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

	






	


"# $% &' %(!!! )&)($#$

 * $%' $( $  $($$#(#'+#(($ ($

& ,-

 * $% $( $ 

‘ #*($). * $%' $( $ .!#  /*($

' $( $ !)(0&')#!' $( $ # /123 $% $ 

 '+4

‘ #*($)!#  /*(0&')#!' $( $ /#/#'#

%$*$*$%/##($),4

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al.

The Congress of the United States of America, et al.

07-356 (SM)

OR

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 20 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 3



$$#(

‘ #*($).($$#(.!#  /* * $%

' $( $)## !$!($$#(.#' $( $

($$5($' $( $ .!)(0&')#!' $( $ # /123

 $% $ #' $( $($$5 '+4

‘ #*($)!#  /*(0&')#!' $( $ ##

%$*$*$%/##' $( $($$4




 #* ' 

‘ #*($)#  #&  ✔

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 20 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 3
('0)0&%!.

"%  $( $ 6$$#(-

4 66"% / $!*$-

"% / $!*$-

"7$ -

"8/$%%-

"
!!$-

").	.9( !-

"# 4,,,,,,:,,,,-

":%4,,,;,,,,,,-

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#  /*! &' %(!0&%!/#'' %(



	<

#$&)'$)##' 0$	%/$! #  /*($ 

 #!!#%$('!#$4



'$ ')	$!#$ 0*#4"% *$-

  )	$!4"%!
!!$  :*$-

4 66"% / $!*$-

"% / $!*$-

"7$ -

"8/$%%-

"
!!$-

").	.9( !-

"# 4,,,,,,:,,,,-

":%4,,,;,,,,,,-

Knights of Columbus

January 18, 2008 /s/ Bradford T. Atwood

Bradford T. Atwood

New Hampshire Bar No. 8512

CLAUSON ATWOOD & SPANEAS

10 Buck Road

Hanover, NH 03755

Phone: (603) 643-2102

E-mail: batwood@cas-law.net

Michael A. Newdow (newdowlaw@gmail.com); Rosanna T. Fox (rosief13@comcast.net); Eric

B. Beckenhauer (eric.beckenhauer@usdoj.gov); Theodore C. Hirt (theodore.hirt@usdoj.gov);

Gretchen L. Witt (gretchen.witt@usdoj.gov); David H. Bradley (dbradley@stebbinsbradley.com)

January 18, 2008 /s/ Bradford T. Atwood

Bradford T. Atwood

New Hampshire Bar No. 8512

CLAUSON ATWOOD & SPANEAS

10 Buck Road

Hanover, NH 03755

Phone: (603) 643-2102

E-mail: batwood@cas-law.net

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 20 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

HealthDesk Corporation
Computation of Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                            ----------------------------
                                                                          1996                       1997
                                                                          ----                       ----
<S>                                                                  <C>                      <C>
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding...............    2,130,078                  4,659,663

Shares issuable pursuant to conversion of preferred stock, 
   warrants and stock options issued during the twelve month 
   period prior to the filing of the initial public offering 
   registration statement, less shares assumed repurchased at 
   the offering price of $5.00 per share...........................    1,694,788                      ----
                                                                     -----------                -----------

Total common and common equivalent shares..........................    3,824,866                  4,659,663
                                                                     -----------                -----------

Net Loss...........................................................  $  (807,854)               $(1,201,642)
                                                                     ===========                ===========

Loss per common and common equivalent shares.......................       ($0.21)                    ($0.26)
                                                                     ===========                ===========
</TABLE>
---

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41992
          44
          7
          11
          16
          10
          .232
          .038
          .058
          .079
          .0491993
          24
          2
          4
          7
          11
          .121
          .010
          .018
          .035
          .0541994
          10
          1
          1
          3
          6
          .048
          .003
          .003
          .013
          .0261995
          12
          0
          3
          6
          4
          .055
          -.001
          .011
          .027
          .0161996
          7
          0
          1
          2
          4
          .031
          .000
          .003
          .009
          .0171997
          16
          -1
          0
          3
          14
          .064
          -.003
          -.001
          .010
          .0541998
          6
          -1
          3
          0
          5
          .022
          -.004
          .009
          .000
          .0161999
          15
          0
          3
          5
          7
          .051
          -.001
          .011
          .015
          .0222000
          12
          -12
          3
          8
          14
          .037
          -.037
          .009
          .022
          .0402001
          42
          10
          9
          5
          17
          .123
          .030
          .027
          .014
          .0492002
          35
          8
          6
          5
          16
          .097
          .022
          .017
          .014
          .0412003
          n.a.
          4
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .010
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 30, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-22-PB

Linda Bevins

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 6, 2008 trial in the above case to allow time to negotiate a

plea agreement or prepare for trial. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date. 

