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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1513 

Congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates its 142nd season. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Mr. MURPHY of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates 

its 142nd season. 

Whereas, July 23, 2010, marks the start of the Saratoga 

Race Course’s 142nd season; 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course is the oldest continuously 

operating thoroughbred race track in the United States; 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course is the oldest organized 

sporting venue in the United States; 

Whereas 2010 marks the 141st running of the Travers 

Stakes, the oldest major thoroughbred race in the United 

States; 

Whereas horseracing enjoys a rich history whose traditions 

are beloved throughout the world; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1513 IH 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course welcomes an average of 

nearly 30,000 visitors per day throughout its race season 

and 1,000,000 visitors annually, tripling the population 

of Saratoga Springs each summer; 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course welcomes the best 

thoroughbreds from across the United States and from 

around the world; 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has a total economic impact of approximately $200,000,000 throughout Saratoga 

County and the surrounding communities; 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course contributes more than 

2,500 jobs to Saratoga Springs and the surrounding area 

as well as nearly 17,000 jobs in related fields; 

Whereas Saratoga Springs is a top destination for tourists 

from around the world; 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has been able to maintain 

its Victorian charm and original traditions; and 

Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has been recognized by 

Sports Illustrated Magazine as one of the world’s greatest sporting venues and has contributed to the town of 

Saratoga receiving the first ‘‘Great American Place’’ 

Award from American Heritage Magazine: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) congratulates the Saratoga Race Course as 

3 it celebrates its 142nd season; 

4 (2) encourages all people in the United States 

5 to spend an electrifying day at the races; and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1513 IH 

1 (3) recognizes the Saratoga Race Course’s im2 portant place in horseracing history. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
H. Res. 1636 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 28, 2010. 

Whereas the Hoover Dam, a concrete arch-gravity storage 

dam, was built in the Black Canyon of the Colorado 

River between the States of Nevada and Arizona, forever 

changing how water is managed across the West; 

Whereas, on September 30, 1935, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt dedicated the Hoover Dam; 

Whereas the construction of the dam created Lake Mead, a 

reservoir that can store two years average flow of the 

Colorado River providing vitally critical flood control, 

water supply, and electrical power to help create and support the economic growth and development of the Southwestern United States; 

Whereas the Hoover Dam has prevented an estimated 

$50,000,000,000 in flood damages in the Lower Colorado 

River Basin, provides water for more than 18,000,000 

people, for 1,000,000 acres of farmland in Arizona, California, and Nevada, and for 500,000 acres in Mexico, 

and produces on average 4,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours of 

hydroelectric power each year; 

Whereas the Hoover Dam, an engineering marvel at 726.4 

feet from bedrock to crest, was the highest dam in the 

world at construction; 
2 

•HRES 1636 EH 

Whereas the Hoover Dam is an enduring symbol of the country’s ingenuity and persistence of hard working Americans at the time of the Great Depression; 

Whereas the Hoover Dam is the model for major water management projects around the world; and 

Whereas the Hoover Dam is registered as a National Historic 

Landmark on the United States National Register of 

Historic Places and is considered one of seven modern 

engineering wonders by the American Society of Civil Engineers: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) celebrates and acknowledges the thousands of 

workers and families that overcame difficult working 

conditions and great challenges to make construction of 

the facility possible; 

(2) celebrates and acknowledges the economic, cultural, and historic significance of the Hoover Dam and 

its role in meeting future challenges; 

(3) recognizes the past, present, and future benefits 

of its construction to the agricultural, industrial, and 

urban development of the Southwestern United States; 

and 
3 

•HRES 1636 EH 

(4) joins the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, 

and the entire Nation in celebrating the 75th anniversary of the dedication of the Hoover Dam. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Dean CARBAJAL, petitioner, v. James FALK, Warden, et al.

No. 16-6340.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| Dated:  November 10, 2003 | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardChief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |                                                                 |
|                                     |                                                                 |
|                                     | /s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesChief Financial Officer         |
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Proposed Rules to Implement New Statutory Provisions in Part 40 of the 

Commission’s Regulations 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 

On July 21, 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Title VII of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, amended Part 40 of the Commission’s regulations to: 

• Include new registered entities, such as Swap Execution Facilities (“SEFs”) and Swap Data Repositories (“SDRs”). 

