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

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1967

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To make technical corrections to the status of certain land

held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to take certain land into trust for that Band, and

for other purposes.

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

S 1967 RFH

1 SECTION 1. STATUS OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi3 sion of law—

4 (1) all land taken in trust by the United States

5 for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw

6 Indians on or after December 23, 1944, shall be

7 part of the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Reservation;

8 (2) all land held in fee by the Mississippi Band

9 of Choctaw Indians located within the boundaries of

10 the State of Mississippi, as shown in the report enti11 tled ‘‘Report of Fee Lands owned by the Mississippi

12 Band of Choctaw Indians’’, dated September 28,

13 1999, on file in the Office of the Superintendent,

14 Choctaw Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Depart15 ment of the Interior, is hereby declared to be held

16 by the United States in trust for the benefit of the

17 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; and

18 (3) land made part of the Mississippi Choctaw

19 Indian Reservation after December 23, 1944, shall

20 not be considered to be part of the ‘‘initial reserva21 tion’’ of the tribe for the purposes of section

22 20(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

23 (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii)).

24 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec25 tion shall be construed to alter the application or the re26 quirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
3

S 1967 RFH

1 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) with respect to any lands held by

2 or for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indi3 ans regardless of when such lands were acquired.

Passed the Senate June 14, 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
# 04-36047 Isham v. Barnhart

Jugdes DW Nelson, O'Scannlain, CJJ; Burns, DJ

496.62842
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000740892
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,373
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          394,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,801
<OTHER-SE>                                   (353,825)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,373
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,722
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Max Schweizer, Appellant.

County Court, Schoharie County,

July 9,1936.

*24
      *Bingham & Johnson,*for the appellant.

J. *Ernest Wharton, District Attorney,*for the respondent.

Golding, J.

The defendant appeals from his conviction in a Court of Special Sessions of the crime of petit larceny. He was fined $100. The information, in part, is as follows: “that one Max Schweizer, on the 15th to 25th day of September, 1936, at the Amos Scutt farm in the town of Fulton, County of Schoharie, New York, at about four o’clock in the afternoon of that day, did commit the crime of petit larceny in violation of section 1298 of the Penal Law, against the person or property of Amos Scutt, by feloniously, wrongfully, unlawfully, wilfully, maliciously and knowingly taking from the possession of the true owner, a gasolene engine worth in the neighborhood of one hundred dollars.”

A reversal of conviction is urged on several grounds. Only one is considered.

The defendant was convicted of petit larceny committed “ on the 15th to 25th day of September, 1936.” The information was sworn to and filed May 6, 1936. From the information, the offense was committed four months subsequent to its filing. No crime was committed by the defendant on September 6, 1936, as that date had not occurred. While neither an information nor an indictment need show the precise time of the commission of crime, except in certain cases, it should show that the crime was committed prior to the date of filing information or finding an indictment. There is nothing in the return to show this crime was committed on any other date and the defendant did not commit this offense on “ September 15th to 25th, 1936,” as that date had not occurred.

In the case of *People*v. *Van Every*(222 N. Y. 74) the defendant was indicted February 8, 1915, for a misdemeanor stated to have been committed on October 17, 1915. The County Court, on motion of the district attorney, and against the objection of the defendant, amended the indictment to October 17, 1914. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction but the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and held the county judge had no right to amend the indictment and in its opinion stated: “ In the present case, the crime was charged as having been committed months subsequent to the finding of the same by the grand jury, an impossible date, *25and as a matter of law can not be regarded as charging a crime ” (P- 77).

While an information need not be drawn with the same exactness as an indictment, yet it should state facts sufficient to show the crime was committed prior to its filing with the court and the issuing of warrant for defendant’s arrest thereon. This information states an impossible date and as a matter of law charges no crime. The court had no jurisdiction and the defendant’s pleading guilty to the crime committed on that impossible date has not waived any of his rights. Judgment of conviction should be reversed.

Judgment of conviction is reversed and defendant is discharged and the fine he has paid remitted.