alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 1870

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To provide for the sale of certain real property within the Newlands Project in

Nevada, to the city of Fallon, Nevada.

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 ‘‘Fallon Rail Freight Loading

Facility Transfer Act’’.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF FALLON, NEVADA.

(a) CONVEYANCE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the

Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the city of Fallon,

Nevada, all right, title, and interest of the United States in

and to approximately 6.3 acres of real property in the Newlands

Reclamation Project, Nevada, generally known as ‘‘380 North

Taylor Street, Fallon, Nevada’’, and identified for disposition

on the map entitled ‘‘Fallon Rail Freight Loading Facility’’.

(2) MAP.—The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be

on file and available for public inspection in—

(A) the offices of the Commissioner of the Bureau of

Reclamation; and

(B) the offices of the Area Manager of the Bureau

of Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada.

(b) CONSIDERATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall require that, as

consideration for the conveyance under subsection (a), the city

of Fallon, Nevada, shall pay to the United States an amount

equal to the fair market value of the real property, as

determined—

(A) by an appraisal of the real property, conducted

not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of

this Act by an independent appraiser approved by the

Commissioner of Reclamation and paid for by the city

of Fallon, Nevada; and

(B) without taking into consideration the value of any

structures or improvements on the property.

(2) CREDIT OF PROCEEDS.—The amount paid to the United

States under paragraph (1) shall be credited, in accordance

with section 204(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 485(c)), to the appropriate

fund in the Treasury relating to the Newlands Reclamation

Project, Nevada.
H. R. 1870—2

(c) LIABILITY.—The conveyance under subsection (a) shall not

occur until such date as the Commissioner of Reclamation certifies

that all liability issues relating to the property (including issues

of environmental liability) have been resolved.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Thousand Trails, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William J. Shaw, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|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
Company.

May 13, 2003

/s/ William J. Shaw

William J. Shaw
President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the SEC or its staff upon request.
#### Sinclair Haberman, Respondent, v City of Long Beach et al., Appellants.

[806 NYS2d 877]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants effected an unconstitutional taking of the plaintiffs property, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated January 20, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7) insofar as asserted against the defendant the Architectural Review Board of the City of Long Beach.

Ordered that the appeals by the defendants City of Long Beach and City Council of the City of Long Beach are dismissed, as those defendants are not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the Architectural Review Board of the City of Long Beach; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

That branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the second amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Architectural Review Board of the City of Long Beach was based on the same grounds for dismissal as those previously urged and rejected *(see Haberman v City of Long Beach,*25 AD3d 583 [2006] [decided herewith]; *see also Haberman v City of Long Beach,*298 AD2d 497 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the defendants’ motion was proper. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wayne Urso

v. Civil No. 06-cv-346-JM

Prudential Insurance

Company of America

O R D E R

The hearing on damages and pre-judgment interest scheduled

for February 4, 2008 is continued to a date after defendant

responds to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees filed

January 30, 2008. Damages, pre-judgment interest and attorney’s

fees will be considered at the same hearing.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 31, 2008

cc: Robert A. Shaines, Esq.

William T. Bogaert, Esq.

Christopher P. Flanagan, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00346-JM Document 28 Filed 01/31/08 Page 1 of 1
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
                                 Estimated volume                  Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                               (percent)
                      _______________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
1996......    |          95      16      27       24       30      .240      .039      .070     .058      .071
1997......    |          93       6      19       19       50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15       24       45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37       35       36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17       34       45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53      140       48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50       58       73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34      35       48       58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |         129      28      17       46       38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |          59       8      16       12       24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |          73       9       7       23       34      .146      .018      .015     .045      .064
2007......    |        n.a.       8      13     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .014      .025     n.a.      n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
#### Steven Lynn FREEMAN, Appellant, v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee.

No. 02-3172.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2003.

Decided March 5, 2003.

Before BYE, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Steven Lynn Freeman was convicted of rape and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, *see Freeman v. State,*331 Ark. 130, 959 S.W.2d 400 (1998), and Freeman’s petition for postconviction relief was denied, as was his August 2000 petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, *see Freeman v. State,*No. CR 97-640, 2000 WL 1476656, at *1 (Ark. Oct. 5, 2000) (unpublished per curiam).

In October 2001, almost a year after the denial of his August 2000 petition, Freeman filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, raising, as he did in the August 2000 petition, a claim under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and *Giglio v. United States,*405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Freeman argued equitable considerations should toll the one-year statute of limitations application to section 2254 petitions, because the evi*668dence underlying his *Brady*claim established he was actually innocent. Even assuming the statute of limitations did not begin to run until Freeman obtained the *Brady*evidence in March 2000, and the limitations period was tolled during the pendency of the state court proceeding from August through October 2000, Freeman still waited nearly seventeen months to pursue his claims in federal court. Given Freeman’s failure to show wrongdoing by the State prevented him from bringing a timely petition, his reliance on actual innocence to invoke equitable tolling is misplaced. *See Flanders v. Graves,*299 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir.2002), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1361, 155 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court* dismissing Freeman’s petition as time-barred.

