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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1686

To amend title 49, United States Code, to limit the Federal Aviation Administration’s authority to establish examination requirements for pilots, other

than pilots involved in commercial operations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 2001

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to limit the Federal

Aviation Administration’s authority to establish examination requirements for pilots, other than pilots involved

in commercial operations.

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

3 SECTION 1. AIRMAN CERTIFICATES.

4 (a) GENERAL.—Section 44703(a) of title 49, United

5 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(a) GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Federal

7 Aviation Administration shall issue an airman certificate
2

•HR 1686 IH

1 to an individual when the Administrator finds, after

2 investigation—

3 ‘‘(1) that the individual is qualified for the posi4 tion to be authorized by the certificate; and

5 ‘‘(2) in any case in which the certificate is for

6 commercial operations, that the individual is phys7 ically able to perform the duties related to the posi8 tion.’’.

9 (b) CONTENTS.—Section 44703(b)(1)(C) is amended

10 to read as follows:

11 ‘‘(C) contain terms that the Administrator de12 cides are necessary to ensure safety in air commerce,

13 including terms on the duration of the certificate

14 and excluding, except in any case in which the cer15 tificate is for commercial operations, terms on peri16 odic or special examinations and tests of physical fit17 ness;’’.

Æ
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. EL08-63-000] 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff will meet with representatives of Michigan South Central Power Agency on Friday, September 19, 2008, to discuss matters at issue in this proceeding. The meeting will take place from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. in Conference Room 81-62 of the Commission's offices, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

                    Commission conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free 1-866-3372 (voice) or 202-208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.                 

                    For further information, please contact Jeffrey Hitchings in the Commission's Office of Energy Market Regulation: (202) 502-6042 or                     *jeffrey.hitchings@ferc.gov.*

Kimberly D. Bose, 

 Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-22264 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Nathaniel TURNER, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. D.Z. TERRY, CO. III, sued in individual & official capacity, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-17289.

D.C. No. CV-00-00018-SMM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2003.*

Decided March 6, 2003.

Before BEEZER, THOMAS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In this prisoner suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nathaniel Turner alleges *325(1) that Masterson and Terry retaliated against him concerning the loss of his stereo, (2) that Masterson violated due process in seizing his stereo, and (3) that Kirkham cruelly and unusually punished him by applying handcuffs that were too small. The district court dismissed all claims against Masterson and Terry and granted summary judgment for Kirkham. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Masterson and Terry. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Kirkham.

As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary. We review *de novo*the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of the claims against Masterson and Terry. *See Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). The retaliation claims properly were dismissed because Turner failed to allege that the retaliatory actions advanced no legitimate penological goal. *See Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994). The due process claims were properly dismissed because Turner has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Arizona law. *See id.*at 816; *Howland v. State,*169 Ariz. 293, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (1991).

We review the grant of summary judgment *de novo. Barnett, 31 F.3d*at 815. In his First Amended Complaint, Turner checked the box for “Excessive force by an officer” in describing count II. This sufficed to plead an excessive force claim under the liberal construction we afford *pro se*complaints. See *Eldridge v. Block,*832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.1987). Because Turner pled a claim for excessive force, the district court erred by declining to consider that claim. Summary judgment was inappropriate. We remand to the district court for further proceedings on that claim. Each party shall bear their own costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

**

 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.
#### MYERS et al. v. COCHECO WOOLEN MFG. CO. et al.

No. 3264.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1938.

Charles Fahy, General Counsel, NLRB, of Washington, D. C. (Robert B. Watts, Associate General Counsel, and Philip. Levy and Joseph Rosenfarb, Attys. NLRB, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellants.