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the court will continue

the trial from May 6, 2008 to August 19, 2008. In agreeing to

continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

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

Case 1:08-cr-00022-PB Document 10 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 29, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

July 29, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 24, 2008

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00022-PB Document 10 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V.

Conway, NH, 126 Davis Hill Road et al.

07-cv-266-JM

ORDER

Upon application of Lyndon K . Larrabee, and finding that under 18 U .S .C. §

983(b)(2)(A) the applicant is financially unable to obtain representation by counsel in this case

regarding real property subject to forfeiture that is being used by the applicant as a primary

residence, and on consent of the Legal Services Corporation that Michael J. Sheehan may

provide representation to the applicant on his behalf, it i s

ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U .S.C . § 983, the Legal Service Corporation (LSC) shall

provide counsel to the applicant and that Michael J . Sheehan shall be such counsel .

Furthermore, it is hereby ordered that any judgment for fees and costs for LSC pursuan t

to 18 U.S.C . § 983(b)(2)(B) shall be awarded to Michael J. Sheehan or the Legal Services

Corporation subject to the submission of appropriate statements of such fees and costs and the

consent of the Legal Services Corporation .

Michael J. Sheehan shall promptly file an appearance in this matter on behalf of Lyndon

K. Larrabee.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March ~/ , 2008

Jam96 R. Nuirhead

Uni ed State Magistrate Judge

07-cv-366-JM

Case 1:07-cv-00366-JM Document 23 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey Heleen

v. Case No. 06-cv-452-PB

Bank of America, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated January 11, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

February 2, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Jeffrey Heleen, Pro se

Thomas Pappas, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00452-PB Document 11 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-103-PB

Sherry Roderick

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the April 3, 2007 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time to address

medical issues that may impact her ability to go to trial. 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-00103-PB Document 31 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on May 23,

2007 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 30, 2007

cc: Peter Papps, Esq.

Michael Smith, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 31 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1801

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th Street

in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ‘‘Eldon B. Mahon United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 2001

Ms. GRANGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501

West 10th Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ‘‘Eldon

B. Mahon United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 501 West

5 10th Street in Fort Worth, Texas, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Eldon B. Mahon United States Court7 house’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United
2

•HR 1801 IH

1 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

2 to be a reference to the ‘‘Eldon B. Mahon United States

3 Courthouse’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Naquon N. Tucker, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 85]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J., at hearing and first application for new counsel; James A. Yates, J., at subsequent application for new counsel, jury trial and sentence), rendered August 7, 2003, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (14 counts), robbery in the second degree (14 counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly admitted testimony concerning a showup procedure that the police conducted immediately after the robbery. The trial evidence made it abundantly clear to the jury that none of the witnesses were able to identify defendant, *420who wore a bandana during the robbery, by means of facial recognition, and there was nothing in the testimony about the showup that suggested or implied the contrary. One of the witnesses testified that although he could not recognize defendant’s face at the showup, he recognized defendant by his clothing and body build. This testimony was proper, as was police testimony that simply described the procedure and did not state or imply that anyone made an identification *(see People v Welcome,*181 AD2d 628 [1992], *lv denied*79 NY2d 1055 [1992]; see *also People v Sanders,*271 AD2d 289 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 857 [2000]). In any event, were we to find that any of the challenged evidence concerning the showup was inadmissible, we would find the error to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, which included his reliable and voluntary confession as well as physical evidence.

To the extent that the prosecutor deviated slightly from the court’s *Sandoval*ruling, we conclude that defendant opened the door to such a deviation *(see People v Fardan,*82 NY2d 638 [1993]). In any event, the deviation was essentially a matter of form rather than substance and was inconsequential. The prosecutor elicited no more than what the court had permitted, which was that defendant had an unspecified felony conviction.

