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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 88 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 88

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of 
      the House are not immune from having their offices searched.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2007

 Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida (for herself, Mr. Shays, Mrs. Miller 
  of Michigan, Mr. Castle, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. 
  Myrick, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Porter, Mr. McCotter, Mr. 
 Pitts, and Mr. Jindal) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of 
      the House are not immune from having their offices searched.

Whereas Members of the House of Representatives are not above the law;
Whereas Members have a public trust to uphold;
Whereas Members are elected to represent the interests of their constituents, 
        not to protect their own interests;
Whereas only certain legislative activities are protected from interference by 
        the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution of the United States; 
        and
Whereas the courts have ruled that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield 
        Members from investigation of and prosecution for criminal activity: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that if there is an ongoing criminal investigation into the activities 
of a Member of the House of Representatives, the Member's congressional 
office may be subject to searches and seizures by appropriate executive 
branch officials in possession of a valid court order.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:08-cr-00049-PB   Document 23   Filed 04/03/09   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cr-00049-PB   Document 23   Filed 04/03/09   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cr-00049-PB   Document 23   Filed 04/03/09   Page 3 of 3
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs ·
   Contact Us |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Data Download
  About
  Announcements
  Technical Q&As
 Current Release  (250 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 8 Industrial Capacity  Item
Average annual rate
Fourth quarter to fourth quarter
Annual rate
Monthly rate2013May1972-79
1980-88
1989-94
1995-2013




2012
20132010
2011
2012
2013
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2Total industry
3.1
1.9
2.3
2.3
-2.1
1.3
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
.2Manufacturing[1]
3.3
2.2
2.5
2.4
-2.0
.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
.1Mining
.7
.1
-.7
.7
-1.0
4.6
4.7
3.9
4.4
4.0
3.8
3.8
.3Utilities
4.2
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.9
.7
1.9
1.5
1.1
.7
.1Selected high-technology industries
19.6
17.3
15.8
20.0
11.1
26.4
4.1
4.9
-.3
-.3
1.9
4.7
.5Manufacturing[1] ex. selectedhigh-technology industries
2.6
1.3
1.6
1.0
-2.7
-.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
.1Stage-of-process groupsCrude
1.6
.4
-.5
.7
-1.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.9
.2Primary and semifinished
3.0
1.3
2.5
2.7
-1.1
1.4
.7
.8
.4
.3
.5
.7
.1Finished
3.9
3.3
2.7
2.3
-2.1
.4
3.3
2.9
3.6
3.5
3.2
2.9
.2   Return to table    Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Otis Campbell

Criminal No . 09-cr-10-01-JL

O R D E R

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

10) 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 . § 3161 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph N . Laplante

Joseph N . Laplant e

United States District Judge

Date : February 18, 200 9

cc : Terry Ollila, Esq .

Richard Monteith, Jr ., Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00010-JL Document 11 Filed 02/18/09 Page 1 of 1
#### SUCCESSION OF BELL v. OPPOSITION OF RYLAND. *

No. 4500.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 31, 1933.

Phanor Breazeale, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

E. S. Prudhomme, óf Natchitoches, for ap-pellee.

*

Rehearing denied April 28, 1933.

MILLS, Judge.

E. j. Ryland, in opposing the final account ■of Mrs. L. S. Bell, executrix, alleges that he purchased at succession sale in globo a long list of accounts due the succession, some of which were collected prior to the sale to him. That these collections fiave not been paid him, nor has he been placed on the account as a creditor for their amount. By amended opposition he prays that the executrix be ordered to account for all cash collected on the accounts since the opening of the succession. By further amendment he sets up that the attorney’s fees of $840 appearing on the final account is excessive and should be reduced.

' On the trial of the opposition it is proven that none of the accounts sold has been collected since the sale to opponent; that some accounts that appeared on the inventory and were included in the sale in globo had been collected prior to the sale.

The procSs verbal of the sale shows that according to its terms: “The sale included all open accounts as per inventory and ap-praisement, those appraised as worthless as well as those appraised of value, less those already paid to executrix.”

It thus appears that the purchaser of these accounts had notice that some of them had been collected by the executrix and that such accounts were excluded from the sale. Furthermore, Mrs. Bell, the executrix, testifies without contradiction that at the sale Mx*. Hayden, her collector, stood by and informed Mr. Ryland exactly which claims had been collected.

There was judgment in the lower court decreeing opponent to be an ordinary creditor in the sum of $56.17 on the account of Pre-dieu; $39.15 on the account of Leyendecker; and $94.06 on that of John H. Williams, Jr., and ordering him placed on the final account for the total amount of above claims. There was further judgment reducing the amount allowed the attorney to $509.

Though each of above accounts was ap-pi-aised as worthless, the amounts allowed wei’e collected by the executrix prior to the sale to Ryland. Accounts so collected were by its very terms excluded from the succession sale. Not only was Ryland put on inquiry, but he was expressly informed of these payments. Under these circumstances, there being no sale of, and no misrepi'esentation as to, these accounts, they could not form the basis of any valid claim against the estate.

