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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4275

To provide funding for the nutrition education and training program

authorized under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. GOODLING (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in addition to the Committee

on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide funding for the nutrition education and training

program authorized under the Child Nutrition Act of

1966, 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,

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION AND

4 TRAINING.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 19(i) of the Child Nutri6 tion Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1788(i)) is amended—
2

•HR 4275 IH

1 (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)(A), by

2 striking ‘‘and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1996’’ and

3 inserting ‘‘, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and

4 $7,500,000 for fiscal year 1997’’; and

5 (2) in paragraph (3)—

6 (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking

7 ‘‘1997’’ and inserting ‘‘1998’’; and

8 (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking

9 ‘‘1997’’ and inserting ‘‘1998’’.

10 (b) OFFSETTING REDUCTION IN EMERGENCY FOOD

11 ASSISTANCE ACT.—Notwithstanding section 27 of the

12 Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2036), the Secretary

13 of Agriculture shall purchase not more than $96,250,000

14 of commodities under section 27 of the Act for fiscal year

15 1997.

16 (c) OFFSETTING REDUCTION IN SCHOOL MEALS INI17 TIATIVE FOR HEALTHY CHILDREN.—Of the amounts

18 made available to carry out the National School Lunch

19 Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the Child Nutrition Act

20 of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) under the heading

21 ‘‘CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS’’ under the heading ‘‘DO22 MESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS’’ in title IV of the Agri23 culture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administra24 tion, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (110

25 Stat. 1589), not more than $6,250,000 may be used to
3

•HR 4275 IH

1 carry out the school meals initiative for healthy children

2 (60 Fed. Reg. 31188 (1995)). None of the funds made

3 available for the school meals initiative for healthy chil4 dren for fiscal year 1997 may be used for in-school edu5 cation materials. Not more than $1,050,000 may be used

6 for technical assistance materials.

7 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend8 ments made by this section shall be effective as of October

9 1, 1996.

Æ
#### Robert K. WHITE, Appellant, v. CITIZENS STATE BANK, Respondent.

No. WD 49005.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 9, 1994.

Hugh D. Kranitz, Kranitz & Kranitz, P.C., St. Joseph, for appellant.

William Y. Frick, Kirksville, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from summary judgment entered against him on his petition for breach of contract against Citizens State Bank.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 420

To amend the Social Security Act to provide, in the case of any person

who is a party in interest with respect to an employee benefit plan,

that information requested from the Secretary of Health and Human

Services to assist such person with respect to the administration of

such plan shall be provided at least once without charge.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Social Security Act to provide, in the case

of any person who is a party in interest with respect

to an employee benefit plan, that information requested

from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to

assist such person with respect to the administration

of such plan shall be provided at least once without

charge.

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

•HR 420 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AT

2 LEAST ONCE WITHOUT CHARGE.

3 Subsection (c) of section 1106 of the Social Security

4 Act is amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(c) Notwithstanding sections 552 and 552a of title

6 5, United States Code, or any other provision of law,

7 whenever the Secretary determines—

8 ‘‘(1) that a request for any type of information

9 is made in order to assist a party in interest (as de10 fined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement In11 come Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 102)) with re12 spect to the administration of an employee benefit

13 plan (as so defined) and that information of such

14 type has previously been provided by the Secretary

15 pursuant to a request made in order to so assist

16 such party in interest, or

17 ‘‘(2) that a request for information is made for

18 any purpose (other than a purpose described in

19 paragraph (1)) which is not directly related to the

20 administration of the program or programs under

21 this Act to which such information relates,

22 the Secretary may require the requestor to pay the full

23 cost, as determined by the Secretary, of providing such

24 information.’’.
3

•HR 420 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with

3 respect to information requested on or after the date of

4 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 416

For the relief of Sara Lou Hendricks.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Sara Lou Hendricks.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF POSTAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT

4 PROCEEDS.

5 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

6 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the

7 proceeds of the postal savings account of the late Harriet

8 C. McKee (account number 442), and interest calculated

9 under section 4, to Sara Lou Hendricks, the daughter and

10 heir of Harriet C. McKee.
2

•HR 416 IH

1 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

2 The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in

3 full satisfaction of all claims Sara Lou Hendricks may

4 have against the United States, or any agent or agency

5 of the United States, relating to the postal savings account

6 described in section 1.

7 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

8 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per9 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to

10 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren11 dered in connection with the payment required by section

12 1. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of

13 an infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount

14 provided in title 18, United States Code.

15 SEC. 4. CALCULATION OF INTEREST.

16 The interest on the account referred to in section 1

17 shall equal the sum of—

18 (1) the interest that would have been payable

19 on the account for the period beginning on the day

20 that the account was opened and ending on the last

21 day that the proceeds of postal savings accounts

22 could be claimed under the Postal Savings System

23 Statute of Limitations Act (98 Stat. 402), if the ac24 count had been claimed under the Postal Savings

25 System Statute of Limitations Act (98 Stat. 402);

26 and
3

•HR 416 IH

1 (2) interest calculated according to the formula

2 in section 2516(b) of title 28, United States Code,

3 for the period beginning on the 1st day after the end

4 of the period described in paragraph (1) and ending

5 on the day that the payment required by section 1

6 is made.

