alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1997 1998 1999

2000

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.p

1 Deposits .............................. 457 167 71 87 125 142 110 104 76 78 139

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 620,885 607,574 632,482 631,421 641,830 632,216 623,553 627,081 624,177 628,001 611,641

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 10,763 10,343 9,933 9,771 9,711 9,711 9,711 9,688 9,688 9,674 9,620

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JERRY W. LACKEY,

Defendant.

4:23CR3064

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion for temporary modification of pretrial release, 

(Filing No. 33), is granted.

2) Defendant is permitted to attend an event with his parents, brother 

and sister-in-law, nephews and two children at Roca Berry Farm 

during the evening of October 14, 2023, returning home to meet is 

curfew no later than 10:30 p.m.

Dated this 12th day of October, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03064-JMG-CRZ Doc # 34 Filed: 10/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 84
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of Americ a

v . Criminal No. 05-cr-241-03-JD

Virak Tin

O R D E R

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

221) filed by defendant is granted . In view of the number of

continuances previously granted and the age of this case, counsel

is placed on notice that no further continuances will be 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 : October 12, 200 7

cc : Robert Kinsella, Esq .

James Dennehy, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00241-JD Document 222 Filed 10/12/07 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3032

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Roy Wayne Guier

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: May 20, 2019

Filed: May 23, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Roy Guier, proceeding pro se upon his request, directly appeals after he

pleaded guilty to tax evasion, and the district court1

sentenced him to a year and a day

1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
in prison. On appeal, he arguesthat the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate

his criminal prosecution.

We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (the

district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the

state courts, of all offenses against the laws of the United States). See United States

v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918, 920 n.2 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (where defendant was

charged with an offense against the laws of the United States, the district court clearly

had jurisdiction and his motion to dismiss was properly denied); United States v.

Pemberton, 405 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2005) (subject-matter jurisdiction in every

federal criminal prosecution comesfrom § 3231, which is “the beginning and the end

of the ‘jurisdictional’ inquiry”). We also reject as meritless Guier’s assertion that

paying federal income tax is voluntary. See United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255,

1256-57 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (claim that payment of federal income tax is

voluntary clearly lacks substance; assessing sanctions against appellants for

advancing arguments that were clearly lacking in merit and frivolous). We thus

affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DAISY FRANCO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ279

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 that Justin D. Eichmann is appointed as attorney of record for 

the above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in this 

matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel 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 and Justin D. Eichmann.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00279-MDN Doc # 9 Filed: 05/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 17
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6865
ROBERT DEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANTHONY MALLOREY; HUSSEN OZINAL, Doctor; SANDRA EARLY, Medical Staff of Staunton Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-492-R) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dean, Appellant Pro Se. Colin James Steuart Thomas, III, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C., Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) 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. Dean v. Mallorey , No. CA-95-492-R (W.D. Va. May 10, 1996). 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
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1611

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage

penalty with regard to income limits for the IRA deduction for active

participants in pension plans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate

the marriage penalty with regard to income limits for

the IRA deduction for active participants in pension

plans.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marriage IRA Fairness

5 Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1611 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN PHASE2 OUT OF IRA DEDUCTION FOR ACTIVE PAR3 TICIPANTS IN CERTAIN PENSION PLANS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 219(g)(3)(B)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applica6 ble dollar amount) is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(i) In the case of a taxpayer filing a

8 joint return, the applicable dollar amount

9 for a taxable year shall be 200 percent of

10 the dollar amount in effect under clause

11 (ii) for the taxable year’’.

12 (b) RANGE.—Clause (ii) of section 219(g)(2)(A) of

13 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘for a taxable year be14 ginning after December 31, 2006’’.

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

17 December 31, 2000.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mary Ann Stalter

v. Civil No. 05-cv-070-PB

New Hampshire Seacoast Cruises, Inc.

SCHEDULING ORDER

At a discovery conference the following bench orders were

issued: 

1. All deadlines (except the trial date) are extended

60 days; 

2. Defendant’s expert disclosure date is extended

until plaintiff submits to an IME; 

3. Plaintiff must pay for defense counsel’s travel

and expenses to come to her for a deposition; and

4. Defense counsel may take “discovery” depositions

of plaintiff and her treating physician(s) before any

videotape depositions. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 27, 2006

cc: Paul J. Haley, Esq.

 Thomas J. Hunt, Esq.

 Leonard W. Langer, Esq.

 William D. Pandolph, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00070-PB Document 16 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT** 

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofNew Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1,2018 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC andCNH Equipment Trust 2019-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.            NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.            The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.            This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.            A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2022 and of its performanceunder the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreementin all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2022.

 

6.            INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2023. 

 

 

 

 

March 30, 2023
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7272** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. THOMAS MONIQUE BRADDY, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 0 0 048

- RBS

- TEM

- 1 )

Submitted : September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirm ed in part, dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se
. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Monique Braddy, Jr., appeals the district
court ’ s order denying his “Motion for Reconsideration of 28
U.S.C. § 2255 and/or Motion Under Audita Querela
. ” Having reviewed the record, we affirm the district court’s order to the extent it denies Braddy a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Braddy , No. 4:07

- cr - 00048

- RBS

- TEM

- 1 (E.D. Va. July 29 , 2013)
. The portion of the district court’s order construing Braddy’s petition as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certi ficate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that t he dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484

- 85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braddy has

no t made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, affirm in part, and dismiss in part . We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court an d argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brian Woodbur n

V . No . 06-fp-260

NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner, et al .