Not being a creditor of the succession, Ryland was without right to oppose the amount allowed as attorney’s fee.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and judgment is now rendered approving and homologating the final account of the executrix in toto. Opponent to pay the cost of the opposition in the lower court and the cost of appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22774]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11437 and <greek-i>11438]


West Virginia Disaster <greek-i>WV-00010

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of West Virginia dated 09/22/2008.
    Incident: Flea Market Fire.
    Incident Period: 09/10/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/22/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/21/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/22/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Cabell.
Contiguous Counties:
    West Virginia: Lincoln, Mason, Putnam, Wayne.
    Ohio: Gallia, Lawrence.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.750
Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.875
Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere...................      8.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11437 5 
and for economic injury is 11438 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are West 
Virginia; Ohio.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Sandy K. Baruah,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-22774 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-367-JM

William M. Gardner 

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the court’s order dated February 18, 2010, signed by Magistrate

Judge James R. Muirhead, judgment is hereby entered.

By the Court,

/s/ James R. Starr

James R. Starr, Clerk

February 18, 2010

cc: Evan Feit Nappen, Esq.

Gary Sinawski, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00367-JM Document 28 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Robert T. Knott, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[807 NYS2d 692]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994. He was also admitted in Nevada and California. Respondent maintained residences in both states.

*1011The Supreme Court of Nevada disbarred respondent from the practice of law by order filed October 7, 2005. This discipline was imposed after a hearing which determined that respondent had failed to diligently represent his clients, terminated representation without notice, failed to properly and safely hold clients’ property entrusted to his care, disobeyed a court order, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, made false statements in a disciplinary proceeding, and engaged in fraud, deceit, dishonesty, misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The proof established that respondent was unable to account for over $406,000 of client funds. Respondent has also resigned his membership in the State Bar of California.

Petitioner moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline based upon the Nevada disbarment *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has not appeared on the motion.

We grant petitioner’s motion and further conclude that respondent should be reciprocally disbarred.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority; or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
#### Hubert Dessain et al., Appellants, v Jean Franklin, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 662]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated January 19, 2005, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 6201 (1) and 6212 (a) for an order of attachment and granted the defendant’s cross motion to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing or answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s cross motion to vacate his default in appearing or answering the complaint, and for leave to serve a late answer. The defendant failed to present a reasonable excuse *750for his default and a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Fekete v Camp Skwere,*16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]; *Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*15 AD3d 353 [2005]; *Caputo v Peton,*13 AD3d 474, 475 [2004]; *Mount Sinai Hosp. of Queens v Hertz Corp.,*3 AD3d 523, 524 [2004]).

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an order of attachment, as they satisfied the requirements under CPLR 6201 (1) and 6212 (a). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 09-cr-39-01-SM

Salvador Williams

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial for a period of 60 days

(document no. 42) is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the July trial period.

Defendant shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than May 22, 2009. 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 defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:09-cr-00039-SM Document 43 Filed 05/11/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: July 15, 2009 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: July 21, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

May 11, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00039-SM Document 43 Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending March 17, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCONGRESSIONAL BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                          CICFBF Partners, LP, San Francisco, California, a qualified family partnership, to obtain up to 21.4% of the voting securities of Congressional Bancshares, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, through the transfer of shares from Mr. Jason M. Fish, the general partner of FBF Partners, LP.Newspaper: 03/20/2012Federal Register: 03/23/2012FIRST CAROLINA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.                                                                                 * 3A1First Carolina Financial Services, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, to become a bank holding company through the acquisition of 95.26% of the voting securities of First Carolina State Bank, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and 95.65% of the voting securities of Pisgah Community Bank, Asheville, North Carolina.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/09/2012HOMETRUST BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                              * SLHC FormationHomeTrust Bancshares, Inc., Clyde, North Carolina, to become a savings and loan holding company upon the conversion of HomeTrust Bank, Clyde, North Carolina, from a mutual to stock form of ownership.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6779
BEAUMONT GEREAU-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON; CAPTAIN JANEWAY; W. R. HEMSLEY; T. PHILLIPS; S. K. YOUNG, Warden, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:05-cv-00605-sgw-mf) Submitted: November 3, 2006 Decided: November 16, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beaumont Gereau-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Beaumont Gereau-Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Because Gereau-Bey did not demonstrate to the district court that he exhausted his administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, which is modified to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice to Gereau-Bey’s right to refile once he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 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 AS MODIFIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1458281
<SECURITIES>                                   1955961
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2280805
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (54844)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5699590
<PP&E>                                         5285439
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1779239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9522248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1986870
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         20000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2985144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9522248
<SALES>                                        10123168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10245213
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9135234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              500867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  609112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              609112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     609112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .04
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bruce Muzzey

v. Case No. 08-cv-275-PB

Sheet Metal Workers Local 17C

NH Pension Trust, et al.

O R D E R

The agreement to temporarily stay proceedings (Doc. No. 39)

is approved. All pending motions are denied without prejudice

and the case shall be statistically closed. The parties shall

notify the court of any failure by either party to abide by the

agreed-upon schedule. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 25, 2010

cc: 

Case 1:08-cv-00275-PB Document 40 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-19-PB

Anthony Seward

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for December 2, 2008, citing newly appointed

counsel and the need for additional time to complete discovery

and prepare a defense. 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 December 2, 2008 to March 3, 2009. 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-00019-SM Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on February

18, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 19, 2008

cc: Thomas McCue, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 2 of 2