*

 The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v.

Corey Donovan

Criminal No. 

07-cr-130-01-SM

ORDER

Re: (Document No. 102) Defendant’s Motion for Redress

Ruling: Denied. The pending motion, apparently seeking relief 

under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.§2255, is a second or successive 

petition that this court cannot consider absent prior approval by 

the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 28 

U.S.C.§2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner's conviction became final when 

the period in which he could file an appeal expired, on or about March 

25, 2009. He filed a motion for relief, construed to be a habeas 

petition, on May 25, 2010 (doc. no. 97) , which was denied as untimely, 

and no appeal was taken from that denial. Petitioner then filed a 

second petition (Docket No. 10-cv-390-SM), dated August 24, 2010, 

which was also denied as 1) untimely generally, 2)as a second petition 

filed without prior authorization from the court of appeals, and 3) 

as untimely specifically under Section 2255(f) since the facts 

supporting his claims (similar to those raised now) could have been 

discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to 

sentencing. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability from 

the court of appeals, but the court denied relief (Docket no. 

10-2180), pointing out that the petition was untimely even allowing 

for additional time in which foundation facts could have been 

reasonably discovered.

Date: April 23, 2013 _______________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

cc:

Corey Donovan

Terry Ollila, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00130-SM Document 103 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:08-cv-00137-JM Document 15 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary D. Johnson

v. 07-cv-161-PB

Angela Poulin, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated September 12, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

December 10, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Gary D. Johnson, Pro se

Danielle Pacik, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00161-PB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 1
59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-223-01-SM

Jerry A. Shanahan

O R D E R

Defendant Shanahan’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted in part (document no. 63). Trial has been rescheduled for the

January 2009 trial period. Defendant Shanahan shall file a waiver of speedy

trial rights not later than August 21, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 9, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: January 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 65 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 11, 2008 

cc: Andrew Good, Esq.

Philip Cormier, Esq.

Peter Anderson, Esq.

William Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00223-SM Document 65 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-33-PB

Louis Pierre

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

June 3, 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 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 3, 2008 to July 8, 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 1:08-cr-00033-PB Document 15 Filed 05/27/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 30, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

June 24, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 27, 2008

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00033-PB Document 15 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-100-PB

Dolores Lord

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

October 10, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations or prepare a defense. The government does 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 October 10, 2007 to January 8, 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-00100-PB Document 9 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 25, 2007 final pretrial conference is

continued to December 17, 2007 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 25, 2007

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00100-PB Document 9 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1606346
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          659165
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   35885058
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         6105373
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           5468604
<LOANS>                                       65237584
<ALLOWANCE>                                     241165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               114828400
<DEPOSITS>                                    71638263
<SHORT-TERM>                                   9000000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1217749
<LONG-TERM>                                    2577127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25921
<OTHER-SE>                                    30369340
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               114828400
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1288559
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               746588
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 35979
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               2071126
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              778011
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              930944
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1140182
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    15000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               49314
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 849374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 546765
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      546765
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    334765
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                      9000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                226215
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       50
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               241165
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            241165
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wachovia Securities, LLC

v. Civil No. 08-cv-251-JL

Richard T. Iannacone, et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Because James A. MacDonald is a personal acquaintance of

mine and our sons played youth baseball together during the

summers of 2006 and 2007, I hereby recuse myself from presiding

over this case, and request that the clerk reassign this matter. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 24, 2008

cc: Jeanne P. Herrick, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00251-MML Document 6 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30387 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MELVIN JACKSON, also known as Melvo Jackson , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 189

- 1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Melvin Jackson was convicted of conspiracy, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. United States v. Jackson , 662 F. App’x 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2016). On appeal, Jackson raised several issues, includin g a constitutional challenge to his sentence that was foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez , 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). See Jackson 662 F. App’x at 312, 319. We affirmed Jackson’s conviction but

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 9, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30387 Document: 00514232629 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2017No. 17

- 30387

2 vacated and remanded the sentence for further co nsideration of the application of a sentencing enhancement based on the severity of the injury to the victim.
Id . at 318

- 20. On remand, the district court found that the sentencing enhancement was appropriate. Jackson do es not challenge this finding. On appeal, Jackson states that in his initial appeal he raised the issue that his sentence was unconstitutional because it was based on uncharged conduct. Jackson concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Hernandez , but he raises the issue again to prese rve it for possible further review. Accordingly, Jackson’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, his alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-30387 Document: 00514232629 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2017
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 193

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. STUMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera6 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub8 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and

9 transfers made, after the date of the enactment of this

10 Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jan F. Becker

v. Case No. 08-cv-185-SM

Margaret Blightler, et al. 

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated May 19, 2008, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set

forth therein Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

June 10 , 2008 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Jan F. Becker, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00185-SM Document 4 Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 1