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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2112 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2112

  To authorize the use of certain Federal funding programs to remove 
 arsenic from drinking water when the Environmental Protection Agency 
   promulgates a new national primary drinking water regulation for 
                    arsenic, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2001

    Mr. Rogers of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
     the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the use of certain Federal funding programs to remove 
 arsenic from drinking water when the Environmental Protection Agency 
   promulgates a new national primary drinking water regulation for 
                    arsenic, 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 ``Safe Drinking Water and Arsenic 
Removal Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ARSENIC REMOVAL FROM DRINKING 
              WATER.

    (a) Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Funds.--Section 1452(a)(2) of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(2)) is amended by 
inserting the following after the second sentence: ``The funds may also 
be used to assist community water systems in removing arsenic from 
drinking water to the maximum level established in any national primary 
drinking water regulation for arsenic that is promulgated after the 
enactment of this sentence, notwithstanding any delay or phase-in of 
the date on which such systems are required to comply with such maximum 
contaminant level.''.
    (b) Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act.--Section 306(a) of 
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)) is 
amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
    ``(22) Loans and grants under this subsection may also be used to 
assist recipients that own or operate community water systems subject 
to the Safe Drinking Water Act in removing arsenic from drinking water 
to the maximum level established in any national primary drinking water 
regulation for arsenic that is promulgated under that Act after the 
enactment of this paragraph, notwithstanding any delay or phase-in of 
the date on which community water systems are required to comply with 
such maximum contaminant level.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Scott Parrilla, Appellant, v John Donelli, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 488]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J), entered April 4, 2005 in Franklin *1047County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.

While incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Franklin County, petitioner filed a grievance requesting, among other things, that Jewish inmates, such as himself, be provided a designated worship area separate from the inmates of other religions. The grievance was precipitated by the fact that Jewish services at the facility were conducted in a room used for Christian services which contained Christian icons and symbols. Although prison officials determined that various items of Christian religious significance would be covered to make the room appropriate for Jewish services, they declined to designate a separate area for this purpose. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding as a result. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

The Attorney General has advised this Court that since the commencement of this proceeding, petitioner has been transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County where he attends Jewish services in a general purpose room that contains no permanent religious icons. In view of this, he is no longer aggrieved by the determination at issue and his appeal is, therefore, moot *(see Matter of McCants v Le Claire,*14 AD3d 736 [2005]; *cf. Matter of Doe v Coughlin,*71 NY2d 48, 52 [1987], *cert denied*488 US 879 [1988]). Consequently, it must be dismissed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02214-MSK-CBS

CYNTHIA M. MATTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

Case 1:11-cv-02214-MSK-CBS Document 14 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED this 1st day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02214-MSK-CBS Document 14 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 24, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 24, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0334. LAVELLE MORRING v. ANGELINA MORRING. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 22CV01505
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ellen Klimek

Plaintiff 

 v. Case No. 1:07-cv-00412-JL 

Nader’s Auto World, LLC

Defendant 

Order

 Upon consideration of plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, affidavit of damages and 

memo of law, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1,000. 

 ________________________________ 

 Hon. James R. Muirhead 

 /s/ James R. Muirhead

Case 1:07-cv-00412-JL Document 8 Filed 06/18/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-145-PB

Robin Theriault

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 5, 2007 trial in the above case, citing newly appointed

counsel’s need for additional time to complete discovery and 

prepare for trial. 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 September 5, 2007 to November 6, 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 1:07-cr-00145-PB Document 12 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The August 30, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to October 25, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 28, 2007

cc: Mark Howard, Esq.

Don Feith, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00145-PB Document 12 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-56-01/04-SM

Raymond Cole and Garret Morin

O R D E R

Defendant Garret Morin has filed a motion to continue the final pretrial

conference and trial (document no. 50). Trial has been rescheduled for the

April 2009 trial period. Defendant Morin shall file a waiver of speedy trial

rights not later than January 23, 2009. 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: April 10, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

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

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 51 Filed 01/08/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 8, 2009

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Charles Keefe, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq. 

