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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 531 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 531

To designate the Great Western Scenic Trail as a study trail under the 
          National Trails System Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

Mr. Hansen (for himself, Mr. Orton, and Mrs. Waldholtz) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Great Western Scenic Trail as a study trail under the 
          National Trails System Act, 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. POTENTIAL ADDITION OF GREAT WESTERN SCENIC TRAIL TO NATIONAL 
              TRAIL SYSTEM GREAT WESTERN TRAIL.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(38) The Great Western Scenic Trail, a system of trails to 
accommodate a variety of travel users in a corridor of approximately 
3,100 miles in length extending from the Arizona-Mexico border to the 
Idaho-Montana-Canada border, following the approximate route depicted 
on the map identified as `Great Western Trail Corridor, 1988', which 
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the Office of 
the Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of 
Agriculture. The trail study shall be conducted by the Forest Service 
in consultation with the Department of the Interior and shall include a 
comprehensive and detailed identification of all rights-of-way crossing 
or potentially affected by such trail together with the holder of such 
rights-of-way, identification of any potential right-of-way so crossing 
or potentially affected and the purpose of such potential right-of-way, 
and a listing of any private property that would be included within the 
trail and an identification of the owner of the private property. The 
Secretary of Agriculture shall examine in such study the 
appropriateness of motorized trail use along the trail.''.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4337

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit extensions of credit under

any open end consumer credit plan the proceeds of which the creditor

knows or has reason to believe are being used or will be used by

the consumer to make any form of wager or bet, to play any game

of chance, or use any gambling device, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 1, 1996

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

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit extensions

of credit under any open end consumer credit plan the

proceeds of which the creditor knows or has reason to

believe are being used or will be used by the consumer

to make any form of wager or bet, to play any game

of chance, or use any gambling device, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gambling Credit Re5 form Act’’.
2

•HR 4337 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT FOR

2 GAMBLING.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lend4 ing Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding

5 at the end the following new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 140. PROHIBITIONS ON EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT FOR

7 GAMBLING.

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No creditor may extend any

9 credit to any consumer under any open end consumer

10 credit plan if the creditor knows or has reason to believe

11 that the proceeds of such extension of credit are being

12 used or will be used by the consumer to make any form

13 of wager or bet, to play any game of chance, to use any

14 gambling device, or to otherwise participate in gambling

15 at any gambling establishment.

16 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the

17 following definitions shall apply:

18 ‘‘(1) GAMBLING DEVICE.—The term ‘gambling

19 device’ has the meaning given to such term in sec20 tion 41311(b) of title 49, United States Code.

21 ‘‘(2) GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT.—The term

22 ‘gambling establishment’ has the meaning given to

23 such term in section 1081 of title 18, United States

24 Code.’’.

25 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

26 for chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended
3

•HR 4337 IH

1 by inserting after the item relating to section 139 the fol2 lowing new item:

‘‘140. Prohibitions on extensions of credit for gambling.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>



                                   EXHIBIT 99




                                    SVT INC.
                            59 John Street, 3rd Floor
                               New York, NY 10038

                                                               April 10, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C.  20549

         Re:      SVT Inc.
                  --------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, we hereby
advise you that Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") has represented to SVT Inc.
that its audits of the financial statements of SVT Inc. and SanVision Technology
Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 were subject to Andersen's
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with
professional standards, and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on audits, availability of national office consultation and
availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the
relevant portions of the audit.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            SVT Inc.


                                            By:/s/ Michael Bell
                                               -----------------------------
                                                 Michael Bell
                                                Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

          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 Capital Preferred Yield Fund-III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
IV Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Partnership.


By:      /s/John F. Olmstead                            Dated: March 28, 2003
         -------------------
         John F. Olmstead
Title:   President and Director


                                       40
Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No.  333-85556,  No. 333-07409 and No. 333-13887) and in
the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.
333-11391 and No.  333-23317) of Oryx  Technology  Corp. of our report dated May
16, 1997, except for Note 14, which is as of May 29, 1997, appearing on page F-2
of this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A1 for the year ended February 28, 1997.




PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
San Jose, California
May 29, 1997
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER KAGEL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JAY LAURENCE RAFTERY; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 17351

D.C. No. 3:20

- cv

- 05809

- VC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Peter Kagel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine. Noel

v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 11 54 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17351

The district court properly dismissed Kagel ’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine because it was a “de facto

appeal” of a prior state court decision and Kagel raised claims that were

“inextricably intertwined” with that state court decision. See id. at 1163

- 65

(discussing the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos , 704 F.3d

772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims, as well as requests for damages,

are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions where federal adjudication

“would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.

See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Kagel’s requests that this court overturn the district court’s decision under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and remand the case to the Superior Court

of San Francisco, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4165

To provide for certain changes with respect to requirements for a Canadian

boater landing permit pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. HOKE (for himself and Mr. TRAFICANT) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for certain changes with respect to requirements

for a Canadian boater landing permit pursuant to section

235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. CANADIAN BOATER LANDING PERMIT.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later

5 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

6 the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commis7 sioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall issue re8 vised regulations for the implementation of section 235 of

9 the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the
2

•HR 4165 IH

1 requirement that each individual travelling from the Unit2 ed States to Canada by boat obtain a permit which is con3 sistent with the following guidelines:

4 (1) An individual may request a form to apply

5 for the permit through Immigration and Naturaliza6 tion Service offices, the mail, or an internet address.