Æ
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of FairfaxFinancial Holdings Limited (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:          The Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        /s/ Greg Taylor   Greg Taylor   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   Date: March 5, 2010A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toFairfax Financial Holdings Limited and will be retained by Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

SHAWN WYGANT et al., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case Number 09-CV-11684 

 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MARY STRAND et al., 

 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION 

 This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation (ECF No. 33) issued 

by Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder on January 24, 2012, recommending the case be 

dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Judge Binder observes that Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on October 

28, 2011. See ECF No. 32. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, nor has he had any 

communication with the Court regarding this litigation since June 2011. Accordingly, Judge 

Binder recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for want of 

prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), which authorizes the involuntary dismissal of a complaint 

“[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order.” 

 As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to Judge Binder’s report and 

recommendation. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any 

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th 

1:09-cv-11684-TLL-CEB Doc # 34 Filed 02/13/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 301
 -2-

Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court 

from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Judge Binder’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 

33) is ADOPTED. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

Dated: February 13, 2012 

 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means on 

February 13, 2012. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:09-cv-11684-TLL-CEB Doc # 34 Filed 02/13/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 302
In the Missouri Court of Appeals 

Eastern District 

MAY 13, 2014 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b). 

1. ED98970 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DWAYNE Q. SHELTON, 

APP 

2. ED99396 JUDY PICKENS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES 

3. ED99659 SCOTT HENLEY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES 

4. ED99840 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DONALD JOHNSON, APP 

5. ED100058 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V DAMION NEAL, APP 

6. ED100067 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V MICHAEL J. EMORY, APP 

7. ED100157 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V KEITH MEINERS, APP 

8. ED100278 CLINT RICHARDS, APP V LITITZ MUTUAL INS, RES 

9. ED100329 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ANTHONY MACK, APP 

10. ED100486 CHRISTOPHER KIMBLE, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES 

11. ED100499 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S. 

12. ED100652 C.M.J., RES V. R.P., APP
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of FLM Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Xin Chen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | The Report 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|  

Dated this 15thday of October, 2008.

XIN CHENXin ChenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





















---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         640,299                   3,417
<SECURITIES>                                        75                  25,442
<RECEIVABLES>                                  360,783                 217,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               429,652                 416,945
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,036,700               1,364,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          276,966                 532,440
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    530,000                 530,000
<COMMON>                                     9,682,451               7,362,318
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,036,700               1,364,297
<SALES>                                      1,295,159               1,161,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                          746,285                 763,018
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (782,539)               (539,951)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,529                  98,602
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (912,068)               (638,553)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (912,068)               (638,553)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
1

 Although Defendant states in his filing that he is entitled to dismissal based on the

statute of limitations...,” he ultimately “concedes that he does not have a good faith objection to

this portion of the R&R.” See Defendant’s Objection at 3. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VIRGIL MITCHELL

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-11468

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

DISTRICT JUDGE

HONORABLE PAUL J. KOMIVES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [81] AND DENYING DEFENDANT BELLINGER’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, OR

ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [52] 

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [81] of August 3,

2010. The Report and Recommendation recommends that Defendant Bellinger’s Motion for

Summary Judgment Based on Failure to State a Claim, or Alternatively, for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction [52] be denied. On August 20, 2010, Defendant Bellinger filed an Objection [85].

Plaintiff did not file a response. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews the instant Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant Bellinger raises one objection to Magistrate Judge Komives’

ruling.1

 He argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the case should not be
2

dismissed against him, as he lacked personal involvement in this matter Plaintiff failed to offer

evidence to counter counsel’s claim that Defendant ever worked at the prison facility. 

Defendant’s objection is denied. Defendant offers no valid argument casting doubt on

the Magistrate Judge’s proper conclusion that dismissal at this time would be improper. 

Defendant’s reliance on counsel’s statement in a motion brief to establish Defendant’s

employment status and involvement in the case is misplaced, and the Magistrate Judge was

correct in his refusal to base a dismissal on such an assertion. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court has reviewed the record and the parties’ pleadings in this case, and being fully

advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [81] of the Magistrate Judge is

hereby ADOPTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bellinger’s Motion for Summary

Judgment based on Failure to State a Claim, or Alternatively, For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

[52] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

Dated: September 16, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

September 16, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LISA M. WARE

Case Manager
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6782

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT PRICE, JR., a/k/a Rocky, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-119, CA-00-422-7) Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 25, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Price, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Price, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001); and (2) denying his post-judgment motion to amend. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Price , Nos. CR-97-119; CA-00- 422-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2002 & Apr. 5, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHYLLIS HARDEN, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-13778

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER REGARDING PRO BONO COUNSEL REQUEST

The court made an effort to find an attorney willing to provide pro bono

assistance to plaintiff Phyllis Harden, stating in its May 19, 2010 order that counsel

should be appointed to represent plaintiff “if such pro bono counsel is available through

a court-sponsored program.” (Emphasis in original). The court has been advised that

the effort was unsuccessful. No further effort will be made by the court to assist Ms.

Harden in obtaining counsel, pro bono or otherwise. Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to

file her response to the pending motion to dismiss or for summary judgment she shall

do so on or before July 15, 2010. 

Dated: June 14, 2010

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

June 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1998 UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,047,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  758,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,087,640
<PP&E>                                      12,683,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,297,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,019,653
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,245
<OTHER-SE>                                     525,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,297,072
<SALES>                                      1,329,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,459,797
<CGS>                                          447,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  447,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,960,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             882,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,829,723)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,829,723)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>