Stanley M. Burns,, of Dover, N. H. (George T. Hughes and Hughes & Burns, all of Dover, N. H., on the brief), for appellees.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

*591PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final decree of the District Court for New Hampshire ordering a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants, A. Howard Myers, individually and as representative of the National Labor Relations Board, J. Warren Madden and Edwin S. Smith, individually and as members of said Board, and their successors in office, their agents, representatives, and employees, and Horace J. Brouilette from further prosecuting their complaint in the National Labor Relations Board against the Cocheco Woolen Manufacturing Company, etc., the same having been entered in a suit in equity filed by the Cocheco Woolen Manufacturing Company and the Employees’ Protective Association, both of Rochester, N. H., praying for said injunction.

In view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd., 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. -, and Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Schauffler, 58 S.Ct. 466, 82 L.Ed. -, decided January 31, 1938), the decree appealed from is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the suit and dissolve the injunction.

The decree of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with directions to dismiss the suit and dissolve the injunction.
#### Mrs. Helen SCARBOROUGH et al. v. Mrs. J. M. REDDING.

*No.*31669.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 10, 1935.

Parker & Shivers, of Poplarville, for appellants.

Hathorn & Williams, of Poplarville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-200-PB

Aj Vitti

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 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 date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to June 5, 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 1:06-cr-00200-PB Document 14 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 22, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

May 23, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 22, 2007

cc: Robert J. Moses, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00200-PB Document 14 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-00041-PB Document 7 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v . Case No. 07-cr-192-01-SM

Ligia Veda

ORDER

Defendant Veda's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and tria l

is granted (document 11) . Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2008

trial period. Defendant Veda has filed her Waiver of Speedy Trial .

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 : January 25, 2008 at 1 :30 p.m.

Jury Selection : February 5, 2008 at 9 :30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00192-SM Document 13 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

September 24, 2007

cc : Jorel Booker, Esq . Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:07-cr-00192-SM Document 13 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JOSE EMMANUEL VACA-SALDANA, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR111 

ORDER 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadline. 

(Filing No. 25). For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadline, (Filing No. 25), is 

granted. 

2) Pretrial motions shall be filed by October 6, 2023. 

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice 

will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of 

this motion, that is, the time between August 7, 2023 and October 6, 2023, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the 

Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny counsel the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, 

and the novelty and complexity of the case. The failure to grant this motion might result 

in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to timely object 

to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any 

right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 2nd day of August, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00111-BCB-SMB Doc # 26 Filed: 08/02/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 35
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES —OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of EF Johnson Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Michael E. Jalbert, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2.                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed inthe Report.

 

 
| ** ** | ** ** | **/S/****Michael E. Jalbert**  |
|------------|------------|--------------------------------|
|       |       | Michael E. Jalbert             |
|       |       | Chief Executive Officer        |
|       |       | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

**May ****17****, 2010**

 

*Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

1

----
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 5.0 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1992: Q2... 100 * 11.00 13.00 18.00 23.00 17.00 10.00 7.00 1.00 * * * * * 1993: Q2... 100 * 4.00 14.00 22.00 18.00 16.00 20.00 5.00 1.00 * * * * * 1994: Q2... 100 4.00 4.00 23.00 21.00 22.00 20.00 4.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * * 1995: Q2... 100 * * 3.00 14.00 11.00 35.00 24.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q2... 100 * 14.00 14.00 19.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 3.00 1.00 .01 .01 * .01 * 1997: Q2... 100 * .01 6.00 11.00 20.00 30.00 21.00 9.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1998: Q2... 100 * .01 3.00 14.00 31.00 30.00 14.00 7.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1999: Q2... 100 .01 4.00 4.00 12.00 37.00 30.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 * * 2000: Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2003: Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * * 1999: Q4... 100 .01 .01 3.00 9.00 30.00 36.00 17.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * * 2000: Q1... 100 * .01 5.00 4.00 30.00 36.00 18.00 6.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * *  Q2... 100 .01 .01 .01 4.00 19.00 36.00 27.00 11.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * *  Q3... 100 .01 .01 1.00 1.00 16.00 30.00 28.00 19.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 .01  Q4... 100 * .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q1... 100 .01 * 8.00 7.00 28.00 33.00 17.00 5.00 2.00 .01 .01 * .01 .01  Q2... 100 .01 3.00 8.00 29.00 31.00 22.00 5.00 2.00 .39 .07 .03 .01 * *  Q3... 100 1.10 9.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 12.00 3.00 1.00 .26 .01 * * * *  Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q1... 100 23.76 17.31 19.76 23.14 10.76 4.30 .80 .00 .00 * .00 .00 * .00  Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
9

