alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PENTECOST v. CITY OF FORT MYERS et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1936.

Sheppard & Clements, of Fort Myers, for appellant.

Allen Clements, of Fort Myers, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree dismissing a. bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the issue by the city of Fort Myers of $129,-000 of “Waterworks Revenue Certificates” for the purpose of making additions and improvements to an existing waterworks system of the city, without the approval of the freeholder electors of the city, as is required by section 6, article 9 of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1930. The revenue certificates are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.

The decree should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 300; Boykin v. Town of River Junction (Fla.) 169 So. 492, filed July 17, 1936; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon (Fla.) 169 So. 631; and Bradley v. City of Homestead (Fla.) 169 So. 639, decided at this term.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ.,. concur.

ELLIS, P. J.,

concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State ex rel. v. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell (Fla.) 169 So. 628, this day filed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Christopher Knight

Criminal No. 05-cr-241-09-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

180) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: January 18, 2007

cc: Counsel of Record

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00241-JD Document 183 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Misc. No. 06-024-PB

)

MICHAEL CASWELL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

PROPOSED ORDER

I herewith approve in substance the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated June 19, 2006

with the following modification. It is ordered that Michael

Caswell obey the underlying summons and appear on September 5,

2006 at 9:00 a.m. at 195 Commerce Way, Suite B, Portsmouth, New

Hampshire, before Revenue Officer Stephen Jerome, to give

testimony and produce all books and records in his possession or

control required and called for by the terms of the summons dated

June 2, 2005.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:___________________ ___________________________

Paul J. Barbadoro

U.S. District Court Judge

cc: Gretchen Leah Witt, AUSA

Michael Caswell, pro se

Case 1:06-mc-00024-PB Document 7 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DANIELLE CLEARY, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR115 

ORDER 

 

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to represent 

the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal Public Defender 

accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith file an appearance 

in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should decline this appointment 

for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act Plan, the Federal Public 

Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) 

bearing the name and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the 

Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska. 

 DATED this 16th day of August, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00115-BCB-SMB Doc # 19 Filed: 08/16/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 26
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1369 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1369

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require a three-fifths 
 majority vote in the House of Representatives or Senate to waive the 
point of order against considering spending or revenue legislation for 
a fiscal year before a concurrent resolution on the budget is in place 
             for that fiscal year, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

 Mr. Schiff (for himself, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Moore, Mr. Hill, Mr. John, 
Mr. Boyd, Ms. Harman, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Turner, Mr. Ross, 
  Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, and Mr. Bishop) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to 
the Committee on the Budget, 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 amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require a three-fifths 
 majority vote in the House of Representatives or Senate to waive the 
point of order against considering spending or revenue legislation for 
a fiscal year before a concurrent resolution on the budget is in place 
             for that fiscal year, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Budget First Act''.

SEC. 2. SUPER-MAJORITY REQUIRED TO WAIVE SECTION 303.

    Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended as 
follows:
            (1) In subsection (c)(1), insert ``303(a),'' after 
        ``Sections''.
            (2) In subsection (d)(2), insert ``303(a),'' after 
        ``sections''.

SEC. 3. RULE WAIVING SECTION 303 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by striking the period at the end of 
subparagraph (2) and inserting a semicolon and by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
            ``(3) a rule or order proposing that section 303(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 be waived by a vote of less 
        than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being 
        present.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio MORALES-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50281.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Ignacio Morales-Villegas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea *422conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Morales contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Morales maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Morales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *422published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-153-01-SM

Nicholas Spears

O R D E R

Defendant Spears’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 39). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2006 trial

period. Defendant Spears shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

March 8, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: May 25, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: June 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00153-PB Document 40 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 2, 2006

cc: Jorel V. Booker, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00153-PB Document 40 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maylan GOMEZ-LAGUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50102.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Maylan Gomez-Lagunez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gomez-Lagunez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Gomez-Lagunez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense. Alternatively, he argues that construing 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as a sentence-enhancement provision renders the statute unconstitutional.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Gomez-Lagunez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1291

AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase

the amount of educational benefits for veteransunder the Montgomery GI Bill.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1291

AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the

amount of educational benefits for veterans under the

Montgomery GI Bill.