O R D E R

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows : the sum of $26 .00 is due no later tha n

September 1, 2006 . In addition, 20% of each preceding month's

income credited to plaintiff's account to be remitted by the

Rhode Island Department of Corrections when the amount in the

account exceeds $10 .00 until the sum of $350 .00 has been paid .

Failure to pay the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the

action without prejudice . In all other respects plaintiff's

request for in forma pauperis has been granted .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-260-PB .

SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhead

ted States Magistrate Judg e

Date : August 8, 200 6

cc : Brian Woodburn, pro se

Bonnie S . Reed, Financial Administrato r

Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00260-PB Document 7 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          945048
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         4705584
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   33714412
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        22863339
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          23109067
<LOANS>                                       44544567
<ALLOWANCE>                                     200000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               105539729
<DEPOSITS>                                    68145948
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1483832
<LONG-TERM>                                     710200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25921
<OTHER-SE>                                    40173828
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               110539729
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2748973
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2619204
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                392852
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               5761029
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2245760
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2327398
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3433631
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    19895
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2049208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1987353
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1987353
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1203976
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.35
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     56320
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                200000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    19895
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               200000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            200000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60895 Su m m ar y Cal endar
KI M A NT HONYP OL ONC Z Y K Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. C O R P O R A T E ST A T E O F A R KA N S A S ; M IK E B E E B E , G overnor D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V

- 284
B e fo r e J O L LY , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * K i m A nt hony Pol onc zyk f i l ed a c ivi lac t i on agai nstt he St at e of A r kansas andG o ve rnor B eebe al l egi n g vari ou s i n st an ces of di scr i m i n ati on an d ab u se. The d i stri ct cou rt dism i sse dthe su i t as frivo l ou s be ca u se, u n d er th e E l ev en th A m en dm en t , t h e defen da n t s are i m m u n e fr om su ch sui t s w h ere th e onl y rel i ef soug h ti s m on et ary da m ages. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed P ol on czyk’ s m ot i on f or l eavet o pr oc ee d i n f

or m a pauper i s ( I FP ) on appeal af t erf i ndi ng t hatt he appea l United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 30, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60895

2 w ou l d b e fr ivolous. Polonczyk n ow seeks t h i s c ou rt ’ s l eave to proc eed IF P on a p p e a l. A lth o u gh P o lo n c z y ka s s e r ts g e n e r a l l yth a t t h e d e fe n d a n ts w a iv e dth e ir
so ver ei gn i m m uni t y by ac c ept i ng fede r alf und s, he fai l s t o a ss er tany fac t s t hat d em on strate a sp ecif i c ab rog a ti on of th a t i m m u n i ty. A ccord i n gly, h e fail s to sh ow th a t h e w i l l ra i se a n on frivo l ou s i ssu e on a p p e a l. S ee A ta sc a d er o S ta te Ho spi t al v. S can lon , 4 7 3 U .S . 2 3 4 , 2 4 6 -4 7 (1 9 8 5 ), sup erse d edbysta tu te , 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 d -7 ; Hu rst v. T exas D ep’

t ofA ssist i ve & R eha b. S ervs . , 482 F
. 3d 809, 8 1 0 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 )
. P o lo n c z y k ’ s IF P m o tio n is d e n ie d , a n dth e a p p e a l is d is m is s e d a s fr iv o lo u s . S ee Carson v. Pol ley , 6 8 9 F .2d5 6 2 , 5 8 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); 5 T H C IR . R
. 42. 2. AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; I F P MOTI ON D ENI ED
.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit the Secretary of

Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I milk on the distance

or transportation costs from any location that is not within a marketing

area, except under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. PETRI (for himself, Mr. OBEY, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. KIND, Ms.

BALDWIN, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, and Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit the

Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices

for Class I milk on the distance or transportation costs

from any location that is not within a marketing area,

except under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

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

•HR 1505 IH

1 SECTION 1. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM

2 PRICES FOR CLASS I MILK.

3 Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7

4 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agri5 cultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (A)—

7 (A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by

8 inserting after ‘‘the locations’’ the following:

9 ‘‘within a marketing area subject to the order’’;

10 and

11 (B) by striking the last 2 sentences and in12 serting the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding sub13 section (18) or any other provision of law, when

14 fixing minimum prices for milk of the highest

15 use classification in a marketing area subject to

16 an order under this subsection, the Secretary

17 may not, directly or indirectly, base the prices

18 on the distance from, or all or part of the costs

19 incurred to transport milk to or from, any loca20 tion that is not within the marketing area sub21 ject to the order, unless milk from the location

22 constitutes at least 50 percent of the total sup23 ply of milk of the highest use classification in

24 the marketing area. The Secretary shall report

25 to the Committee on Agriculture of the House

26 of Representatives and the Committee on Agri-
3

•HR 1505 IH

1 culture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate

2 on the criteria that are used as the basis for the

3 minimum prices referred to in the preceding

4 sentence, including a certification that the min5 imum prices are made in accordance with the

6 preceding sentence.’’; and

7 (2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ‘‘the

8 locations’’ the following: ‘‘within a marketing area

9 subject to the order’’.

Æ