In separate colloquies, the hearing and trial courts provided defendant ample opportunity to explain why he wanted the court to assign him new counsel *(People v Linares,*2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; *People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822 [1990]), and in each instance he failed to establish good cause for the substitution. Defendant’s conclusory allegations and disagreements with his experienced and competent attorney over tactics did not constitute good cause *(People v Sawyer,*57 NY2d 12, 19 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 1178 [1983]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00404-CR

William Charles Taylor

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

331st District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-1-DC-07-300708

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 2, 2016
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1763

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the personal

needs allowance applied to institutionalized individuals under the medicaid program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase

the personal needs allowance applied to institutionalized

individuals under the medicaid program.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MEDICAID PERSONAL NEEDS AL4 LOWANCE FOR INSTITUTIONALIZED INDIVID5 UALS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(q)(2) of the Social

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(q)(2)) is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘$30’’ and ‘‘$60’’ and inserting ‘‘$50’’ and ‘‘$100’’,

9 respectively.
2

•HR 1763 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to months beginning with Janu3 ary 2002.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-88-01-PB

Chanrathana Khem

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 4, 2005

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to finalize plea negotiations. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from October 4, 2005 to December 6,

2005. 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 1:05-cr-00088-PB Document 20 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 28, 2005 final pretrial conference is

continued until November 22, 2005 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 27, 2005

cc: James Dennehy, Esq.

United States Attorney

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00088-PB Document 20 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 2
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-449-CV

KEVIN WOMACK APPELLANT

V.

SPHERION ATLANTIC ENTERPRISES, LLC APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellant Kevin Womack’s Unopposed Motion To

Dismiss.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore,

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DELIVERED: April 2, 2009
Exhibit 10.15


 


 


 





Garry McHenry


1919 NE 19th Street
suite 302


Ft Lauderdale, Florida
33311


June 7th 2019


To Board of Directors,


As of June 7th 2019 1 here
by resign my position with MCTC Holdings, Inc. (the "company")•


This resignation is
not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to the Company's operation, policies or practices.


Respectfully,


/s/ Garry McHenry


Garry McHenry
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1456

AN ACT

To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, and for other purposes.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1456

AN ACT

To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington

National Monument, 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 1456 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Booker T. Washington

3 National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NATIONAL

5 MONUMENT EXPANDED.

6 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establish7 ment of the Booker T. Washington National Monument’’,

8 approved April 2, 1956 (16 U.S.C. 450ll et seq.), is

9 amended by adding at the end the following new section:

10 ‘‘SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL LANDS.

11 ‘‘(a) LANDS ADDED TO MONUMENT.—The boundary

12 of the Booker T. Washington National Monument is modi13 fied to include the approximately 15 acres, as generally

14 depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Boundary Map, Booker T.

15 Washington National Monument, Franklin County, Vir16 ginia’’, numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated February

17 2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection

18 in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,

19 Department of the Interior.

20 ‘‘(b) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—The

21 Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire from

22 willing owners the land or interests in land described in

23 subsection (a) by donation, purchase with donated or ap24 propriated funds, or exchange.

25 ‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—

26 Lands added to the Booker T. Washington National
3

•HR 1456 EH

1 Monument by subsection (a) shall be administered by the

2 Secretary of the Interior as part of the monument in ac3 cordance with applicable laws and regulations.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 2,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Sean Lester et al., Appellants, v Francis Braue, Defendant, and John Navaretta, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 778]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs Sean Lester, Renada Koenig, and Joseph Sadowski appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated December 15, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant John Navaretta to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiffs Sean Lester and Renada Koenig are dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the decision and order on motion of this Court dated December *20,*2004; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Joseph Sadowski, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant John Navaretta pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him by the plaintiff Joseph Sadowski for failure to state a cause of action. Accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff Joseph Sadowski the benefit of every possible favorable inference *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we conclude that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the defendant John Navaretta *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Indeed, the allegations regarding the conduct of the defendant John Navaretta were impermissibly vague and conclusory *(see Hart v Scott,*8 AD3d 532 [2004]; *Stoianoff v Gahona,*248 AD2d 525 [1998], *appeal dismissed*92 NY2d 844 [1998], *cert denied sub nom. Stoianoff v New York Times,*525 US 953 [1998]). Moreover, the papers submitted in opposition to the motion failed to remedy the defects in the *770complaint *(see Hart v Scott, supra; see generally Cron v Hargro Fabrics,*91 NY2d 362, 366 [1998]; *cf. Cramer v Englert,*289 AD2d 617, 618 [2001]).

The remaining contentions of the plaintiff Joseph Sadowski are either without merit or improperly raised on appeal. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1715

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ‘‘Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Post

Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as

the ‘‘Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. CE ́ SAR E. CHA ́ VEZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas,

6 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ce ́sar E.

7 Cha ́vez Post Office Building’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 1715 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Ce ́sar E. Cha ́vez Post

3 Office Building.

Æ