alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 68

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is amended by striking ‘‘October

4 16, 2001’’ in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof
2

•HJ 68 EH

1 ‘‘October 23, 2001’’; by adding the following before the

2 semicolon in section 101(b)(1) ‘‘: Provided, That the rate

3 for operations of the Defense Health Program may exceed

4 the current rate as may be necessary to fund a pro rata

5 share of the program expansion authorized by section

6 712(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Author7 ization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398)’’;

8 by striking section 115 and adding the following:

9 ‘‘SEC. 115. Notwithstanding the dates specified in

10 section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12

11 U.S.C. 635f) and section 1(c) of Public Law 103–428, the

12 Export-Import Bank of the United States shall continue

13 to exercise its functions in connection with and in further14 ance of its objects and purposes through the date specified

15 in section 107(c) of this joint resolution.’’; and adding the

16 following new section:

17 ‘‘SEC. 123. Notwithstanding section 107, funds shall

18 be available and obligations for mandatory payments due

19 on or about November 1, 2001, may continue to be

20 made.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 11,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 68

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1078

___________________________ Brian J. Dorsey lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant

v. David Vandergriff lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: June 30, 2023 Filed: July 6, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Missouri prisoner Brian Dorsey, who has been sentenced to death for two murders, appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to order the Missouri

1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.Department of Corrections to transfer him to a facility for magnetic resonance

imaging, which he sought in support of state clemency proceedings. With respect to Dorsey’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3599, this court has already determined that “[s]ection 3599’s authorization for funding neither confers nor implies an additional grant of jurisdiction to order state officials to act to facilitate an inmate’s clemency application,” Tisius v. Vandergriff , 55 F.4th 1153, 1155 (8th Cir. 2022), cert. denied , No. 22-7398, 2023 WL 3804604 (U.S. June 5, 2023), and this panel is bound by that decision, see Mays v. Bd. of Educ. of Hamburg Sch. Dist. , 834 F.3d 910, 918 n.4 (8th Cir. 2016). As to Dorsey’s reliance on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, that statute does not provide the district court the authority to grant the relief requested. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 117 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 117

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2002

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of 
             Columbia honoring former President John Adams.

Whereas section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, provides that the location 
        of a commemorative work in the area described as Area I shall be deemed 
        disapproved unless approved by law not later than 150 days after

notification to Congress that the commemorative work should be located in 
Area I;

Whereas Public Law 107-62 (115 Stat. 411) authorized the Adams Memorial 
        Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the 
        District of Columbia to honor former President John Adams and his 
        legacy; and
Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of her determination 
        that a memorial to former President John Adams should be located in Area 
        I: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK.

    (a) Approval.--Congress approves the location for the commemorative 
work to honor former President John Adams and his legacy, as authorized 
by Public Law 107-62 (115 Stat. 411), within Area I as described in 
section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, subject to the limitation 
in subsection (b).
    (b) Limitation.--The commemorative work approved in subsection (a) 
shall not be located within the Reserve.
    (c) Definition of Reserve.--In this section the term ``Reserve'' 
means the area of The National Mall extending from the United States 
Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the 
Jefferson Memorial, as depicted on the map entitled ``Commemorative 
Areas Washington, DC and Environs,'' numbered 869/86501A and dated May 
1, 2002.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 15 
      (legislative day, November 14), 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-64-02-PB

Jennifer Furlow

ORDER

Re: Document No. 46, Motion for Return of Property 

Ruling: The government shall contact the state authorities

who are holding the defendant’s property and make a good faith

effort to secure their release. The court lacks jurisdiction to

compel the release of the property. Thus, in all other respects,

the motion is denied. 

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

Date: October 1, 2008

cc: Paul Pappas, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00064-PB Document 48 Filed 10/01/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v . Case No. 07-cr-12-01-SM

Da Van Ha

ORDER

Defendant Ha's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial i s

granted (document 32). Trial has been rescheduled for the November 2007

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

than November 2, 2007 . On the filing of such waiver, this 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 : December 18, 2007 at 4 :30 p .m.