7 (2) The Immigration and Naturalization Serv8 ice shall establish a toll-free information number to

9 provide information and respond to inquiries regard10 ing the permit, including how to obtain forms, where

11 to file the forms, and the cost of the permit.

12 (3) In consultation with the chief executive offi13 cers of States where individuals affected by the per14 mit requirement reside, develop alternate procedures

15 for acquiring the necessary permits, including in

16 conjunction with State fishing and boat licenses.

17 (4) Only the owner or operator of a boat (in18 cluding a boat used for commercial purposes) shall

19 be required to obtain a permit pursuant to section

20 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
### ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BOWMAN LAIR, LLC, Appellant, VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent. No. 68581 

# FILED JUN 17 2 016

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn Ellsworth, Judge.

Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that dismissal of the underlying matter based on issue preclusion was improper because the April 22, 2013, order in a previous case did not accurately reflect that judge's reasoning.' In particular, the record demonstrates that the judge who entered the April 2013 order orally indicated she did not intend to dismiss the previous case on its merits, but only based on appellant's pending bankruptcy petition. Thus, the issue of whether Wells Fargo's deed of trust was extinguished by Butler Estates' foreclosure sale was not actually and necessarily litigated in the previous case. 

### See Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008) (setting forth the elements of issue preclusion). Because dismissal of the
'The April 2013 order in the previous case was entered by thenDistrict Judge Abbi Silver. District Judge Carolyn Ellsworth presided over the underlying matter.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

# ),-{q()-i9

### underlying matter based on issue preclusion was improper, and because

the district court in the underlying matter did not address the parties' remaining arguments, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.


# flx; Douglas

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Tucson Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 2 (0) 1947A nefe.
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 ofFLM Minerals Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,George Heard, Chief Executive 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 15th day of July, 2008.

GEORGE HEARD
George HeardChief Executive Officer



















---
#### PHELPS v. DUKE POWER CO.

No. 464PA87.

Case below: 86 N.C. App. 455.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 November 1987.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTH OF 

 APRIL, 2010, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the month of April, 2010.

Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel should

be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility in all

cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to

ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court commences

trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 09-11949 KAID V. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

2. 08-12960 FOR MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3. 09-10490 ALERIS ALUMINUM CANADA V. VALEO, INC.

4. 09-12106 WILLIAMS V. JP MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION, ET.AL

5. 09-11380 RIVIERA DISTRIBUTORS V. RDI OF MICHIGAN, LLC

6. 09-12003 TOOL-PLAS SYSTEMS V. CAMACO, LLC

7. 09-12782 HERRON V. WILSHIRE CREDIT CORP.

8. 09-11290 BRICKLAYERS PENSION TRUST V. EVERLAST MASONRY

9. 09-10860 TATANGELO V. MGM GRAND DETROIT, LLC

 

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: February 2, 2010

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

on February 2, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 7 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:09-cv-12782-PJD-VMM Doc # 18 Filed 02/02/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 77
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000914804
<NAME> FIRST FORTIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           121,212
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 127,013
<CASH>                                           4,562
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              31,634
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           4,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,252
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                108,504
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              9,834
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  12,247
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,252
<PREMIUMS>                                      59,477
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              8,564
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (123)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,374
<BENEFITS>                                      47,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        240
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            18,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,032
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,066
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  62,540
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             18,907
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                8,678
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              14,717
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                11,620
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 63,788
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 473 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 473

   To repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with toxic air 
                               emissions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

  Mr. DeLay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with toxic air 
                               emissions.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CLEAN AIR ACT PROVISIONS RELATING TO TOXIC AIR 
              EMISSIONS.

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and following), 
relating to hazardous air pollutants, is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 453

To provide for an additional temporary and permanent district court judgeship

for the northern district of Ohio.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for an additional temporary and permanent

district court judgeship for the northern district of Ohio.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR THE NORTHERN

4 DISTRICT OF OHIO.

5 The existing district judgeship for the northern dis6 trict of Ohio authorized by section 203(c) of the Federal

7 Judgeship Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 133 note) shall, as of

8 the date of the enactment of this Act, be authorized under

9 section 133 of title 28, United States Code, and the in10 cumbent in that office shall hold the office under section
2

•HR 453 IH

1 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this

2 Act.

3 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP.

4 The President shall appoint, by and with the advice

5 and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for

6 the northern district of Ohio. The first vacancy in the of7 fice of district judge in the northern district of Ohio which

8 occurs 5 years or more after the date of the enactment

9 of this Act shall not be filled.

10 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TABLE.

11 In order that the table contained in section 133(a)

12 of title 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in

13 the number of permanent district judgeships authorized

14 as a result of section 1, the item relating to the northern

15 district of Ohio in such table is amended by striking ‘‘11’’

16 and inserting ‘‘12’’.

Æ