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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1273 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1273

  To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the 
    chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of 
religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that 
       potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2001

Mr. Hostettler (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
 Blunt, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
 Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
  Istook, Mr. Hefley, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Riley, Mr. Issa, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
  Schaffer, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Terry, Mr. 
 Akin, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Shows, Mr. Baker, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, and 
 Mr. Smith of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the 
    chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of 
religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that 
       potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.

    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 ``Public Expression of Religion Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL 
              OFFICIALS.

    (a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.--Section 1979 of the 
Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where 
the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the 
Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to 
injunctive relief.''.
    (b) Attorneys Fees.--Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the 
United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection 
with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen 
hundred and seventy nine.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(i)

                          Amendment of Trust Agreement


         RESOLVED, that, effective May 16, 2001, the Trust Agreement between
         Ralston Purina Company ("Company") and Wachovia Bank of North Carolina,
         N.A. ("Trustee"), dated as of September 15, 1994, (the "Trust
         Agreement") be, and it hereby is, amended in accordance with the
         provisions of Section 11 of the Trust Agreement, to provide that the
         assets held by the Grantor Trust created by such Trust Agreement shall
         be subject to the claims of the creditors of the Company, and to the
         claims of the creditors of any subsidiary of the Company which incurs
         liabilities to its employees under the Benefit Plans and Programs
         identified in Schedule 1 of the Trust Agreement; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that W.P. McGinnis, J.R. Elsesser and W.H. Sackett
         be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to do any and all acts and
         execute any and all documents they, or any of them, deem necessary or
         desirable to effect the foregoing amendment, subject to approval by
         Nestle Holdings, Inc. and Wachovia Bank of final language of the Trust
         Agreement evidencing such amendment.
#### Alicia KELSO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-56018.

D.C. No. CV-01-00928-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

*767Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Aicia Kelso appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration of its judgment dismissing her employment discrimination action with prejudice and without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review for an abuse of discretion, *United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co.,*984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

Because Kelso’s motion for reconsideration sought leave to amend the complaint to set forth new causes of action and did not show the extraordinary circumstances necessary for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the district court properly denied the motion. *See id.*(“Rule 60(b)(6) relief normally will not be granted unless the moving party is able to show both injury and that circumstances beyond its control prevented timely action to protect its interests.”).

We reject Kelso’s remaining contentions for lack of merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MATTHEW TIMOTHY,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 4:23CR3059

DETENTION ORDER

The defendant is charged with a felony involving a minor victim. On the 

government's motion, the court afforded the defendant an opportunity for a 

detention hearing under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The court 

concludes the defendant must be detained pending trial.

There is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of 

conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at court 

proceedings and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to 

believe the defendant committed a child pornography felony. The defendant has 

not rebutted this presumption.

Based on the information of record, the court finds by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the defendant's release would pose a risk of nonappearance at 

court proceedings, and by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's 

release would pose a risk of harm to the public.

Specifically, the court finds that the defendant has a criminal history of 

violating the law and court orders; violated conditions of release previously 

imposed by a court; is addicted to or abuses alcohol; has mental health issues 

which will pose a risk of harm if the defendant is released; and presented no 

evidence opposing the presumption of detention; a.

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-CRZ Doc # 14 Filed: 06/08/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 23
Conditions which restrict Defendant’s travel, personal contacts, and 

possession of drugs, alcohol, and/or firearms; require reporting, education, 

employment, or treatment; or monitor Defendant’s movements or conduct; or any 

combination of these conditions or others currently proposed or available (see 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(c)), will not sufficiently ameliorate the risks posed if the defendant 

is released.

Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or a 

designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to 

the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 

custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity to consult privately with defense counsel. On order of the United 

States Court or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in 

charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to the United States 

marshal for a court appearance.

Dated June 8, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03059-JMG-CRZ Doc # 14 Filed: 06/08/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 24
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6962

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BARBARA M. BUSH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(8:06-cr-00202-BEL-1)

Submitted: November 29, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara M. Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Sandra 

Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Barbara M. Bush appeals following the dismissal of an

indictment charging her with two counts of threatening a federal 

judge, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) (2006). “[A]bsent 

extraordinary circumstances, a defendant has no standing to 

appeal the dismissal of an indictment.” United States v. 

