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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2007 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the $25,000 offset 

for individuals under the passive loss rules to apply to investments 

in wind energy facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (for himself and Mr. GUTKNECHT) 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 allow the 

$25,000 offset for individuals under the passive loss rules 

to apply to investments in wind energy facilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF $25,000 OFFSET IN PASSIVE 

4 LOSS RULES TO INVESTMENTS IN WIND EN5 ERGY FACILITIES. 

6 (a) PHASEOUT NOT TO APPLY.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 

8 469(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat9 ing to $25,000 offset for rental real estate activities) 
2 

•HR 2007 IH 

1 is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and 

2 (F) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively, and 

3 by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following 

4 new subparagraph: 

5 ‘‘(E) EXCEPTION FOR WIND ENERGY

6 CREDIT.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 

7 any portion of the passive activity credit for any 

8 taxable year which is attributable to any credit 

9 determined under section 45 with respect to a 

10 facility using wind to produce electricity.’’. 

11 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph 

12 (F) of section 469(i)(3) of such Code, as redesig13 nated by paragraph (1), is amended— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘or (D)’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘(D), or (E)’’ in the material preceding clause 

16 (i), 

17 (B) by striking ‘‘or (D)’’ in clause (iii) and 

18 inserting ‘‘, (D), or (E)’’, 

19 (C) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause 

20 (iv), and 

21 (D) by striking clause (v) and inserting the 

22 following new clauses: 

23 ‘‘(v) fifth to the portion of such credit 

24 to which subparagraph (D) applies, and 
3 

•HR 2007 IH 

1 ‘‘(vi) then to the portion of such cred2 it to which subparagraph (E) applies.’’. 

3 (b) ACTIVE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT NOT TO

4 APPLY.—Subparagraph (B) of section 469(i)(6) of such 

5 Code is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

6 (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 

7 inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at the end the following 

8 new clause: 

9 ‘‘(iv) any credit to which paragraph 

10 (3)(E) applies.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

13 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41131

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AURELIO RAMIREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-923-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Aurelio RamirezGarcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez-Garcia has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-41131 Document: 00513079114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 13-41131

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 13-41131 Document: 00513079114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
---

CONSENT OF TING LU

|To: | United States Securities and Exchange               
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------
|    | Commission                                          
|    |                                                     
|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the
      Company)
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                          
|    | Consent of Expert                                   

This consent is provided in connection with the Companys
annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 to be filed by
the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC) and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report). The
Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys
Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the AIF),
and the Companys Management Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December
31, 2016 (the MD&A).

I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the following technical report
(the "Technical Report"):

- 2014 Technical Report on the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska, USA,
  effective date December 31, 2014

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report, the AIF, the MD&A and the Companys registration
statement on Form F-3, as amended (SEC File No. 333-209921) (the
Registration Statement) and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of the information derived from the Technical Report in the Annual
Report, the AIF, the MD&A and the Registration Statement.

Dated the 30th day of March, 2017.

Yours truly,

/Ting Lu/

Ting Lu, P.Eng. Tetra Tech

---
#### STRASBOURGER, Plaintiff, v. FALKENBERG, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 7, 1899.)

Action by Henri Strasbourger against Herman Falkenberg.

No opinion. Judgment for plaintiff on agreed statement of facts, on the ground that defendant’s title is so doubtful, by reason of the existence of the auctioneer’s bond, that the court would not be justified in compelling plaintiff to accept it.
/ 

fl 

,/ 

Joan F. M. Malone, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Former President 

George Bush Sr. et al., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

NOV - 5 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

10 1902 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is frivolous. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977) .. 
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues former President George H. W. Bush, other 

former high-level officials and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty but for what conduct is 

unknown. The complaint, consisting mostly of disjointed words and phrases, fails to provide any 

notice of a claim and is simply frivolous. 1 A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: November~, 2010 

1 This complaint is one of five such submissions received by the Clerk's Office on the 

same day. Each complaint names a different set of defendants but is otherwise the same. 

Moreover, the Court recently dismissed another of plaintiffs complaints as frivolous. Malone v. 

us. President Barack Obama, No. 10-1826 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2010). Plaintiff is warned that her 

persistence in filing similar lawsuits may result in the Court imposing restrictions on her ability 

to file cases in this Court. 

2
#### Ralph Guggenheim, Respondent, v Ann Guggenheim, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Bryant, J.), entered August 13, 1984 in Tompkins County, which amended a final judgment of divorce.

On June 9, 1982, defendant obtained a final judgment of divorce. The judgment was based, in part, upon a stipulation between the parties which was incorporated therein. So far as pertinent herein, the stipulation provided that defendant was to have the exclusive occupancy of the marital residence. Thereafter, defendant moved for an order pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 to modify and amend the final judgment so as to require plaintiff to provide for the support of defendant or, in the alternative, to refer the issue to Family Court. Special Term referred all issues relative to the support and maintenance of defendant to Family Court. However, Special Term also modified the final judgment of divorce “so as to strike therefrom any provisions therein which would preclude the disposition of the real property of the parties by partition”. This appeal by defendant from that part of the order authorizing realty partition ensued. We reverse.

Here, plaintiff failed to serve a notice of cross motion seeking the relief of authorization of partition. Such a notice should have accompanied the affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to defendant’s motion for support *(see,*CPLR 2215). “It is not as a rule sufficient to demand such relief in opposing affidavits or memoranda; an outright notice is required, to avoid any surprise at all to the original movant” (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:l, p 107). While we have held that the absence of a separate notice of *1013motion is not necessarily fatal where the element of surprise is removed by a clear recitation in the answering affidavit of a party’s intention to seek separate relief on the return date of the movant’s motion *(Plateis v Flax,*54 AD2d 813; *see, Haskell v State of New York,*81 AD2d 953), no such intention was set forth in plaintiff’s answering papers. It is not enough to request such relief orally on the return date of the movant’s motion.

