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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3997 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3997

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1990 tax 
                           increase on beer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1996

 Mr. Neal of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. Matsui) 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 repeal the 1990 tax 
                           increase on beer.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1990 TAX INCREASE ON BEER.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 5051(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition and rate of tax on beer) 
is amended by striking ``$18'' and inserting ``$9''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the 7th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN MCPHERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICIA CARUSO, BLAINE LAFLER,

BARBARA MEAGHER, JOHN KERNEY,

DIANA MARBLE, JOHN DOE and JANE

DOE,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 2:09-cv-11766

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket

no. 34), GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (docket no. 30), and

GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 19)

This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff, John McPherson,

alleges that defendants Patricia Caruso, Blaine Lafler, Barbara Meagher, John Kerney and

Diana Marble were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Kerney and Marble (the “CMS

Defendants”), filed on October 20, 2009, a motion for summary judgment by Caruso, Lafler

and Meager (the “MDOC Defendants”), filed on August 20, 2009, and the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Randon, filed on January 15, 2010. The magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation recommended that both motions be granted and the

case be dismissed. The magistrate judge also notified the parties that any objections must

be filed within fourteen days of service. No party has filed objections to the report and

recommendations.

The Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and
2

recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to

Magistrate Judge Randon’s report and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this Court need not and will not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation

(docket entry 34) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket entry 30) is

GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket

entry 19) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: March 5, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on March 5, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Spherion Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark W. Smith, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/MARK W. SMITHMark W. Smith
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2005 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

85

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3858 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3858

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent, for unemployment 
  compensation purposes, service performed by a person committed to a 
          penal institution from being treated as employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 1996

  Mr. Thomas 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 prevent, for unemployment 
  compensation purposes, service performed by a person committed to a 
          penal institution from being treated as employment.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SERVICES PERFORMED BY INMATES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 3306 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining employment) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (19),
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (20) and 
        inserting ``; or'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(21) service performed by a person committed to a penal 
        institution.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to service performed on or after March 26, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3, No. 333-03205, Form S-3, No. 333-13363,
Form S-3, No. 333-64616, Form S-3, No. 333-65412, Form S-8, No. 333-35853, Form S-8, No. 333-81863, and Form S-8, No. 333-81865)
of The Mills Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated February 19, 2002, except for Note 17, as to which the date is February 28, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Mills Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

McLean,
Virginia
March 26, 2002

---

QuickLinks
1

Although costs have already been awarded, Defendants’ current motion is necessary to

recover costs for fees related to a sealed deposition transcript that could not be reviewed by the

Court Clerk.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE SAIEG,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

 09-CV-12321

vs.

 PAUL D. BORMAN

CITY OF DEARBORN and CHIEF OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

POLICE RONALD HADDAD,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER STAYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REVIEW TAXATION OF COSTS

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 7, 2010, this Court entered an

Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Dearborn and Ronaldo

Haddad (“Defendants”) and denying summary judgment for George Saieg (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff

subsequently filed a timely appeal. On July 2, 2010, the Court Clerk taxed costs in favor of

Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 54.1. Now before the Court is

Defendants’ Motion to Review Taxation of Costs,1

 filed on July 7, 2010.

Because Plaintiff has filed a timely appeal, and in keeping with the discretion granted by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(d), the Court will STAY its review of Defendants’ Motion until a final judgment has

been entered by the Court of Appeals. “This is because, should the costs be allowed to the defendant

now, if the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of this Court on appeal, it would appear the
2

[Defendants] might be barred illogically and contrary to the statute, from taxing the costs against

the [Plaintiff].” Brown v. American Enka Corp., 452 F. Supp. 154, 160 (E.D. Tenn. 1976).

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 20, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 20, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Traci Rubin,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-11446

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Commissioner of Social Security

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court

hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is

further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendant's motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED, the findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED, and the

case is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: December 9, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on December 9, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: September 15, 2016 522144

________________________________ In the Matter of ANDRE BOYD, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 8, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Andre Boyd, Woodbourne, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has since been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of James v Prack, 137 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2016]; Matter of Roye v-2- 522144

Annucci, 137 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2016]). McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GBF ENGINEERING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-cv-11367

v.

Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

JOSEPH JOHN, CHILLY JOHN,

and JOHN W. HENKE, III, R. Steven Whalen

United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS OF 

NOVEMBER 23, 2010 (Dkt. No. 35), JULY 19, 2011, AND SEPTEMBER 19, 2011

On August 25, 2010, the Court granted summary judgment in this case and entered a

judgment in favor of Plaintiff GBF Engineering, Inc., and against Defendants Joseph John, Chilly

John and Sam John. (Dkt. No. 29.) A money judgment in the amount of $139,922.29 was entered

against Defendants on November 8, 2010. (Dkt. No. 34.)

On November 23, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for an Order for Installment Payments,

requesting an order from the Court allowing the judgment against them to be paid by way of

monthly installments. (Dkt. No. 35.) The Court referred Defendants’ motion to Magistrate Judge

R. Steven Whalen, who scheduled a hearing on the matter. However, the hearing was cancelled on

March 7, 2011. The text-only scheduling notice on March 7, 2011, which appears in the ECF docket

for this case, states “Disposition: Motion is resolved. Parties to submit stipulated order to District

Judge Paul D. Borman.”

The parties have since twice submitted proposed stipulated orders, one on July 19, 2011

(Dkt. No. 40) and another on September 19, 2011 (Dkt. No. 41), seeking to set aside the judgment

2:09-cv-11367-PDB-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 09/28/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 554
of this Court entered on November 8, 2010. Both of these stipulated orders have been rejected by

this Court because they sought to set aside the judgment of November 8, 2010. The Court will not

allow the parties to reopen this case, set aside the November 8, 2010 judgment, and then dismiss the

action with prejudice. Inherent in this ruling, is that the Court will dismiss with prejudice

Defendants’ Motion for an Order for Installment Payments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman____________

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 28, 2011

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and/or by U.S.

Postal mail on September 28, 2011.

S/Felicia Moses for Denise Goodine

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11367-PDB-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 09/28/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 555
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2706 Filed 08/04/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 19521
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2706 Filed 08/04/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 19522
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2706 Filed 08/04/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 19523
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2706 Filed 08/04/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 19524
2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2706 Filed 08/04/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 19525
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A., 

 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-10534 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

KEITH CHILDRESS, 

d/b/a PRACTICAL CATIA TRAINING, 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

MARK R. BENDURE (P23490) GLENN E. FORBIS (P52119) 

Bendure & Thomas, PLC Harness Dickey & Pierce, PLC 

Attorneys for Defendant Childress Attorneys for Plaintiff Dassault 

15450 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 110 5445 Corporate Dr., Suite 200 

Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Troy, MI 48098-2683 

(313) 961-1525 (248) 641-1600 

bendurelaw@cs.com gforbis@harnessip.com 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER ALLOWING EQUIPMENT INTO THE COURTHOUSE 

The Court has scheduled a Jury Trial for March 13, 2024. The Court has also 

allowed Defendant Keith Childress and counsel to inspect the courtroom technology 

on March 12, 2024, prior to commencement of trial. Defendant Keith Childress is 

allowed to bring the following equipment into the building: 

 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 652, PageID.24802 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 2
 A laptop computer 

 A tablet 

 A cellphone 

 3 thumb drives 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 12, 2024 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on March 12, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 652, PageID.24803 Filed 03/12/24 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          32,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                       825
<INVENTORY>                                     22,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,837
<PP&E>                                          16,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,637
<SALES>                                         91,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,583
<CGS>                                           55,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   296
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,776
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,542
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,234
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4084 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4084

To amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to 
   provide for Native Hawaiian organizations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 1996

   Mr. Abercrombie (for himself and Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to 
   provide for Native Hawaiian organizations, 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. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND 
              REPATRIATION ACT.

    (a) Written Consent Required if Native American Remains Are 
Excavated or Removed for Purposes of Study.--Section 3(c) of the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(c)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end of the 
        paragraph;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) in the case of any intentional excavation or removal 
        of Native American human remains for purposes of study, such 
        remains are excavated or removed after written consent is 
        obtained from--
                    ``(A) lineal descendants, if known or readily 
                ascertainable; or
                    ``(B) the appropriate Indian tribe or Native 
                Hawaiian organization.''.
    (b) Requirements for Inadvertent Discoveries.--Section 3(d) of the 
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 
3002(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``with respect to tribal 
        lands, if known or readily ascertainable,'' and inserting a 
        period and the following: ``With respect to tribal lands, such 
        notification shall be provided to the appropriate Indian tribe 
        or Native Hawaiian organization,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Any person or entity that disposes of or controls any such 
        cultural item shall adhere to the applicable requirements of 
        subsection (c).''.
                                 <all>
```