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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1866 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 427
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1866

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 6, 2001

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             June 20, 2002

                Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify the basis for 
            granting requests for reexamination of patents.

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

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY 
              IN REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS.

    Sections 303(a) and 312(a) of title 35, United States Code, are 
each amended by adding at the end the following: ``The existence of a 
substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact 
that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the 
Office or considered by the Office.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to any 
determination of the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office that is made under section 303(a) or 312(a) of title 35, United 
States Code, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 5, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.

                                                       Calendar No. 427

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1866

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify the basis for 
            granting requests for reexamination of patents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 20, 2002

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-74-01-PB

Vickie A. Worthington

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case as Attorney Michael Sheehan has filed

an appearance on behalf of the defendant.

SO ORDERED.

August 20, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:08-cr-00074-SM Document 8 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02189-PAB-MEH

DWAYNE A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO,

DAVE WELCHER,

ERWIN MOZER, M.D., and

NURSE JANE DOE, Individually,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Defendants [Docket

No. 38] filed by plaintiff Dwayne A. Jones. Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss all

claims against defendants the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County,

Colorado and Dave Welcher. The Court has reviewed the pleading and is fully advised

in the premises. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss Defendants [Docket No. 38] is GRANTED. It

is further 

ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), all of plaintiff’s claims against

defendants the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County, Colorado and

Dave Welcher are dismissed, with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

Case 1:11-cv-02189-PAB-MEH Document 41 Filed 02/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DATED February 10, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02189-PAB-MEH Document 41 Filed 02/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
| 1.     | Such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, 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 such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Moneylogix Group, Inc. |

| Date: May 16, 2011                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |
| MONEYLOGIX GROUP, INC.                               |
|                                                 |
| By: /s/ Moshiri Mahmood                              |
| Moshiri MahmoodPresident and Chief Executive Officer |

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22644]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Monday, September 
29, 2008 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), 
(7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, 
September 29, 2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22644 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ATTACHED
QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-Q FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH  31,  1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                               U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1                                      
<CASH>                                              5
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                      384
<INVENTORY>                                    30,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               60,796
<PP&E>                                         18,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                144,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          40,612
<BONDS>                                        44,610
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          143
<OTHER-SE>                                     57,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  144,332
<SALES>                                        63,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               63,452
<CGS>                                          46,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  53,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 8,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                    3,266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (782)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.35
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

City of Rochester

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00263-JL

Rennelda Trust, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

October 17, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

Case 1:08-cv-00263-JL Document 18 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: October 8, 2008

cc: Catherine M. Costanza, Esq.

Danford J. Wensley, Esq.

George Blaisdell, pro se

Clay Phalen, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00263-JL Document 18 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John Collins

v. Civil No. 09-cv-78-JD

University of New Hampshire, et al.

O R D E R

The Clerk shall reassign this case to another judge as I

have, on this date, retained a member of the firm of Orr & Reno

to represent me in a personal matter.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: May 6, 2009

cc: Paul McEachern, Esquire

Martha Van Oot, Esquire

Case 1:09-cv-00078-LM Document 7 Filed 05/06/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROBERT P. DESROCHES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil No. 05-88-B

)

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster )

General, United States Postal )

Service, )

)

Defendant/Counterclaimant, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT P. DESROCHES, )

)

Counterclaim Defendant, )

)

and )

)

CITIZENS BANK, )

)

Garnishee. )

__________________________________ )

ORDER TO RELEASE FUNDS AND TO 

QUASH WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT

On October 8, 2009, a Writ of Continuing Garnishment and 

Clerk's Notice of Continuing Garnishment were issued in the

above-captioned action by James R. Starr, Clerk, United States

District Court. In accordance with the terms of the Writ of

Continuing Garnishment, on October 15, 2009, the defendant's

checking accounts held by Citizens Bank, were levied on by the

United States of America. Copies of the Application, Clerk's

Notice and Writ of Continuing Garnishment were received by

counterclaim defendant, Robert DesRoches, by certified mail,

return receipt, on October 20, 2009.

Case 1:05-cv-00088-PB Document 125 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §3202(d), the defendant had twenty

days to request a hearing after receiving the Notice and Writ. 