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

•HR 1291 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘21st Century Mont3 gomery GI Bill Enhancement Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL AS5 SISTANCE UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Section 3015(a)(1) of title 38,

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(1) for an approved program of education pur9 sued on a full-time basis, at the monthly rate of—

10 ‘‘(A) for months occurring during fiscal

11 year 2002, $800,

12 ‘‘(B) for months occurring during fiscal

13 year 2003, $950,

14 ‘‘(C) for months occurring during fiscal

15 year 2004, $1,100, and

16 ‘‘(D) for months occurring during a subse17 quent fiscal year, the amount for months occur18 ring during the previous fiscal year increased

19 under subsection (h); or’’.

20 (2) Section 3015(b)(1) of such title is amended to

21 read as follows:

22 ‘‘(1) for an approved program of education pur23 sued on a full-time basis, at the monthly rate of—

24 ‘‘(A) for months occurring during fiscal

25 year 2002, $650,
3

•HR 1291 EH

1 ‘‘(B) for months occurring during fiscal

2 year 2003, $772,

3 ‘‘(C) for months occurring during fiscal

4 year 2004, $894, and

5 ‘‘(D) for months occurring during a subse6 quent fiscal year, the amount for months occur7 ring during the previous fiscal year increased

8 under subsection (h); or’’.

9 (b) CPI ADJUSTMENT.—No adjustment in rates of

10 educational assistance shall be made under section

11 3015(h) of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal years

12 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND
(B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge,
that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
March 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

        Dated:  April 15, 2003                   /s/ Kari Stefansson
                                                 -------------------
                                                 Kari Stefansson
                                                 Chairman, President, Chief
                                                 Executive Officer

        Dated:  April 15, 2003                   /s/ Lance Thibault
                                                 ------------------
                                                 Lance Thibault
                                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                                 Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
furnished to deCODE genetics, Inc. and will be retained by deCODE genetics, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1132 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1132

To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons under the 
       Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

 Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. 
  Matheson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons under the 
       Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note).

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

SECTION 1. RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND.

    (a) Appropriations.--There are appropriated, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, $84,000,000 to the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
Trust Fund to remain available until expended for the purpose of making 
payments to eligible beneficiaries under the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note).
    (b) Emergency Requirement.--The entire amount made available under 
subsection (a)--
            (1) shall be available only to the extent that the 
        President submits to Congress an official budget request for up 
        to $84,000,000 that includes designation of the entire amount 
        of the request as an emergency requirement for the purposes of 
        the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
        (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.); and
            (2) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
        under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
                                 <all>
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neurogenesis and Cell Fate Study Section, October 2, 2008, 8 a.m. to October 3, 2008, 4 p.m., Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 9, 2008, 73 FR 52395-52397.                 

The meeting will be held one day only October 2, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public. 

Dated: September 11, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-21881 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7734
CHESTER JAMES DOLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CALVIN T. KRAMMES, Former 1992 Police Chief, Town of Elkton; TOWN OF ELKTON, VIRGINIA; JAMES CROUSE, Mayor, Town of Elkton; KENNARDMERREY, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; JESSIE P. BOYD, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner; GENE A. BROOMELL, Former 1992Town of Elkton Commissioner; CONSTANCE W. DUNBARR, Former 1992 Town of Elkton Commissioner, in their Official and Individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95- 2609-ADM) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chester James Doles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Doles v. Krammes , No. CA-95-2609-ADM (D. Md. Sept. 13, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-35-01/02-SM

Brandon Legere and

Serjio Philbrick

O R D E R

Defendant Philbrick’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 30). Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2006

trial period. Defendant Landers shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than June 19, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: September 25, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: October 3, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00035-SM Document 31 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 8, 2006

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

William E. Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00035-SM Document 31 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2