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

Union Calendar No. 47

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1661

[Report No. 107–91]

To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, Oregon,

and California to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the effective

date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 2001

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (for himself and Mr. WALDEN of Oregon)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

JUNE 6, 2001

Additional sponsors: Mr. INSLEE and Mr. BAIRD

JUNE 6, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to manage a Dungeness

crab fishery until the effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
2

•HR 1661 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES OF

4 WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA TO

5 MANAGE DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY.

6 Section 203 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to approve

7 a governing international fishery agreement between the

8 United States and the Republic of Poland, and for other

9 purposes’’, approved November 13, 1998 (Public Law

10 105–384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note), is amended by striking

11 subsection (i).

Union Calendar No. 47

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1661

[Report No. 107–91]

A BILL

To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of

Washington, Oregon, and California to manage aDungeness crab fishery until the effective date ofa fishery management plan for the fishery underthe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act.

JUNE 6, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Exhibit 99.6



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Acreage Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin P. Murphy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(1)      The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)      The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|April 29, 2019 | /s/ Kevin P. Murphy                 
|-------------- | ------------------------------------
|               | Kevin P. Murphy                     
|               | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)       



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Acreage Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Acreage Holdings, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.2



                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB
for  the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mark  E.  Larson, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner  of  the  Partnership,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                              /s/ Mark E Larson
                                  Mark E. Larson
                                  Chief Financial Officer of
                                  AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.,
                                  the Managing General Partner
                                  August 6, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. CLINTON EDWARD WILSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 54 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Robert GENNELL, Jr. et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDEX CORPORATION, FEDEX GROUND 

PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., and FEDEX 

HOME DELIVERY (a division thereof), 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________/ 

Case No. 1:05-cv-00145-PB 

ORDER 

The Court, based upon the submissions of counsel, makes the following ORDER: 

 The Court’s earlier scheduling order is amended as follows: 

● September 7, 2012: Deadline for plaintiffs to serve expert reports. 

● November 2, 2012: Deadline for defendants to serve expert reports. 

● November 30, 2012: Deadline for the parties to complete expert depositions. 

● January 4, 2013: Deadline for parties to file summary judgment motions. 

● February 1, 2013: Deadline for oppositions to summary judgment or other 

motions. 

● February 22, 2013: Deadline for reply briefs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________ ________________________________ 

 HONORABLE PAUL J. BARBADORO 

 JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT 

Case 1:05-cv-00145-PB Document 30 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 07-cv-10-PB

Davenport Realty Trust and

Red Hill Trust

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff United States has moved for entry of a default

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)

against defendant Red Hill Trust (“RHT”). The matter was

referred to me for hearing and a recommendation of disposition. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As default was entered against RHT on

October 14, 2009, for its having failed to appear (document no.

53), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), see also United States District

Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 83.6(c)

and (d), a damages hearing is not appropriate. See id.

(precluding trusts from appearing pro se). All remaining claims

have been resolved pursuant to the Consent Decree entered by the

court on March 8, 2010 (document no. 59). Because default has

been entered against RHT and plaintiff has filed the requisite

affidavit showing the amount due from RHT, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 1:07-cv-00010-PB Document 60 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 2
55(b)(1), I recommend that default judgment be entered as

follows:

Default judgment in the amount of $8,272,224.83

in favor of the United States for all unrecovered

response costs incurred in connection with the

Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site, plus interest in

the amount accruing from the date of entry of this

default judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the

right to appeal the district court’s order. See Unauth.

Practice of Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir.

1992); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.

1986). 

 /s/ Landya B. McCafferty 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 2, 2010

cc: Jeffrey A. Sands, Esquire

Edwin Quinn

2

Case 1:07-cv-00010-PB Document 60 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, MPercent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 505,044 52,713 121,193 137,398 35,913 9,246 18,98Number of loans 20,984 2,455 4,258 5,804 1,753 390 93Weighted average maturity (months)1 34.18 24.24 29.78 27.52 67.45 5.59 8.6

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 17.62 19.03 6.86 17.54 5.97 3.97 4.1

Weighted average risk rating3 2.52 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate4 6.71 6.58 6.67 6.63 7.35 6.77 6.7

 Standard error5 .08 .14 .22 .15 .18 .36 .3

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 7.38 7.25 7.64 7.04 8.25 6.62 7.5 25th percentile 6.17 6.25 6.00 6.16 6.50 6.57 6.4 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.97 7.40 7.09 6.91 7.81 9.38 8.0 Other livestock 6.93 4.49 n.a. 6.71 9.11 6.57 7.6 Other current operating expenses7 6.78 6.59 6.88 6.66 7.50 6.71 6.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.62 9.15 7.30 5.96 7.93 n.a. 7.1 Farm real estate 6.62 n.a. 6.72 6.68 6.71 6.57 6.5 Other8 6.27 6.39 6.02 7.99 7.41 6.76 6.3

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 43.83 46.41 51.73 37.93 75.17 26.28 59.3 Under commitment 47.23 57.94 60.61 39.59 81.02 26.90 27.9 Callable 19.69 7.58 11.64 22.64 35.93 23.50 57.7 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 7.41 3.41 20.72 3.11 .28 5.06 3.1 Other livestock 7.68 1.74 11.75 7.15 3.52 13.05 7.1 Other current operating expenses7 51.24 76.92 29.61 46.75 65.71 39.78 36.1

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.29 1.26 .49 8.37 2.25 14.29 62.4 Farm real estate 15.45 8.16 38.44 6.99 10.68 19.78 62.5 Other8 12.92 16.67 33.88 .71 1.51 .62 37.0

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 29.96 23.93 24.53 40.98 28.68 59.30 42.3 Other 66.06 75.93 74.53 56.47 57.59 40.70 43.4 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

AARON P. BAMBURG,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a 

Delaware corporation;

Defendant.

