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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1883 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 321
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1883

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2002

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  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.

    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 ``Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and Powder 
River Basin Water Optimization Feasibility Study Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

    The Secretary of the Interior may conduct a feasibility study on 
water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin, 
Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

            Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.

                                                       Calendar No. 321

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1883

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  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.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 7, 2002

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 201

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

reduce funding if States do not enact legislation that requires the death

penalty in certain cases.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SWEENEY 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 reduce funding if States do not enact

legislation that requires the death penalty in certain

cases.

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 ‘‘Correctional Officer

5 Protection Act’’.
2

•HR 201 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRANT REDUCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

2 Section 506 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control

3 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at

4 the end the following:

5 ‘‘(g)(1) In order not to reduce the funds available

6 under this subpart by 25 percent (for redistribution to

7 other participating States), a State shall, on the first day

8 of each fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year begin9 ning 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Correc10 tional Officer Protection Act, have in effect throughout the

11 State a law which requires whoever, being incarcerated

12 pursuant to a conviction for crime, kills an individual who

13 is a State or local correctional officer—

14 ‘‘(A) while such individual is engaged in car15 rying out official duties as such officer;

16 ‘‘(B) because of the nature of the official duties

17 of such officer; or

18 ‘‘(C) because of such individual’s being such an

19 officer;

20 shall be subject to the penalty of death, if the killing is

21 a first degree murder, and subject to the penalties pro22 vided in sections 1111 and 1112 of title 18, United States

23 Code, in any other case.

24 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection—

25 ‘‘(A) the term ‘State or local correctional offi26 cer’ means any person who is a State or local officer
3

•HR 201 IH

1 or employee, as such term is defined in section 1501

2 of title 5, United States Code, and who in the course

3 of official duty performs corrections-related or law

4 enforcement functions; and

5 ‘‘(B) the term ‘State or local government’ in6 cludes the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of

7 Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of

8 the United States.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-189-1-GZS

Daniel Riley

O R D E R

Defendant has again filed an “Ex Parte Motion To Authorize

Subpoenas for Witnesses Out of and In State.” Once again, the

court can not grant the motion. It is denied without prejudice

to filing a new motion which complies with Fed. R. Crim. P.

17(b).

“Compulsory process under Rule 17(b) is not an absolute

right, but like many other trial decisions, is a matter committed

to the sound discretion of the trial court.” United States v.

LeAmous, 754 F.2d. 795, 797 (8th Cir. 1985). “The burden of

demonstrating the need for Rule 17(b) witnesses is on the party

seeking their production. Id. at 798.

With respect to each witness defendant requests to have

subpoenaed, defendant, in an ex parte motion must separately

identify:

1. The desired witness;

2. His/her last known address;

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 291 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

3. A brief statement of the expected testimony of that

witness which defendant claims is necessary to an adequate

defense.

The court will not permit witnesses to be subpoenaed whose

testimony is not material or which is repetitive. 

The motion (Document no. 289) is denied without prejudice to

refile in accordance with this order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 4, 2008

cc: Daniel Riley, pro se

 Sven D. Wiberg, Esq.

 Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esq.

 Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

 Robert M. Kinsella, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 291 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Keystone Financial, Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2000 included in the
1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of Keystone Financial, Inc.

Regarding:

      1)    Registration  Statement  on Form  S-8  relating  to the  1988  Stock
            Incentive Plan (File #33-38427).

      2)    Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-3  relating  to  the  Dividend
            Reinvestment Plan (File #333-75583).

      3)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1992 Director Fee
            Plan (File #33-48031).

      4)    Registration Statement on Form S-3 relating to the Main Line
            Bancshares, Inc. Stock Option Agreements (File #33-50526).

      5)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1990 Non-Employee
            Directors' Stock Option Plan (File #33-59372).

      6)    Registration  Statement  on Form  S-8  relating  to the  1992  Stock
            Incentive Plan (File #33-68800).

      7)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Elmwood  Bancorp,
            Inc. Key Employee Stock Compensation Program (File #33-77358.

      8)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Amended and
            Restated Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement with Donald E. Stone
            (File #33-77354).

      9)    Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1997 Stock
            Incentive Plan (File #333-75593).

      10)   Registration  Statement  on Form S-8  relating to the 1995  Employee
            Stock Purchase Plan (File #33-91572).

      11)   Registration  Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1995  Management
            Stock Purchase Plan (File #33-91574).

      12)   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the 1995 Non-Employee
            Directors' Stock Option Plan (File # 333-04281).