• Implement a new statutory framework for certification and approval procedures for new products, new rules and rule 

amendments submitted to the Commission by registered entities: 

o A new rule or rule amendment will become effective 10 business days after the certified rule or rule 

amendment is received by the Commission; 

o The Commission may stay the initial review period for additional 90 days if the Commission determines that 

the new rule or rule amendment presents novel or complex issues, is certified with an inadequate explanation, 

or is potentially inconsistent with the CEA or the Commission’s regulations; 

o The Commission must provide a 30-day public comment period, within the 90-day review period. The 

Commission will provide notice of the comment by posting the notice and the rule submission on the 

Commission’s website; 

• Require a systemically important derivatives clearing organization (SIDCO) to provide the Commission with a 60-day 

advance notice of any proposed change to its rules or procedures that could materially affect the nature or level of 

risks presented by the SIDCO. 

• Prohibit the listing, trading, or clearing of a product that is based on certain excluded commodities and that involves 

terrorism, assassination, assassination, war, gaming, or an activity that is unlawful under any State or Federal Law. 

o Prohibit the listing, trading, or clearing of a product involving similar activities and that the Commission 

determines, in a future rulemaking, to be contrary to the public interest. 

o If during the review of a new contract, the Commission determines that such product may involve any of the 

prohibited activity, than the Commission will request that the registered entity suspend the listing or trading 

of the contract and will conduct a 90-day review to determine whether the product relates to one of the 

prohibited activity. 

• Toll the product certification or approval review period for novel derivative products that have elements of both a 

security and a derivative pending the issuance of a final determination order as to whether the Commission or the 

SEC has jurisdiction over the product. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Marlon GRAHAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5824.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) Board of Visitors will hold a meeting to review and discuss academic policies and issues relative to the operation of the college. Agenda items include a review of the operations of the CCAF and an update on the activities of the CCAF Policy Council. 

                        Members of the public who wish to make oral or written statements at the meeting should contact First Lieutenant Matthew M. Groleau, Designated Federal Officer for the Board, at the address below no later than 4:00 p.m. on April 1, 2001. Please mail or electronically mail all requests. Telephone requests will not be honored. The request should identify the name of the individual who will make the presentation and an outline of the issues to be addressed. A minimum of 35 copies of the presentation materials must be given to First Lieutenant Matt Groleau no later than 3 days prior to the time of the board meeting for distribution. Visual aids must be submitted to First Lieutenant Matt Groleau on a 3                        1/2                        ” computer disk in Microsoft PowerPoint format no later than 4:00 p.m. on April 1, 2001 to allow sufficient time for virus scanning and formatting of the slides.                     

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. on the First Floor Conference Room, Community College of the Air Force, 130 West Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

First Lieutenant Matt Groleau, Community College of the Air Force, 130 West Maxwell Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6613, (334) 953-7322, or through electronic mail at matthew.groleau@maxwell.af.mil. 

Janet A. Long,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-1570 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-U
Ronnie BELL, petitioner, v. Elton MATTHEWS.

No. 15-9700.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### James T. Trimble *v.*The State.

1. Final Judgment.—In n murder case the jury found the accused guilty of murder in the first degree, and assessed his punishment at death; and thereupon the court below rendered judgment as follows: “It is considered by the court that the defendant is guilty as found by the jury, and that he be remanded to the county jail to await the sentence of the law.” *Held,*on motion to dismiss, not to be a final judgment, and motion sustained.

*2.*Same.—A final judgment would have further adjudged that the defendant be condemned to be hanged by the neck until he is dead.

Appeal from the District Court of Falls. Tried below Before the Hon. X. B. Saunders.

The judment entry is condensed in the head-note. After reciting the verdict, its full text was as follows : ‘ ‘ Therefore it is considered by the court that the defendant, James T. Trimble, is guilty as found by the jury. Therefore it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the said defendant, James T. Trimble, be remanded to the common jail in Falls county, by the sheriff, and there be safely and closely confined in said jail, there to await the final sentence of the law.”

