13232]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28430]]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.; NHK 
Science and Technical Research Laboratories

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 17, 1995, pursuant to the 
National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., 
(``CableLabs''); and NHK Science and Technical Research Laboratories 
(``NHK''), have filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plantiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are CableLabs, Louisville, CO; and 
NHK, Tokyo, JAPAN.
    The general area of planned activity is to exchange information and 
ideas about high definition television, multi-user shared spectrum 
transmission of video and the technical possibilities for general 
television and audio visual services in the future.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-13232 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11800]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
[Docket No. 94-022N]

National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for 
Foods; Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Advisory 
Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods will be held on 
Thursday, May 25, and Friday, May 26, 1995, at the Holiday Inn Crowne 
Plaza, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, (301) 468-1100. 
The meetings will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on May 25 and 
from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on May 26.
    The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the 
Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services concerning the 
development of microbiological criteria by which the safety and 
wholesomeness of food can be assessed, including criteria pertaining to 
microorganisms that indicate whether food has been produced using good 
manufacturing practices. This meeting is being held prior to the 
closing of the comment period to provide for a full discussion of 
USDA's ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
(HACCP) Systems'' proposed rulemaking published on February 3, 1995 (60 
FR 6774). The proposal was introduced to the Committee at its meeting 
on April 17-19, 1995, and the Committee members were asked to provide 
their scientific advice at this May meeting. The meeting will include 
discussion of the following topics as time permits:
    I. Input and Discussion on the USDA ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems'' proposed 
rulemaking,
    II. HACCP Application in Broiler Slaughter and Processing,
    III. Parameters for the Safe Processing and Distribution of Smoked 
Fish, and
    IV. Public Comments.
    The Committee meeting is open to the public on a space available 
basis. With the exception of comments on the Pathogen Reduction; HACCP 
Systems proposed rule, interested persons may file comments on topics 
listed in this notice. Comments may be sent before and after the 
meeting to: Mr. Craig Fedchock, Advisory Committee Specialist, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 
311, 1255 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. Comments on the 
Pathogen Reduction; HACCP Systems proposed rule should be submitted to: 
FSIS Docket Clerk's Office, Room 4352, South Agriculture Building, Food 
Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, DC 20250. Background materials are available for inspection 
by contacting Mr. Fedchock on (202) 254-2517.

    Done at Washington, DC, on: May 9, 1995.
Michael R. Taylor,
Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-11800 Filed 5-9-95; 3:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
```
James PARK, aka Mobboy, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6984.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Michael GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1281

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 16, 2019

Michael Green, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In his petition for habeas corpus, the appellant attempts to collaterally attack his judgments and sentences for the third time. The trial court correctly determined that the appellant is not entitled to relief. A petition for habeas corpus is not available to seek collateral postconviction relief. *Baker v. State* , 878 So. 2d 1236, 1242 (Fla. 2004). If we review the appellant's petition as a motion for postconviction relief, the motion is time-barred because the appellant's judgments and sentences became final more than two years prior to him filing the instant motion. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) ; *Green v. State* , 169 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (Table).

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, B.L. Thomas, and Roberts, JJ., concur.
EX-12 3 ex12.htm EXHIBIT 12






EXHIBIT 12






STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS






FIRST GUARANTY BANCSHARES, INC.






Return on average assets has been computed by dividing income available to common shareholders for each period presented by average total assets for the respective period.






Return on average equity has been computed by dividing income available to common shareholders for each period presented by average Stockholders’ equity for the respective period.






Dividend payout has been computed by dividing the cash dividends paid per share of common stock by income available to common shareholders for the respective period.






Leverage ratio is a ratio of equity to assets, defined as period end Tier I capital as a percent of average assets for the recent quarter adjusted for core deposit intangible and unrealized gain and losses on securities available for sale.






Book Value per common share is common shareholders equity divided by common shares outstanding.






Efficiency ratio is computed by dividing noninterest expense by taxable equivalent net interest income plus noninterest income, excluding securities gains (losses); this ratio measures the cost to generate revenue.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ) Under Contract No. W911 W6-05-2-0006 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59541

Andrew E. Shipley, Esq. Donald J. Camey, Esq. Seth H. Locke, Esq.

Perkins Coie LLP Washington, DC E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Lawrence S. Rabyne, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Arlington Heights, IL ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal has been settled. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: 1April 2015 ,/-7 /, !,. iii(
. 

# /( v - /('

- ;J
. 

### IX**Y..A--~/) .~~J**  v DIANA s/bICKINSON Administfative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59541, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### RAYMOND, Respondent, v. SHOOK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1899.)

Action by Sarah E. Raymond, as executrix against Sheridan Shook. D. Gerber, for appellant. F. E. Anderson, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 1 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 2 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 3 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 4 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 5 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 6 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 7 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 8 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 9 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 10 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 11 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 12 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 13 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 14 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 15 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 16 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 17 of 18
USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00491-RLM-CAN document 1 filed 10/22/15 page 18 of 18
Exhibit 32 (b)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the six months ended June 30, 2006, I, Lisa M. Porter, Chief
Financial Officer of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-QSB , 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 such Form 10-QSB , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ LISA M. PORTER     
|Lisa M. Porter         
|Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 21, 2006



20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

JOSEPH A. CIGLER, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL NO. 2:15cv17

)

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a “Motion for Clarification of Opinion and Order”, filed

by the Plaintiff, Joseph A. Cigler (“Cigler”), proceeding pro se, on September 17, 2015. The

defendant has declined to file a response. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

Cigler filed this case in state court on December 1, 2014. The defendant then removed to

this court on January 12, 2015. On January 20, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, which prompted Cigler to file a motion to remand the case back to state

court. On March 18, 2015, this court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied

Cigler’s motion to remand.

On April 3, 2015, Cigler filed a motion to reopen the case, which was denied on May 27,

2015. Undeterred, on July 13, 2015, Cigler filed another motion to reopen case and remand to

state court. This motion was denied on August 13, 2015.

Cigler has now filed a motion for clarification, in which he essentially re-states his belief

that he has a valid claim against the defendant and should be able to proceed with his case. 

Nevertheless, for the reasons stated in this court’s previous orders, Cigler has failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, the grant of the motion to dismiss was proper and
Cigler’s “motion for clarification” will be denied. If Cigler continues to disagree with this

court’s rulings, it is suggested that Cigler seek redress with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, Cigler’s “motion for clarification” is hereby DENIED.

 

 Entered: September 23, 2015.

 s/ William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

 United States District Court

2