Jury Selection : January 8, 2008 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 33 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

October 25, 2007

cc : Philip R. Desfosses, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

teven J./McAuliffe

Chief Judge

2

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 33 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1133

To amend the impact aid program under the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965 relating to the calculation of payments for small

local educational agencies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the impact aid program under the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 relating to the

calculation of payments for small local educational agencies.

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

3 SECTION 1. CALCULATION OF PAYMENT UNDER IMPACT

4 AID PROGRAM FOR SMALL LOCAL EDU5 CATIONAL AGENCIES.

6 Section 8003(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Elementary and

7 Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.

8 7703(b)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘of the
2

•HR 1133 IH

1 State in which the agency is located’’ the following: ‘‘or

2 less than the average per pupil expenditure of all the

3 States’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Vincent F. Rivera

#518548

Florida State Prison

7819 NW 228th St

Raiford, FL 32026

ORDER - FILING FEE OMITTED

n re: File No. 1 :06-fp-189, Vincent F. Rivera v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et a t

The above-captioned action was received by the court on 5/19/06, but items necessary to

docket the case were not included. Either the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

must be submitted to the court by 7/20/06 .

Filing Fee. Filing fee in the amount of $350, may be in cash, certified bank check or money

order (made payable to Clerk, U .S. District Court), or by credit card (Visa, MasterCard, Discover,

Diners Club, or American Express). The court does not accept personal checks .

-ORIn Forma Pauperis. If in forma pauperis status is sought :

• Certificate of Custodial Institution (USDCNH- 14 or substantially similar filing) completed

by an official at the institution

• Financial Declaration (USDCNH-15 or substantially similar filing)

This action will not be considered a civil case or any action taken until the appropriate fee

has been received or in forma pauperis status has been granted .

By the Court,

/s/ Janice E. Boucher

May 19, 2006 Janice E. Boucher

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:06-fp-00189 Document 3 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

No. 07-2108

JOHN W. LIVICK,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THE GILLETTE COMPANY; THE GILLETTE COMPANY RETIREMENT PLAN,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 17, 2008, is

corrected as follows:

On page 2, last line: replace "Brunidge" with "Brundige"

On page 5, lines 13-14: replace "Gillette's . . . ERISA" with

"Gillette was in breach of its fiduciary duty to Livick under ERISA

because of these "misrepresentations."" 

On page 5, lines 16-17: replace "both his years at Gillette

and at Parker Pen" with "his years at both Gillette and Parker

Pen."

On page 11, note 5, line 3: add "29" before "C.F.R."

On page 13, note 7, line 8: add an additional parenthesis

after "1994" to read "(5th Cir. 1994))"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-218- 03-JD

Felipe Espada

O R D E R

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

89) 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: July 17, 2007

cc: Michael J. Iacopino, Esq.

Robert J. Veiga, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00218-JD Document 90 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Walter Norton

v. Civil No. 06-cv-282-JD

United States

O R D E R

The court of appeals has remanded this case for

consideration of Walter Norton's pro se motion to vacate his

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Norton contends that his

counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to appeal an

issue related to his sentence. Norton filed a memorandum in

support of his motion the day after judgment was entered

dismissing the motion. With the memorandum, Norton filed a

letter from counsel that indicated Norton had requested but

counsel declined to file an appeal.

Defense "counsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to

consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason

to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to

appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for

appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably

demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing." 

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000). Counsel's

representation is constitutionally deficient if he or she fails

Case 1:06-cv-00282-JD Document 21 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 2

Norton v. USA Doc. 21

Dockets.Justia.com
2

to follow a defendant's express instruction with respect to an

appeal. Id. at 478. In deciding whether counsel's failure to

file an appeal constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, the

court considers the totality of the circumstances, including what

counsel knew or should have known and, in the case of a guilty

plea, "whether the defendant received the sentence bargained for

as part of the plea and whether the plea expressly reserved or

waived some or all appeal rights." Id. at 480.

To address the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in

the circumstances of this case, a hearing will be held with

Norton, his former counsel, James Gleason, Assistant United

States Attorney Donald Feith, and United States Probation Officer

Cathy Battistelli. The date of the hearing will be set by the

deputy clerk.