Order modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as modified the final judgment of divorce by striking therefrom any provisions which would preclude disposition of the real property of the parties by partition, and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000714286
<NAME> UNITED FINANCIAL BANKING COMPANIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,814,791
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         100,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,584,493
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,763,157
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,576,974
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         4,588,825
<LOANS>                                     36,203,361
<ALLOWANCE>                                    767,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,784,178
<DEPOSITS>                                  48,363,772
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            321,557
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       831,590
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,267,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              53,784,178
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,564,730
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              468,866
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 4,581
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,036,177
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,369,396
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 808
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,655,973
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  118,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,658,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                141,474
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     141,474
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   141,474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.33
<LOANS-NON>                                    202,708
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               715,399
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   77,303
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,690
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              767,686
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           767,686
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        467,093
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1855 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on magnesium aluminum 

hydroxide carbonate hydrate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on magnesium 

aluminum hydroxide carbonate hydrate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM HYDROXIDE CAR4 BONATE HYDRATE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.32 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

9 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or 
2 

•HR 1855 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
ANNUAL REPORT 2012 11

I am pleased to present 

the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation’s 

(FDIC) 2014 Annual 

Report (also referred 

to as the Performance 

and Accountability 

Report). The report 

covers financial and 

program performance 

information, and 

summarizes our 

successes for the year. The FDIC takes pride in providing 

timely, reliable, and meaningful information to its 

many stakeholders. 

For 23 consecutive years, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) has issued unmodified 

(unqualified) audit opinions for the two funds administered 

by the FDIC: the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and the 

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) 

Resolution Fund (FRF). We take pride in our responsibility 

and demonstrate discipline and accountability as stewards 

of these funds. We remain proactive in execution of 

sound financial management and in providing reliable 

financial data.

During 2014, the FDIC continued to rebuild the DIF 

following the most recent banking crisis. Since the end 

of 2009, when the DIF was negative $20.9 billion, the DIF 

increased by $83.7 billion to a record $62.8 billion at the 

end of 2014. This increase is primarily due to $57.9 billion 

in cumulative assessment revenue and a $23.4 billion 

cumulative decrease in the provision for insurance losses.

FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR 2014

For 2014, DIF comprehensive income totaled $15.6 billion, 

an increase of $1.4 billion over the 2013 comprehensive 

income of $14.2 billion. This increase is primarily due to 

a negative $8.3 billion in provision for insurance losses 

in 2014 compared to a negative $5.7 billion in 2013. 

Assessment revenue was $8.7 billion in 2014 as compared 

to $9.7 billion in 2013, a decrease of $1.0 billion. Interest on 

U.S. Treasury obligations totaled $282 million as compared 

to $103 million in 2013; at the end of 2014, the yield to 

maturity on the DIF portfolio was 0.70%.

In April 2014, we closed the last of our three temporary 

offices which were originally opened in 2009 and 2010 to 

deal with the banking crisis. At the height of the banking 

crisis, the FDIC full-time equivalent employees peaked 

at 8,241. At the end of 2014, we had 6,631 employees, a 

20% reduction in overall staffing. While we have reduced 

staffing and project further reductions in 2015, we will 

maintain a workforce ready to carry out the mission of the 

FDIC and to handle any future bank failures.

In 2014, there were 18 bank failures, down markedly from 

the peak of 157 in 2010, and the lowest number since 25 

failures occurred at the beginning of the crisis in 2008. As 

bank failures decline further, we will continue to manage 

risks, especially as they pertain to our goal of rebuilding 

the DIF. We will remain focused on sound financial 

management techniques, and maintain our enterprise-wide 

risk management and internal control program.

Sincerely,

Steven O. App

Message from the Chief Financial Officer

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 11
Ronnie BERNACET, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7281.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1832 

To extend the suspension of duty on 5-amino-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)–2,3- 

xylenesulfonamide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on 5-amino-N-(2- 

hydroxyethyl)–2,3-xylenesulfonamide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 5-AMINO-N-(2-HYDROXYETHYL)–2,3- 

4 XYLENESULFONAMIDE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.30.31 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 1832 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1847 

To redesignate the National Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Columbia Scientific Balloon Center’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Science 

A BILL 

To redesignate the National Scientific Balloon Facility in 

Palestine, Texas, as the ‘‘Columbia Scientific Balloon 

Center’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the National Science Foundation that 

5 is used by the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis6 tration, located at 1510 E. FM 3224 in Palestine, Texas, 

7 and known as the National Scientific Balloon Facility, 

8 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Columbia Scientific 

9 Balloon Center’’. 
2 

•HR 1847 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

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

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Columbia Scientific Balloon Center’’. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           13325
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             986
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     290654
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            276996
<LOANS>                                         396597
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  715746
<DEPOSITS>                                      405278
<SHORT-TERM>                                     14198
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               4507
<LONG-TERM>                                     234000
<COMMON>                                         81601
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10319)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  715746
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   8176
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 4751
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     7
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 12934
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3948
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7410
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             5524
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  15
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   3121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2524
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2524
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1808
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.35
<LOANS-NON>                                       1185
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1348
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3857
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      412
<RECOVERIES>                                        49
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4094
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3850
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            244


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Doe, Also Known as Donald Robinson, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered February 16, 1982, affirmed *(People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.