A.5. Average Effective Interest Rates on Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1993...... 7.5 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.7 6.2 9.0 8.7 8.3 6.9 1994...... 7.8 8.3 8.0 8.4 8.6 7.0 9.1 8.8 8.6 7.3 1995...... 9.5 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.3 8.8 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.0 1996...... 8.4 8.8 9.5 8.6 9.7 8.0 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.8 1997...... 9.2 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.8 8.5 10.2 10.0 9.9 8.8 1998...... 9.0 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.0 10.1 9.9 9.7 8.4 1999...... 8.7 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.8 7.6 9.7 9.5 9.3 8.1 2000...... 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 2001...... 7.8 7.6 8.0 8.4 8.3 7.0 9.1 8.7 8.3 7.3 2002...... 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.7 4.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.3 2003...... 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 4.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 4.8 2004...... 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.5 4.8 6.6 6.4 5.9 5.0 2001: Q4... 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.8 7.4 5.3 7.9 7.4 6.8 5.5 2002: Q1... 6.3 6.5 5.6 6.8 6.7 5.2 7.6 7.2 6.7 5.7  Q2... 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.4 7.1 5.3 7.2 6.9 6.4 5.6  Q3... 5.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.3 4.7 7.3 7.0 6.5 4.9  Q4... 5.5 5.6 5.4 6.2 7.2 4.2 7.1 6.7 6.2 4.8 2003: Q1... 5.6 5.3 5.2 6.0 6.2 4.8 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.2  Q2... 5.9 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.2 4.9 6.8 6.6 6.3 5.4  Q3... 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.4 6.5 6.2 5.6 4.6  Q4... 5.0 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.6 4.4 6.4 6.2 5.7 4.2 2004: Q1... 5.3 5.1 5.9 5.6 5.5 4.6 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.0  Q2... 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.4 4.7 6.5 6.2 5.5 4.7  Q3... 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.0 6.6 6.5 5.9 5.1  Q4... 5.5 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 4.9 6.9 6.5 6.3 5.1 2005: Q1... 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 5.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 6.4  Q2... 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.0 7.6 7.4 6.9 6.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Effective (compoundcalculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Quarterly estimates are expressed as an annual loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 2 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 3 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 4 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 5 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 6 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00406-JD   Document 19   Filed 04/03/09   Page 7 of 7
1The second paragraph of footnote three in the original

opinion reads as follows:

Furthermore, we must observe that if either the United

States Attorney or the Federal Public Defender believes

the colloquy is inadequate under Rule 11, as officers of

the court they have “both an obligation and an interest

in insuring that a guilty plea proceeding complies with

all constitutional and statutory requirements,” United

States v. Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786, 790 n.2 (5th

Cir. 1999), and accordingly should bring any failure in

compliance with Rule 11 to the attention of the court.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-10976

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CUEVAS-ANDRADE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________

December 29, 2000

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED as follows: The second

paragraph of footnote three1 will be deleted and will be replaced

with the following:
Furthermore, we must observe that neither the United

States Attorney nor Cuevas-Andrade’s attorney raised any

contemporaneous objections to the district court’s

failure to comply with Rule 11. (It should be noted,

however, that Cuevas-Andrade is represented by new

counsel on appeal.) As officers of the court, attorneys

have “both an obligation and an interest in insuring that

a guilty plea proceeding complies with all constitutional

and statutory requirements,” United States v. EchegollenBarrueta, 195 F.3d 786, 790 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999), and

accordingly should immediately bring any failure in

compliance with Rule 11 to the attention of the district

court.

In all other respects, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.