Paul Twomey, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 51 Filed 01/08/09 Page 2 of 2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E R IC M U K A S A , a. k. a. E l i j ah M uk as a, a. k. a. M oses M uk as a, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50424 D. C . No . 8 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 1 7 8 - S VW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E r ic M u k a s aap p e a ls f

r o m th e 4 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is gu i l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for e ncou ra gi ng al i ens t o ent eror re si de i n the U ni t ed S t at es 

# FI LED JAN 05 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50424 2 i l l e ga l l y , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1324( a ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i v) a nd ( B ) ( I ) . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. M uka s ac ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d pr oc e dur a l e rr orby se nt enci ng hi m t o an abo ve-G ui del i nes s ent ence un der the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s w i thoutpr i ornot i c e , byf a i l i ng t o unde rt a ke a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d ana l y s i s , and byf a i l i ng t o e xpl a i n w hyi tr e j e c t e d hi s r e que s tf

oradow nw ar d var i anc e ba s e d on p o s t- o f f e n s e r e h ab ilita tio n . T h e r e c o r db e lie s th e s e c o n te n tio n s . See U ni ted States v . O r lando , 553 F . 3d 1235, 1238 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “ G ar de n var i e tyc ons i de r a t i ons of cul pabi l i ty, cr i m i nal hi st ory, l i kel i ho od of re -off ense , se ri ou snes s of the cr i m e, s houl d notge ne r a l l yc om e a s as urpr i s e t o tr i a l l aw y e r s w ho ha ve pr e par e d f or se nt enci ng . ”) (quo t at i on m arks, ci t at i on and al t er at i on s om i tt ed); U ni ted States v. P er ez -P er ez , 51 2 F . 3d 51 4, 51 6 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( fi nd i ng no error w here i tw as cl ear fr o m th e tra n sc rip t th at th e s en ten cin g ju d g e h ad co n sid er ed th e d ef en d an t’ s m itig a tio n a r g u m e n ts , e v e n th o u g h h e d idn o t e x p lic itlyr e f e r e n c e th e m in i m po si ng se nt ence ). AF F I RME D.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-27-01-JL

Douglas M. Johnson

ORDER FOR DETERMINATION OF MENTAL

COMPETENCY OF DEFENDANT

The United States Attorney has moved for a determination of

mental competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Based upon

defense counsel’s representations as to defendant’s interactions

with him, the observations and concerns of the Probation Officer

and defense counsel, I find reasonable cause to believe that the

defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or

defect that could affect his competency to understand the nature

and consequences of the sentencing proceedings or to assist his

counsel during the sentencing proceedings.

This order shall not be construed to make any finding

undermining the validity (knowledge, voluntariness, competency)

of the defendant’s guilty plea.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b) and 4247(b), the defendant

is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period

Case 1:09-cr-00027-JL Document 27 Filed 11/30/09 Page 1 of 2
2

not to exceed thirty days for placement in a suitable facility

where an examination of the defendant’s mental condition can be

conducted. The director of the facility may apply for a

reasonable extension as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b)

The examining officials shall prepare a report of their

findings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b), which report shall be

filed with this court.

The Court requests prior notification of the date of the

defendant’s return to this jurisdiction after the examination so

that a prompt competency hearing and detention hearing may be

held. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: November 30, 2009

cc: Debra M. Walsh, AUSA

John T. Pendleton, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00027-JL Document 27 Filed 11/30/09 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
        32.01**
  
 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 Westside Energy Corporation (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"),
        the
        undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
        certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.
 
 Dated:
                  May 21, 2007
              /s/
                  Douglas G. MannerDouglas
                  G. Manner,Chief
                  Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Melissa A. Witham, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 788]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 16, 2004, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits on February 16, 2004 after she lost her job as a senior project specialist due to a lack of work. She indicated on the business principal questionnaire filled out in connection with her claim that she was the president and a 100% shareholder of a corporation operating a graphic design business. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that, due to claimant’s involvement in the graphic design company, she was ineligible to receive benefits because she was not totally unemployed, prompting this appeal.