8:23CV231

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that he be allowed to file an Amended Complaint 

out of time based on newly discovered information. (Filing No. 27.) Defendant does not oppose 

the motion. Because the information that is the basis for Plaintiff’s amendments was not available 

before the October 6, 2023 deadline for filing amended pleadings, the Court finds good cause for 

the proposed amendment. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint 

(Filing No. 27) is granted. Plaintiff shall file his Amended Complaint by January 12, 2024.

Dated this 11th day of January, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00231-RFR-SMB Doc # 29 Filed: 01/11/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 76
Exhibit 32.1



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 Autobytel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report), we, Richard A. Post, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael F. Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



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



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    RICHARD A. POST                              
|Richard A. Post Chief Executive Officer May 31, 2005



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL F.
SCHMIDT                                                            
|Michael F. Schmidt Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) May 31, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Autobytel Inc. and will be retained by Autobytel Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
___________________________________________________________________________

                    Other operating  Intermediate non-real-  Long-term real
Quarter                 loans 1           estate loans        estate loans
___________________________________________________________________________

  Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
___________________________________________________________________________
2000: Q2...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q3...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q4...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.

2001: Q1...    |                9.7                     9.6             9.1
      Q2...    |                9.3                     9.1             8.5
      Q3...    |                8.8                     8.7             8.1
      Q4...    |                7.9                     7.7             7.2

2002: Q1...    |                7.4                     7.5             7.0
      Q2...    |                7.2                     7.2             6.8
      Q3...    |                6.8                     6.7             6.4
___________________________________________________________________________

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)
___________________________________________________________________________
2000: Q2...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q3...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q4...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.

2001: Q1...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q2...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q3...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.
      Q4...    |               n.a.                    n.a.            n.a.

2002: Q1...    |                0.0                     0.0             0.0
      Q2...    |                7.7                     7.6             7.1
      Q3...    |                7.5                     7.4             6.9
___________________________________________________________________________
   1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production
expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry).
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit
conditions at commercial banks.

39
39

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2000: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2001: Q1... 9.7 9.6 9.1

 Q2... 9.3 9.1 8.5

 Q3... 8.8 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 7.9 7.7 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.4 7.5 7.0

 Q2... 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2000: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2002: Q1... 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
Opinion issued October 1 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 19 - 00 900 - CV

——————————— MANSOUR SHOJAIE , Appellant

V. HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR - COLLECTOR , Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 89th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 201 9 - 27435 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mansour Shojaie , has neither established indigence for purposes of court costs nor paid or made arrange ments to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 145 ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 37.3 (a), (b). On February 20 , 2020, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant did not2

submit written evidence that he had paid, or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record on or before March 23 , 2020. After more than six months, a ppellant did not adequately respond
. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Hightower and Adams
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States 

v. Case No. 07-cr-229-01-SM

Tony Rosas

ORDER

Re: Document No. 63, Defendant’s Motion for the Issuance of 

Subpoenas Pursuant to LCrR 17.1(a): 

Ruling: Rule 17(c)(3) provides that before entering an order 

to serve a subpoena "requiring the production of personal or 

confidential information about a victim . . ., the court must require 

giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or 

modify the subpoena or otherwise object." Two of the requested 

subpoenas duces tecum (Detective Ledoux, and Officer Day, numbers 

8 and 9, respectively) may require the production of personal 

information about an alleged victim. There is nothing in the record 

to indicate the alleged victim's awareness of, or position with 

respect to, this subpoena request. The court grants the request to 

serve subpoenas numbered 1-7, and 10-11, as those do not appear to 

implicate Rule 17(c)(3), and defendant is entitled to those

subpoenas. As to subpoenas numbered 8 and 9, the court orders the 

Case 1:07-cr-00229-SM Document 66 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 2
government to provide notice to the alleged victim of the pending 

request with respect to those subpoenas. Upon certification from the 

government that the alleged victim has been notified and does not 

object to the issuance of subpoenas 8 and 9, or otherwise wish to 

be heard, the court will grant subpoenas 8 and 9. Should the alleged 

victim desire to be heard with respect to subpoenas numbered 8 and 

9, the alleged victim must file a motion on or before November 22, 

2011.

Date: November 18, 2011 /s/ Landya B. McCafferty

Landya B. McCafferty

US Magistrate Judge

cc: Bruce E. Kenna, Esq. 

Terry Ollila, AUSA 

Case 1:07-cr-00229-SM Document 66 Filed 11/18/11 Page 2 of 2
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 3, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1845 Lower Tribunal No. F15-12525

________________ 

### Ivan Clark, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Ivan Clark, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-228- 01-JD

Chamber Van Tran

O R D E R

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

11) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

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

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

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

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: January 26, 2007

cc: James H. Moir, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00228-JD Document 12 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darren Starr

v. Civil No. 07-cv-311-SM

Northern NH Correctional

Facility, Warden, et al.

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. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: October 2, 2007

cc: Darren Starr, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00311-SM Document 3 Filed 10/02/07 Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00384

- CV

Michael V. Wright and Phyllis F. Wright, Appellant s

v.

State Farm Lloyds, Appellee

FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 15

- 1042

- C368, THE HONORABLE RICK J. K E NNON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant s ’ brief on appeal was originally due October 30 , 2020 . On counsel’s

motion s , the time for filing was extended to Janua ry 22, 2021. C ounsel has now filed a fourth

motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant s ’ brief to February 22 . We

grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant s to file a brief no later than

February 22, 2021 . No further exte nsion of time will be granted and failure to comply with this

orde r may result in dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on February 3, 202 1

.

Before Chief Justi ce By rne, Justices B a ker a nd S m ith