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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2188 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2188

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to permit States to allow the 
issuance of vouchers to older individuals to obtain nutrition services 
                        provided under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2001

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to permit States to allow the 
issuance of vouchers to older individuals to obtain nutrition services 
                        provided under such Act.

    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 ``Senior Nutrition Assistance Program 
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 307(a)(1) of the Older Americans Act of 1995 (42 U.S.C. 
3027(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'' at the end,
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
                    ``(B) at the option of the State, permit all area 
                agencies on aging to provide nutrition services under 
                area plans by issuing vouchers to older individuals to 
                obtain such services; and''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall apply only with respect to fiscal years beginning after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2

supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle her to relief. 

### Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).

First, West argues that the district court erred in denying her claim that counsel was ineffective for conceding her guilt to the count alleging unauthorized signing of a credit card transaction document. We disagree. At trial, witnesses testified that they saw West sign the credit card transaction document. Further, the State introduced the transaction document signed by West and surveillance video showing her signing the document. In addition, the owner of the credit account testified that she had not given West permission to sign the document. Considering this evidence, West has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel not conceded her guilt during opening argument as there was overwhelming evidence of her guilt. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Second, West argues that the district court erred in denying her claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the imposition of the large habitual sentence on West as her offense was nonviolent. We disagree. Because the habitual criminal statute makes no special allowance for nonviolent crimes or remoteness of the prior convictions as these are merely considerations within the discretion of the district court, 

### Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805 (1992), appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable counsel would have argued that the district court erred for those reasons. The district court stated that sentencing West as a habitual criminal was appropriate due to

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947AJ.

West's extensive criminal activity. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Third, West asserts that the district court erred in summarily denying the claims raised in her proper person petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that this argument lacks merit. Other than asserting that the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on these claims, West does not present any argument on appeal demonstrating that the district court erred in this regard. See 

### Maresca v. State,103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument.").

Having considered West's contentions and concluded that they lack merit, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

Parraguirre J.

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Matthew D. Carling Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3
Item 6 (a), Exhibit 11

Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC

Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Unit

For the Periods



|                                             |  |                                      |           |   |                                      |   |           |  
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ | --------- | - | ------------------------------------ | - | --------- | -
|                                             |  | January 1, 2008throughMarch 31, 2008 |           |   | January 1, 2007throughMarch 31, 2007 |  
|                                             |  | (unaudited)                          |           |   | (unaudited)                          |  
|Net income (Loss)                            |  | $                                    | (8,715    | ) |                                      | $ | (16,282   | )
|                                             |  |                                      |           |   |                                      |   |           |  
|Weighted Average Number of Units Outstanding |  |                                      | 4,222,870 |   |                                      |   | 4,222,870 |  
|                                             |  |                                      |           |   |                                      |   |           |  
|Earnings (Loss) per Unit                     |  | $                                    | (0.01     | ) |                                      | $ | (0.00     | )
|                                             |  |                                      |           |   |                                      |   |           |  



19
#### Walter J. MIGOSKI, Appellant, v. Kathryne BROOME, a Free Dealer, and Annabelle Carothers, a Widow, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Dec. 17, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending April 15, 2006FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodTRADITION BANK                                                                                                          * BranchTradition Bank, Houston, Texas, to establish a branch to be located at 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77006.Newspaper: 04/24/2006Federal Register: Not applicable
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2007...... 64.8 5.6 5.6 32.5 5.5 15.6 2.7 5.7 14.8 41.6 2008...... 77.6 5.6 7.4 40.2 3.8 20.7 2.5 5.7 15.1 54.4 2009...... 70.9 6.1 5.0 40.9 4.3 14.7 2.5 5.4 14.8 48.2 2006: Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Q4... 74.4 9.3 8.3 31.2 5.5 20.1 2.7 5.7 16.3 49.7 2008: Q1... 83.7 6.6 5.9 47.7 3.2 20.3 2.3 5.6 14.0 61.9  Q2... 76.7 4.5 6.3 39.4 5.8 20.7 2.9 5.6 16.5 51.6  Q3... 69.1 3.3 7.6 35.3 3.9 19.0 2.4 5.3 12.8 48.5  Q4... 81.1 8.0 9.7 38.5 2.3 22.6 2.6 6.1 17.0 55.4 2009: Q1... 96.4 5.9 5.5 63.8 4.8 16.5 2.3 5.3 15.9 72.9  Q2... 61.9 3.8 4.2 37.9 2.9 13.2 2.7 5.6 14.9 38.7  Q3... 55.9 4.4 5.5 29.6 3.1 13.3 2.7 5.3 13.5 34.4  Q4... 69.4 10.2 4.7 32.3 6.3 15.8 2.2 5.6 14.6 47.0  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

s0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148711

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148711

COA: 319887

Oakland CC: 2005-201296-FH

CARLETUS LESHAWN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1883

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study

on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin,

Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mr. WALDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a

feasibility study on water optimization in the Burnt River

basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and

Powder River basin, Oregon.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Burnt, Malheur,

5 Owyhee, and Powder River Basin Water Optimization

6 Feasibility Study Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1883 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDY.

2 The Secretary of the Interior may conduct a feasi3 bility study on water optimization in the Burnt River

4 basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Pow5 der River basin, Oregon.