A claimant who is the principal of a corporation is not considered totally unemployed where he or she stands to benefit financially from the corporation’s continued existence even if his or her activities on its behalf are minimal *(see Matter of McHugh [Commissioner of Labor],*305 AD2d 923, 924 [2003]; *Matter of Franke [Commissioner of Labor],*305 AD2d 919, 920 [2003]). Here, claimant’s primary official duty was to write checks from the corporate bank account to which she was the sole authorized signatory. During the transitionary period when *838ownership was to be transferred to another individual, claimant signed approximately 50 blank checks for the purpose of paying corporate expenses. Notably, the corporate bank account remained open even after she filed her claim. In addition, claimant loaned the corporation approximately $17,000 during her tenure as president and, in such capacity, also shouldered personal liability to the state for unpaid withholding taxes, which remained outstanding at the time she filed her claim. Notwithstanding claimant’s testimony that she never owned stock in the company, given her responses to the questionnaire, check writing activities and potential financial windfall from the corporation’s potentially profitable operations, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that she was “still inextricably intertwined with the corporation’s affairs” and not totally unemployed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Feters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
23

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

1995...... 51 -2 14 13 25 .131 -.004 .039 .032 .061

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...... n.a. 9 7 23 n.a. n.a. .018 .015 .045 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.
#### Lawrence Daitch, Respondent, v Alf Naman et al., Appellants.

[807 NYS2d 95]

*459Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered July 8, 2005, which, in an action by a tenant for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant contractor’s negligent performance of exterior facade work, denied motions by defendants building owner and managing agent (the owner) and contractor for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The conflicting opinions of the parties’ experts raise issues of fact as to the existence of dangerous mold in plaintiffs apartment, whether such mold was caused by water and particulate matter that entered plaintiff’s apartment because of the contractor’s failure to exercise due care, and whether such mold caused plaintiffs alleged injuries. An issue of fact also exists as to whether the owner had notice of the alleged mold hazard. While there appears to be no dispute that plaintiff and other tenants repeatedly complained to the owner about the entry of water and dust into their apartments virtually from the onset of the facade work, it is not clear when plaintiff first complained about mold. Assuming in the owner’s favor that plaintiff did not complain about mold until after the onset of his respiratory problems, too late for the owner to take remedial action, a triable issue would remain as to whether the mold was a foreseeable consequence of the water and particulate matter that entered plaintiffs apartment during the facade work, giving the owner timely constructive notice of a potential mold hazard *(but cf. Beck v J.J.A. Holding Corp.,*12 AD3d 238 [2004], *lv denied 4*NY3d 705 [2005] [landlord’s notice of discoloration of walls, and knowledge of previous water damage from a flood, does not constitute notice of likelihood of mold growth]). Because the owner was under a nondelegable duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition (Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 [1]; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-127, 27-128; *see Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team,*88 NY2d 628, 643 [1996]), it does not avail the owner to argue that a principal generally is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor *(see Rosenberg*
      *460
      *v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*79 NY2d 663, 668 [1992]; *Jacobson v 142 E. 16 Coop. Owners,*295 AD2d 211 [2002]; *Toote v Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y.,*7 AD3d 251 [2004]). Given issues of fact as to whether the contractor’s failure to exercise due care in the performance of its contract with the owner created an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff, it does not avail the contractor to argue that the contract imposed no duty of care to plaintiff *(see Church v Callanan Indus.,*99 NY2d 104, 111 [2002]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1385

For the relief of Gao Zhan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Gao Zhan.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds as follows:

5 (1) Gao Zhan, a noted sociologist and adjunct

6 professor at American University, is an immigrant

7 lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the

8 United States.

9 (2) She is an accomplished academician who

10 has studied women’s issues and China-Taiwan rela11 tions.
2

•HR 1385 IH

1 (3) On February 11, 2001, Gao Zhan, her hus2 band, Xue Donghua, and her son, Andrew Xue, were

3 detained by Chinese authorities at the airport in

4 Beijing.

5 (4) Xue Donghua was later released, and since

6 then the couple has been apart.

7 (5) Andrew Xue, who is a United States citizen,

8 was taken away from his parents and put in a Bei9 jing kindergarten for 25 days, which adversely af10 fected him.

11 (6) Xue Donghua has taken an oath of citizen12 ship to become a United States citizen.

13 (7) Gao Zhan is a highly respected member of

14 her community in the United States, has lived in

15 this country since 1989, and would make a wonder16 ful citizen of the United States.

17 SEC. 2. NATURALIZATION OF GAO ZHAN.

18 Notwithstanding section 337(a) or any other provi19 sion of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act

20 (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), Gao Zhan shall be considered to

21 be a naturalized citizen of the United States as of the date

22 of the enactment of this Act and shall be furnished by

23 the Attorney General with a certificate of naturalization.

Æ