*304
      *J. L. Scott,*and *Herring, Anderson & Kelley,*for appellant.

*George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General,

moves to dismiss the appeal because there is no final judgment.

Ector, P. J.

The motion of the assistant attorney general, to dismiss the appeal in this case for the want of a final judgment of conviction, must be granted. What was-evidently intended as an entry of such judgment has time and again been held not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction on appeal.

After approving the verdict of the jury and adjudging-the defendant guilty of murder of. the first degree, as found, by the verdict of the jury, it should further be adjudged that defendant be condemned to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. The form of a final judgment in the case of *Shultz*v. *The State,*13 Texas, 403, has been approved by the supreme court. In that case, as in this, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, and assessed his punishment at death.

There being no entry of a final judgment of conviction,, the appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*
No. 264.

#### Standard Wholesale Phosphate & Acid Works, Inc. *v.*General Chemical Co.

November 18, 1935.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             J. RAY MCDERMOTT, S.A.
                   STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
                 FOR THE TWO FISCAL YEARS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997

              (In thousands, except shares and per share amounts)

                           PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                   1997        1996
                                                   ----        ----
<S>                                             <C>          <C> 
Net Income (Loss)                               $(11,826)    $   187
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Less dividend requirements of preferred stock:
 Series A                                         (7,200)     (7,200)
 Series B                                            -          (511)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Net loss for primary computation                $(19,026)    $(7,524)
=====================================================================
Weighted average number of common
 shares outstanding during the year           40,376,361  39,499,972
=====================================================================
Net loss per common and common
 equivalent share /(1)/                         $  (0.47)    $ (0.19)
=====================================================================
</TABLE> 
/(1)/ Net loss per common and common equivalent share assuming full dilution are
      the same for the fiscal years presented.

Earnings per share are not presented for fiscal year 1995 because JRM was not a
separate entity with its own capital structure for that period.
* 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. 95-11148 Summary Calendar

__________________ VICTOR WESS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus DR. REVELL, Dr.; S.O. GUNTER; COOLBERLEE, Dr.; MYRICK, RN; FITZGERALD, RN, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-163
- - - - - - - - - - June 10, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Regardless whether the plaintiff's "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" are construed as a F ED . R. C IV . P. 59 motion or a motion to amend the complaint, the plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion by dismissing the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153 , 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 220No. 95-11148 -2- (1994); Simon v. United States , 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990); Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp. , 632 F.2d 539, 546 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 927 (1981). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 99**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors

Fulton Bancshares Corporation and Subsidiaries

McConnellsburg, Pennsylvania

 

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of FultonBancshares Corporation and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2005, and the relatedcondensed consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, and cashflows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.  These financial statements are theresponsibility of the company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial informationconsists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries ofpersons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than anaudit conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of anopinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modificationsthat should be made to the accompanying interim financial statements referredto above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States of America.

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards ofthe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidatedbalance sheet of Fulton Bancshares Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, retained earningsand comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presentedherein); and in our report dated March 2, 2005 (except for notes 14 and 15, asto which the date is March 29, 2005), we expressed an unqualified opinion onthose financial statements.  In ouropinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidatedbalance sheet as of December 31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all materialrespects, in relation to the balance sheet from which it has been derived.

 

 
|   | /s/ Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                        |   |
|   | SMITH ELLIOTT KEARNS & COMPANY, LLC     |

 

 

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

May 9, 2005

 

----
Exhibit 14
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.333-08246 on Form F-3, and No. 333-106837 on Form F-3/S-3 of our report dated 3August 2004, 22 October 2004 as to notes 28, 29 and 30 (which expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the natureand effect of differences between accounting principles generally accepted inthe United Kingdom and the United States of America, our audit of thetranslation of pounds sterling amounts into U.S. dollar amounts, and theadoptions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill andOther Intangible Assets” and Urgent Issues Task Force Abstract 38 “Accountingfor ESOP trusts”), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of British SkyBroadcasting Group plc for the year ended 30 June 2004.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
London, United Kingdom
Jarvis J. MASTERS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6253.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.