      13)   Registration   Statement   on  Form  S-3  relating  to  the  Senior/
            Subordinated Medium-Term Notes (File #333-25393).

      14)   Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Financial Trust
            Corp Stock Option Plan of 1992 (File #333-49325).

      15)   Registration  Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Financial  Trust
            Corp   Non-Employee   Director  Stock  Option  Plan  of  1994  (File
            #333-49323).

<PAGE>

We  also  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  above  listed
Registration  Statements of our report dated  January 28, 2000,  with respect to
the  consolidated   financial   statements  of  Keystone  Financial,   Inc.  and
subsidiaries incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                  -------------------------



         Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
         March 27, 2000
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2001: Q3... 23 59 18 24 67 9 22 72 6 27 66 7 13 60 

 Q4... 19 53 28 24 68 8 16 77 6 28 67 5 12 47 

2002: Q1... 19 54 27 25 68 7 20 72 8 27 67 6 11 49 

 Q2... 18 63 19 32 64 3 20 73 7 28 65 6 12 60 

 Q3... 23 54 23 32 64 3 26 67 7 25 69 6 16 49 

 Q4... 19 58 23 21 70 9 20 74 6 23 73 4 14 50 

2003: Q1... 23 53 24 19 73 8 24 71 5 26 72 2 14 46 

 Q2... 18 65 18 17 78 6 19 75 6 23 71 5 9 63 

 Q3... 17 61 22 22 65 13 17 78 5 21 71 8 11 60 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2001: Q3... 22 60 18 19 63 19 18 77 5 15 80 5 18 63 

 Q4... 24 63 13 18 67 16 16 78 6 11 81 8 19 64 

2002: Q1... 29 55 16 25 65 10 18 75 7 18 77 5 25 59 

 Q2... 29 60 11 37 58 5 20 74 6 20 74 6 23 58 

 Q3... 24 63 13 30 60 10 20 73 7 16 76 9 21 58 

 Q4... 22 66 12 26 58 15 19 75 6 18 76 6 20 64 

2003: Q1... 20 67 13 22 69 10 14 84 3 11 85 4 16 67 

 Q2... 16 66 18 17 70 13 16 79 6 19 75 6 15 69 

 Q3... 17 71 12 16 65 19 14 80 6 12 85 3 11 76 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2001: Q3... 40 55 5 28 72 0 27 73 0 6 76 18 8 88  Q4... 25 67 8 30 70 0 18 76 6 29 57 14 19 74 

2002: Q1... 19 70 11 16 76 8 20 72 8 18 79 4 21 69 

 Q2... 31 62 8 27 73 0 23 77 0 29 67 4 33 63 

 Q3... 30 57 13 22 78 0 22 78 0 21 63 16 33 59 

 Q4... 27 53 20 15 69 15 21 71 7 40 53 7 30 50 

2003: Q1... 29 53 18 13 75 13 19 75 6 17 67 17 23 55 

 Q2... 25 60 15 24 71 6 31 63 6 6 78 17 19 71 

 Q3... 14 71 14 7 80 13 33 60 7 11 74 16 10 81 

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
| (1) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 14, 2010 | /s/      Paul Van Ostenbridge              |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                     | Paul      Van Ostenbridge                  |
|                     | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |                                       |
|                     |                                       |
| Dated:      May 14, 2010 | /s/      Claire M. Chadwick                |
|                     | Claire      M. Chadwick                    |
|                     | Senior      Vice President and             |
|                     | Chief      Financial Officer               |
Case 1:07-cv-00199-SM Document 1 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-00199-SM Document 1 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), the undersigned, Michael W. Levin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ Michael W. Levin |
|----------------------|

Michael W. Levin

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 14, 2007

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 11.1

EFJ, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
(Unaudited and in thousands, except share and per share data)

|                                                |                                                               | Three Months Ended March 31,
|----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------
|
|Net income (loss)                               |                                                               | $                           
|                                                |                                                               |                             
|Net income (loss) per shareBasic:              |                                                               |                             
|Weighted average common sharesBasic            |                                                               |                             
|                                                |                                                               |                             
|Net income (loss) per shareBasic               |                                                               | $                           
|                                                |                                                               |                             
|Net income (loss) per shareDiluted:            |                                                               |                             
|Shares used in this computation:                |                                                               |                             
|                                                | Weighted average common sharesBasic                          |                             
|                                                | Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plansSee Note |                             
|                                                |                                                               |                             
|Weighted average common sharesDilutedSee Note |                                                               |                             
|                                                |                                                               |                             
|Net income (loss) per shareDiluted             |                                                               | $                           
|                                                |                                                               |                             

