alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending August 29, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFARMERS STATE FINANCIAL CORP.                                                                                           CICChange in Control notice by Ann Groff, Victor, Montana, and Kay Clevidence Stevensville, Montana, to retain 25 percent or more of the voting shares of Farmers State Financial Corporation, Victor, Montana, and thereby indirectly retain control of Farmers State Bank, Victor, Montana. In addition, Ryan Clevidence, and Sara Clevidence both of Lolo, Montana, to retroactively join the Groff-Clevidence Family Control Group, which controls 25 percent or more of Farmers State Financial Corporation, Victor, Montana, and thereby indirectly controls Farmers State Bank, Victor, Montana.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableFISHBACK FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                          CICChange in Control Notice by the Fishback Annuity Trust I, the Fishback Annuity Trust II, the Fishback Annuity Trust VI, Patricia S. Fishback, individually and as voting trustee of the trusts, all of Brookings, South Dakota, William Fishback, San Francisco, California, Francesca Fishback, San Francisco, California, Abby Rivlin, Madison, Wisconsin, Toby Rivlin, Madison, Wisconsin, and Fishback Grandchildren Trust I, Brookings, South Dakota, First Bank & Trust, Brookings, South Dakota, trustee, to retroactively  join the Fishback Family Control group which controls 25% or more of the shares of Fishback Financial Corporation, Brookings, South Dakota and indirectly control First Bank & Trust, Brookings, South Dakota, First Bank & Trust, N.A., Pipestone, Minnesota, First Bank & Trust, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and First Bank & Trust, Milbank, South Dakota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 08/25/2015SIGNATURE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                              CICChange in Control notice by Kenneth D. Brooks, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, individually and as a trustee of Signature Bancshares, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, to retain 25 percent or more of the shares of Signature Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain control of Signature Bank, Minnetonka, Minnesota.Newspaper: 09/14/2015Federal Register: 09/17/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 182 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 182

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2001

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the 
  Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study for potential 
 addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
River Study Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut 
        possesses important resource values, including wildlife, 
        ecological, and scenic values, and historic sites and a 
        cultural past important to America's heritage;
            (2) there is strong support among State and local 
        officials, area residents, and river users for a cooperative 
        wild and scenic river study of the area; and
            (3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local 
        officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a 
        concerted cooperative effort to manage the river in a 
        productive and meaningful way.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY.

    Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(138) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--The segment from its 
headwaters downstream to its confluence with the Connecticut River.''.

SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT.

    Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(18) The study of the Eightmile River, Connecticut, named in 
paragraph (138) of subsection (a) shall be completed by the Secretary 
of the Interior and the report thereon submitted to Congress not later 
than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph.''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.

                            By Martha C. Morrison,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-99-SM

Joel Gordon

O R D E R

Defendant Joel Gordon has filed a motion to continue the trial (document 

no.11). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2009 trial period. 

Defendant Gordon shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than October

27, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, the 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: February 6, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00099-SM Document 13 Filed 10/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 21, 2008 

cc: John Pendleton, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00099-SM Document 13 Filed 10/21/08 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Rolle, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 887]

Appeal by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 23, 2004 *(People v Rolle,*4 AD3d 542 [2004]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 29, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 *628US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Adams arid Luciano, JJ., concur.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

____________________________________

}

WACHOVIA SBA LENDING, INC., }

f/k/a/ The Money Store }

Investment Corporation }

 Plaintiff }

}

v. } Civil Action No. 

} 08-CV-406-JL

BURD ENGINEERING } 

ASSOCIATES, INC., }

}

MARTIN O. WILSON, }

}

ARLENE J. WILSON, }

 Defendants }

____________________________________}

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PERIODIC PAYMENTS

This cause coming to be heard on the Plaintiff, Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc.’s 

(“Wachovia) Motion For Periodic Payments (the “Motion”) and the Court having reviewed the 

Motion, the financial declarations of Martin Wilson and Arlene Wilson (collectively, the 

“Defendants”), and having heard the oral testimony of the Defendants, and by and with the 

agreement of the Plaintiff and the Defendants;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

1. The Defendants do have a present ability to make monthly payments on the 

judgment entered against them in this case on December 19, 2008 (the “Judgment”);

2. The Defendants shall pay Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) per month (the 

“Monthly Payments”) to Wachovia.

3. The Monthly Payments shall be made on the 15th day of each month commencing 

on March 15, 2010 and shall continue until such time that the Judgment is paid in full or this 

Case 1:08-cv-00406-JL Document 20 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Court orders otherwise.

4. The Monthly Payments shall be mailed to:

James S. LaMontagne, Esq.

Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green, P.A.

1000 Elm Street

PO Box 3701

Manchester, NH 03101-3701

5. There shall be a hearing on July ______, 2010 at ____________ a.m./p.m. to 

review the Defendants’ ability to make payments upon the Judgment.

Date: ____________________________________

Hon. Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Court

District of New Hampshire

Case 1:08-cv-00406-JL Document 20 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 09-cr-29-01-SM

Ronald Albert

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial for 30 days (document no.

11) is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2009 trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than June 15, 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.

Final Pretrial Conference: July 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM 

Case 1:09-cr-00029-SM Document 12 Filed 06/01/09 Page 1 of 2
2

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

SO ORDERED.

June 1, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00029-SM Document 12 Filed 06/01/09 Page 2 of 2
214 La. 713

#### STATE v. BYRD.

No. 39042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 10, 1949.

*396Frank A. Blanchard, of Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edwin L. Blewer, Dist. Atty. and John A. Richardson, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

O’NIELD, Chief Justice.