6 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

8 as are necessary to carry out this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND THE NOTES
THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FILED IN THE 1996 JEFFERIES GROUP, INC. 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         114,142
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,881
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          919,616
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            197,770
<PP&E>                                          30,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,568,087
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                     188,775
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            787,322
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             124,315
<LONG-TERM>                                     52,987
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,568,087
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              143,912
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            47,803
<COMMISSIONS>                                  222,048
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   97,870
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,852
<COMPENSATION>                                 264,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,187
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      83,187
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-96-PB

Anthony Sawyer

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for October 7, 2008, citing 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 reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from October 7, 2008 to January 6, 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-00096-PB Document 10 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 30, 2008 final pretrial conference is

continued to December 18, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 30, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 10 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2
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

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... 129 28 17 46 38 .284 .062 .039 .099 .081

2005...... 59 8 16 12 24 .124 .017 .035 .026 .048

2006...... 73 9 7 23 34 .146 .018 .015 .045 .064

2007...... 90 8 13 23 47 .170 .014 .025 .042 .085

2008...... 150 12 20 42 75 .269 .022 .037 .074 .129

2009...... n.a. 65 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. .111 n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude

foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks that

are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
#### The State, ex rel. Freshwater et al., *v.*County Board of Education of Union County et al.

(No. 24546

— Decided March 28, 1934.)

*Mr. F. M. Marriott,*for relators.

*Mr. Clifton L. Caryl,*for respondents.

*124This cause came on to be heard upon the petition, answer and reply, and it appearing that no evidence has been offered sustaining the allegation contained in the answer, that Jerome Township Special School District is a centralized rural school district, a writ of mandamus will be allowed as prayed for under the authority of *State, ex rel. Snapp,*v. *Goul,*97 Ohio St., 259, and *State, ex rel. Brenner,*v. *County Board of Education of Franklin County, 97*Ohio St., 336.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-238-01-JD

Timothy Demontier

O R D E R

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

18) 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 A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: May 16, 2008

cc: Jessica C. Brown 

Mark A. Irish 

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00238-JD Document 19 Filed 05/16/08 Page 1 of 1
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, February 4-8, 2008Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,873,586 205,293 310,675 604,975 436,647 61,748 23,4Number of loans 26,119 2,846 4,177 9,895 4,206 722 52Weighted average maturity (months)1 23.10 19.11 24.08 23.02 24.55 8.94 15.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 8.98 11.19 15.68 6.91 7.86 3.38 12.9

Weighted average risk rating3 2.90 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 6.56 6.92 6.64 6.39 6.19 6.59 8.0 Standard error5 .08 .21 .21 .17 .20 .26 .4

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 7.38 7.38 7.20 7.25 6.70 7.64 8.5 25th percentile 5.64 6.06 6.00 5.61 5.34 5.73 7.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.69 7.08 6.44 6.78 6.86 6.35 6.7 Other livestock 6.67 7.11 7.03 6.86 5.40 5.14 8.4 Other current operating expenses7 6.80 6.90 6.81 6.76 6.24 6.81 8.4

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.05 7.12 8.18 6.64 7.42 5.81 7.0 Farm real estate 6.58 6.98 5.55 7.17 6.91 n.a. 7.2 Other8 5.87 6.78 6.21 5.46 6.08 6.35 6.4

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 66.25 28.18 49.73 75.53 83.36 72.73 22.2 Under commitment 67.97 51.91 74.66 79.25 74.68 68.96 38. Callable 22.74 26.03 56.46 12.69 5.46 23.68 9. Subject to prepayment penalty 1.79 1.82 .35 3.31 1.72 .74 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.83 4.67 13.52 6.62 1.56 .04 2.5 Other livestock 6.27 3.89 9.50 3.64 6.90 6.51 22.4 Other current operating expenses7 53.17 79.78 58.91 49.16 40.35 70.70 53.9 Farm machinery and equipment 3.48 4.73 1.67 4.41 2.17 .24 3.5 Farm real estate 6.48 1.91 9.80 5.58 5.76 n.a. 3.7 Other8 23.77 5.02 6.60 30.59 43.26 22.51 13.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 14.38 14.78 12.93 15.00 12.25 8.32 9. Other 80.92 79.68 82.75 79.84 85.41 90.63 89.9 For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7124

JOSEPH P. STICH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-837-R)

Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: December 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. DiJoseph, KAVRUKOV, MEHROTRA & DIJOSEPH, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Kathleen B. Martin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Stich v. Angelone, No. CA-96-837-R (W.D. Va., filed

June 30, 1998; entered July 1, 1998). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58,

79(a). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 11.1

          Computation of Historical Net Income (loss) Per Common Share
                                  (Unaudited)


                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                       JULY 31,
                                                1996(1)          1997(1)
                                             ------------     ----------

Net loss                                      $   (314,757)   $(3,653,027)
                                              ============    ===========

Weighted average number of shares
outstanding                                      4,000,000      7,319,875
Add:
    Shares issuable upon conversion of
      Series A Redeemable Convertible
      Preferred Stock                              992,061
    Shares issuable from the assumed
      exercise of options as determined by
      the application of the treasury stock
      method                                       611,144              0
                                              ------------    -----------
                                                 5,603,205      7,319,875
                                              ============    ===========
Net loss per common share                     $      (0.06)   $     (0.50)
                                              ============    ===========


(1) As Restated.  See Note 5 of the Notes to the condensed consolidated
    financial statements.

The above computations include all common equivalent shares issued within the 12
months preceding the filing date as if they were outstanding for all periods
presented (using the treasury stock method) and the as if converted method with
regards to the Series A redeemable convertible preferred stock.