 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 23, 2007

cc: Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Walter Norton, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00282-JD Document 21 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1727 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1727

  To amend the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide for consistent 
treatment of survivor benefits for public safety officers killed in the 
                             line of duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

 Mr. Ramstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide for consistent 
treatment of survivor benefits for public safety officers killed in the 
                             line of duty.

    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 ``Fallen Hero Survivor Benefit 
Fairness Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. CONSISTENT TREATMENT OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 
              OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

    Subsection (b) of section 1528 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
(Public Law 105-34) is amended by striking the period and inserting ``, 
and to amounts received after the date of the enactment of the Fallen 
Hero Survivor Benefit Fairness Act of 2001 with respect to individuals 
dying on or before December 31, 1996.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v.

FNU Swartout

No. 07-fp-117

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-117-PB.

SO ORDERED.

_____________________________

ames R. Muirhead

Date: May 7, 2007

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00117-JL Document 5 Filed 05/07/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-10-PB

Dung Nguyen, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant, thru counsel, has moved to continue the June 5,

2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for trial. The

government and co-defendant, Phuong Luong, do not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from June 5, 2007 to October 10, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00010-PB Document 24 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 22, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

September 24, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 17, 2007

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Adam Bernstein, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00010-PB Document 24 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-62-PB

Ray McMillan

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

July 8, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to finalize a plea agreement. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 8, 2008 to August 19, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

Case 1:07-cr-00062-PB Document 25 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 25, 2008

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00062-PB Document 25 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 2
B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks

Percent

Distribution of net income as a Average rate Rate N

share of average equity at of return of return 

agricultural banks on equity to assets 

25 percent Agri- Other Agri- Other A

Negative 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 and cultural Small cultural small cu

Period All banks income percent percent percent percent percent over banks Banks banks banks ba1992...... 100.0 2.0 5.3 25.3 41.1 19.6 5.1 1.6 12.5 11.3 1.2 1.0 1993...... 100.0 1.6 5.9 27.8 40.4 18.4 4.6 1.3 12.3 12.3 1.2 1.1 1994...... 100.0 1.5 5.9 31.4 40.1 16.9 3.3 .9 11.8 12.5 1.2 1.1 1995...... 100.0 1.4 5.7 37.1 39.6 13.4 2.3 .6 11.2 12.1 1.2 1.2 1996...... 100.0 2.1 5.6 33.4 41.6 14.2 2.6 .5 11.4 12.3 1.2 1.2 1997...... 100.0 1.6 5.9 34.5 39.7 14.2 3.1 1.1 11.4 12.3 1.2 1.2 1998...... 100.0 2.0 8.7 35.6 35.5 13.4 3.5 1.3 11.3 11.7 1.2 1.2 1999...... 100.0 2.9 7.9 34.8 33.3 14.2 4.9 1.9 11.8 11.9 1.2 1.1 2000...... 100.0 2.4 8.9 35.3 33.5 13.8 4.2 1.8 11.7 11.4 1.2 1.1 2001...... 100.0 3.1 12.6 37.6 28.6 13.1 3.7 1.3 10.8 10.4 1.1 1.0 2002...... 100.0 3.0 10.7 35.1 31.4 13.5 4.6 1.7 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003...... 100.0 2.7 12.2 36.6 29.3 12.9 4.4 1.8 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1 1999: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.9 3.0 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.0 6.1 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.1 8.9 .9 .9  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.8 11.9 1.2 1.1 2000: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.2 3.1 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.5 6.1 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.3 8.9 .9 .9  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.7 11.4 1.2 1.1 2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.8 2.8 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.6 5.4 .6 .5  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.2 7.9 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.8 10.4 1.1 1.0 2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.0 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.3 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.0 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.5 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1  Note. Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section B; small banks have less than $500 million in assets. Total primary anavailable at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets. Quarterly data are cumulative through the end of the quarte n.a. Not available.27
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1374 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1374

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2002

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ``Philip E. 
                     Ruppe Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 
Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```