---

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-10-01-PB

Padevoth Vann

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the March 7, 2006 trial

in the above case, 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, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from March 7, 2006 to May 2, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

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

Case 1:06-cr-00010-PB Document 10 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 16, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until April 20, 2006 at 3:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 10, 2006

cc: Jorel Booker, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00010-PB Document 10 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Municipal Corporation Created and Existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. MIDCENTURY CORP., a Florida Corporation et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 29, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1954.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2007 Q3 survey,

region share of national

total 2.8 8.9 26.0 22.3 7.5 5.2 5.1 8.5 5.5 8.2

Sample coverage, 2007 Q3

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 6.0 3.6 17.5 32.5 21.2 11.1 9.2 6.0 8.3 30.0

Avg. loan size, 2007 Q3 survey

(thousands of dollars) 61.4 29.1 53.5 76.9 53.7 80.5 30.9 35.3 27.2 90.3

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2002: Q3 6.4 7.5 5.8 6.5 4.6 6.0 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.3

Q4 5.7 6.9 5.1 5.5 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.6 6.4 4.5

2003: Q1 5.3 7.0 5.6 5.7 4.4 5.6 6.7 7.4 6.1 4.5

Q2 6.0 6.7 5.3 6.5 4.6 6.1 7.3 5.7 6.4 5.2

Q3 6.0 6.9 4.7 5.6 4.5 4.8 6.7 5.5 5.6 4.3

Q4 6.5 6.5 4.0 5.1 4.6 5.2 6.7 7.5 5.4 4.2

2004: Q1 5.8 7.0 5.2 5.7 4.3 5.9 6.4 6.3 5.7 3.8

Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

(0.80) (0.19) (0.35) (0.45) (0.23) (0.58) (0.49) (0.10) (0.07) (0.16)

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

(0.29) (0.15) (0.21) (0.37) (0.13) (0.37) (0.29) (0.12) (0.26) (0.25)

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

(0.47) (0.18) (0.40) (0.54) (0.15) (0.53) (0.13) (0.26) (0.26) (0.17)

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

(0.58) (0.16) (0.12) (0.38) (0.30) (0.28) (0.29) (0.17) (0.21) (0.21)

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

(0.26) (0.24) (0.53) (0.38) (0.32) (0.63) (0.17) (0.18) (0.31) (0.14)

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

(0.38) (0.27) (0.17) (0.41) (0.28) (0.41) (0.16) (0.28) (0.18) (0.07)

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

(0.16) (0.19) (0.41) (0.41) (0.31) (0.50) (0.11) (0.13) (0.12) (0.32)

Q3 10.4 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 8.6

(0.01) (0.42) (0.15) (0.35) (0.33) (0.44) (0.26) (0.17) (0.07) (0.30)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 1, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. STEVEN FISHMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 15-5035 (D.C. Nos. 4:12-CV-00607-CVE-TLW and 4:07-CR-00195-CVE-4) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before GORSUCH , McKAY, and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.
A federal jury convicted Steven Fishman of two conspiracy charges based on his role in a long-running scheme to unload worthless bonds on unwitting investors. After this court affirmed the conviction and sentence, see United States v. Fishman , 645 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2011), Mr. Fishman filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking relief on a number of grounds. The district court rejected each of Mr. Fishman’s arguments in a detailed 48-page order and then proceeded to reject his request for a certificate of appealability in a separate order. It’s this request Mr. Fishman now asks us to revisit. But we may grant a

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.COA only if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). And so much we cannot say in this case. All the arguments Mr. Fishman seeks to present to this court are premised on the notion that the government lacked Article III standing to pursue the case against him. But, as the district court noted when denying Mr. Fishman’s initial COA request, even viewing his lengthy § 2255 petition with liberality this argument was not among the many fairly presented there. And a district court cannot be debatably wrong on issues that are not fairly presented to or decided by it. See, e.g. , Sanders v. Miller , 555 F. App’x 750, 751 (10th Cir. 2014) (declining to indulge a COA request premised on an argument “never raised . . . before the district court”); see also United States v. Scruggs , 691 F.3d 660, 667 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding “no reason why a § 2255 movant hoping to raise a jurisdictional challenge to his conviction on collateral review should be excused from including the claim in his § 2255 motion”). Mr. Fishman’s request for a COA and his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. This appeal is dismissed. Mr. Fishman is reminded of his obligation to pay the filing fee in full. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

- 2 -