Moller-Butcher, 732 F.2d 189, 190 (1st Cir. 1983); see also

United States v. Lanham, 631 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1980). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Bush’s motion for 

appointment of counsel is denied. 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
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 Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
August 7, 2003

/s/WILLIAM E. KLITGAARDWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EFREN SAENZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00014-CR

Appeal from

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20160D03471)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,288
<SECURITIES>                                    16,917
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                       687
<INVENTORY>                                        116
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,236
<PP&E>                                          10,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,491
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,615
<SALES>                                         39,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,595
<CGS>                                            6,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,678
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,422
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,422
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                  PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                      for the Quarters Ended September 30
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             1997        1996
                                            -------     -------
<S>                                         <C>         <C> 
Primary:
-------
 Earnings:
  Net income                                $ 1,095     $ 1,037
                                            =======     =======

 Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                        20,454      20,261
  Assuming exercise of options reduced
   by the number of shares which could
   have been purchased with the proceeds
   from exercise of such options                437         508
                                            -------     -------
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding as adjusted            20,891      20,769
                                            =======     =======

 Primary earnings per common share:
  Net income                                $  0.05/1/  $  0.05/1/
                                            =======     =======

Fully Diluted:
-------------
 Earnings:
  Net income                                $ 1,095     $ 1,037
                                            =======     =======

 Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                        20,454      20,261
  Assuming exercise of options reduced
   by the number of shares which could
   have been purchased with the proceeds
   from exercise of such options                585         508
                                            -------     -------
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding as adjusted            21,039      20,769
                                            =======     =======

 Earnings per common share assuming
  full dilution:
  Net income                                $  0.05/1/  $  0.05/1/
                                            =======     =======

</TABLE>

/1/ This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601(b)
    (11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB Opinion No.
    15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 580 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 5Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 580 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 5Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 580 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 5Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 580 Filed 07/19/07 Page 4 of 5Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 580 Filed 07/19/07 Page 5 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

Johnell Bennett

Case No . 06-cr-77-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant Bennett's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 7) . Trial has been rescheduled for the September

2006 trial period. Defendant Bennett shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than June 2, 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 : August 29, 2006 at 3 :00 p .m.

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

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 8 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

May 24, 2006

cc : Charles A. Bookman, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

even J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

2

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 8 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Case No. 06-cr-42-01-SM

Thomas Lavery

ORDER

Re: Document No. 47, Assented to Motion to Continue

Sentencing.

Ruling: Denied. This case is over three years old. The

court previously advised the parties that no further continuances

would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Defendant was

allowed the last continuance to facilitate his testifying in a

prosecution in Florida in April of 2009. This latest (5th) request

simply posits that he might testify with respect to sentencing

issues in this court in cases related to his, but those sentencing

hearings could themselves be continued. Three years is far too

long to resolve federal criminal charges. Extraordinary

circumstances have not been shown. As government counsel

recognizes, if defendant’s post-sentencing cooperation warrants a

motion for additional modifications to his sentence, Rule 35

provides an appropriate mechanism.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: May 1, 2009

cc: Mark A. Irish, AUSA

Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq. 

 U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation 

Case 1:06-cr-00042-SM Document 48 Filed 05/01/09 Page 1 of 1
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 2819 LT Case No. 2019

- CF

- 000325

_____________________________

T ONDA I HETU R OYAL ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County

. Terence R. Perkins , Judge

.
Tonda Ihetu Royal, Milton, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

March 1, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
Appellant moved for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He filed his motion on July 12, 2023. The trial court d enied the motion as untimely because in the court’s view, Appellant filed it “more than two years after his judgment and sentence became final

. ” Appellant moved for rehearing, arguing that his motion was timely based on the date of the mandate in his direct appeal . The trial court denied rehearing, reasoning that the Fifth District ’s decision “ was finalized on April2

20, 2021, which w ould be the starting point for Defendant’s 2

- year time limitation pursuant to rule 3.850(b).”

This court affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on April 20, 2021. Royal v. State , 320 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (Table) . However, this court did not issue the mandate until July 13, 2021. Th e date of the mandate starts the two

- year filing window under rule 3.850. See Beaty v. State , 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1997) ( “[T] he two

- year period for filing a motion for postconviction relief began to run upon the issuance of [the district court’s] mandate

. ”); Cave v. State

, 289 So. 3d 980 , 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ( “ For purposes of [rule 3.850] , the two

- year period begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a m andate

. . . . ”)

. Thus

, Appel lant’s motion, filed on July 12, 2023, was timely

.
Accordingly, w e reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Appellant’s motion.

R EVERSED and R EMANDED

.

W ALLIS , J AY , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 31, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 0 0765

- CR

Antorr Lamar ALLISON

, Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0418 Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant = s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has informed the appellant of h is right to file h is own brief. Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

C San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

C San Antonio 1996, no pet.). T he State has filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee = s brief unless appellant files a pro se brief.

If the appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date the appellant = s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED that the motion to withdraw filed by appellant = s counsel is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending fu rther order of the court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 1:05-cv-00173-JD Document 9 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 1
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2000


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------