The defendant is appealing from a conviction and sentence of imprisonment for the crime of battery committed with a dangerous weapon.

He reserved four bills of exception during the trial, but we find no merit in any of them. Three of the bills were reserved to the overruling of objections made by the defendant’s attorney to the testimony of three witnesses for the state, who were officers of the law and who testified to admissions or confessions made by the defendant soon after the commission of the crime and while he was in prison awaiting trial. The objection was that the defendant was in the custody of the officers, in jail, “without counsel and was not warned or notified of his legal rights.”

The judge, in his per curiam, on each of the three bills of exception declares that each of the witnesses, before being allowed to relate what the defendant told him on the occasion in question, testified that the defendant’s statement was made freely and voluntarily, without any promise of reward or threat or coercion on the part of anyone. The law does not require that an arresting officer, or one having a prisoner in his custody, shall not receive a confession from the party under arrest, without first informing him that his statements may be used against him. State v. Smith, 156 La. 818, 101 So. 209; State v. Terrell, 175 La. 758, 144 So. 488; State v. Burks, 196 La. 374, 199 So. 220.

 The fourth bill of exception was reserved to the refusal of the judge, on the objection of the prosecuting attorney, to allow the defendant’s attorney to recall a state witness for re-cross-examination after he had been examined by the prosecuting áttorney and cross-examined by the attorney for the defendant. It is argued by the attorney for the defendant that he was prejudiced by being obliged to recall the witness and examine him as his own witness, instead of being allowed to call him for re-cross-examination. The judge states in his per curiam that the witness was not a hostile witness, but on the contrary gave what aid he could to the defendant’s case. Be that as it may, the matter of allowing a witness to be recalled to the witness stand for further cross-examination, after he has been examined and cross-examined, is a matter which is left largely to the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Turner, 25 La.Ann. 573; State v. Fernandez, 157 La. 149, 102 So. 186; State v. Woods, 161 La. 863, 109 So. 519; State v. Scruggs, 165 La. 842, 116 So. 206. There is no showing of abuse of that discretion in this instance.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          36,870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,254
<PP&E>                                           3,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,311)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,167
<SALES>                                          7,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,195
<CGS>                                            1,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                       121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2051 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2051

  To provide for the establishment of regional plant genome and gene 
              expression research and development centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2001

Mr. Smith of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                      to the Committee on Science

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the establishment of regional plant genome and gene 
              expression research and development centers.

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

SECTION 1. CENTERS.

    The National Science Foundation is authorized to make grants for 
the establishment of regional plant genome and gene expression research 
and development centers, the purpose of which shall be to--
            (1) develop capabilities in basic plant genome research;
            (2) extend basic plant genomics research through plant 
        breeding programs and accelerate its application to the 
        development and testing of new varieties of enhanced food crops 
        and crops that can be used as alternative energy sources;
            (3) develop alternative uses of agricultural crops; and
            (4) serve as centers for scientific and safety information 
        on plant genomics.

SEC. 2. GRANT AWARDS.

    Grant awards under this Act shall be made through an open, peer-
reviewed competition. When making awards, the National Science 
Foundation shall ensure that as many different agronomic environments 
as possible are represented.

SEC. 3. MATCHING FUNDS.

    The National Science Foundation shall not provide under this Act 
more than 50 percent of the cost of establishing any research and 
development center.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science 
Foundation $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and $4,500,000 for fiscal 
year 2003 to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-63-PB

Scott Ledoux

 SEALED ORDER

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for March 3, 2009, citing the cooperation of the

defendant and the need for additional time to complete discovery 

and engage in plea negotiations. 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 March 3, 2009 to May 5, 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-00063-PB Document 23 Filed 02/13/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 18, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 23, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 13, 2009

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Michael Zaino, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00063-PB Document 23 Filed 02/13/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Jill Winters, Plaintiff, v James Winters, Defendant. Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos & Poepplein, PLLC, Nonparty Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 302]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, nonparty Schlissel, Ostrow, Karabatos *&*Poepplein, PLLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), dated April 13, 2005, which denied its motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for the defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the nonparty appellant shall serve upon the defendant a copy of this decision and order, by certified mail, return receipted requested, and by ordinary mail with postal proof of mailing, and shall serve a copy of this decision and or*602der upon the attorney for the plaintiff; upon the filing of proof of such service with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, where the action is pending, the nonparty appellant shall be relieved as counsel for the defendant; and it is further,

Ordered that all proceedings in this action are stayed until 90 days after such service is completed, and the defendant, if he be so advised, may retain new counsel within the 90-day period.

An attorney may be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable legal fees *(see Kay v Kay,*245 AD2d 549 [1997]; *Galvano v Galvano,*193 AD2d 779 [1993]; *Stephen Eldridge Realty Corp. v Green,*174 AD2d 564 [1991]). The record establishes that the defendant was more than $15,000 in arrears in payment of his legal fees. Moreover, he did not oppose the nonparty appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw as his counsel. Under these circumstances, the motion for leave to withdraw should have been granted *(see Bok v Werner,*9 AD3d 318 [2004]; *Kay v Kay, supra; Ben-Yu Zhan v Sun Wing Wo Realty Corp.,*208 AD2d 668 [1994]; *Galvano v Galvano, supra; Stephen Eldridge Realty Corp. v Green, supra).*Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1744

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to

increase the amount paid to families of public safety officers killed

in the line of duty.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 7, 2001

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets

Act of 1968 to increase the amount paid to families

of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT INCREASE.

4 Section 1201(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and

5 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796) is amended

6 by striking ‘‘$100,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$250,000’’.

Æ