Defendant having failed to request a hearing within the time

allowed, it is 

ORDERED that funds in the amount of $12,909.09, plus any

deposits and any interest from the date of levy until the current

date, seized on October 15, 2009, from an accounts in the name of

Robert DesRoches, which are in the possession, custody or control

of Citizens Bank, be released to the United States of America. 

Said funds should be made payable to the U.S. Department of

Justice and sent to U.S. Attorney’s Office, 53 Pleasant Street,

4th Floor, Concord, NH 03301; and

ORDERED that the Writ of Continuing Garnishment issued on

October 8, 2009, to Citizens Bank, is hereby quashed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

U.S. District Court Judge

DATED:

cc: Michael T. McCormack, AUSA

 Robert P. DesRoches

 Citizens Bank

Case 1:05-cv-00088-PB Document 125 Filed 12/14/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Vivian C . Hodgdon

v . Civil No. 06-cv-295-JD

Merrimack County Department of Corrections

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated September 6, 2006, no objection having been filed .

SO ORDERED.

October 2, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Vivian C. Hodgdon, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00295-JD Document 7 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Robert F. Stoico, Chief Executive Officer, and Edward A. Hjerpe III, Chief
Financial Officer, certify to the best of our knowledge and belief, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 as of and for the period covered by the
               Report.

                                   /s/ Robert F. Stoico
                                   ---------------------
                                   Robert F. Stoico
                                   Chairman of the Board, President and
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   August 13, 2003

                                   /s/ Edward A. Hjerpe III
                                   ------------------------
                                   Edward A. Hjerpe III
                                   Executive Vice President, Chief Operating
                                   Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                                   August 13, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC. and will be retained by FIRSTFED
AMERICA BANCORP, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allah Pilgrim, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 432]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiFiore, J.), rendered May 12, 2003, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1661 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1661

   To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, 
  Oregon, and California to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the 
 effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the 
       Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2001

Mr. George Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Walden of Oregon) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, 
  Oregon, and California to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the 
 effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the 
       Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES OF WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND 
              CALIFORNIA TO MANAGE DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY.

    Section 203 of the Act entitled ``An Act to approve a governing 
international fishery agreement between the United States and the 
Republic of Poland, and for other purposes'', approved November 13, 
1998 (Public Law 105-384; 16 U.S.C. 1856 note), is amended by striking 
subsection (i).
                                 <all>
```
176 La. 368

#### LIRETTE et al. v. LIRETTE et al.

No. 31399.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 3, 1933.

Aubin J. Daigle, of Houma, for appellants.

Harris Gagne, of Houma, for appellees.

O’NIELL, C. J.

This is a suit to annul two judgments which were obtained by the defendant, widow of Leo Lirette, who died some time before the 13th of September, 1917. One of the judgments was rendered on that date, recognizing Mrs, Lirette to be -the surviving partner in community with Leo Lirette, and, as such, entitled to half of the community property in full ownership and to the usufruct of the other half of the property. The other judgment complained of was rendered on the 15th of April, 1931, in a suit for a partition of the community property, brought by Mrs. Lirette and her children against the present plaintiffs and others. The plaintiffs in this suit are the grandchildren of the deceased, Leo Li-rette, being the children of the .only heir born of a previous marriage of Leo Lirette. The father of the plaintiffs died before his father died; hence the plaintiffs inherited from their grandfather by representation. Their complaint in this suit seems to refer particularly, if not entirely, to that part of the two judgments complained of which purports to allow the widow of Leo Lirette the usufruct of that part of the community property which was inherited by them, the plaintiffs; their contention .being that she was entitled to the usufruct of only the share of the community estate inherited by her children. The plaintiffs allege that the error in the judgments complained of was an error of law, resulting from their ignorance of their rights. The suit seems to be founded upon the doctrine of Succession of Williams, 168 La. 1, 121 iSo. 171.

The defendants pleaded, first, the exception of misjoinder of parties defendant; second, res judicata; and, third, no cause of action. The district judge sustained the plea of res judicata, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. They have appealed from the decision.

Inasmuch as there is no other judgment referred to in the record, we assume that the plea of res judicata was founded upon either one or both of the judgments which the plaintiffs are attaching. In a suit to annul or to reform a judgment, a.plea of res judicata cannot be based upon the judgment which is 'sought to be annulled or reformed. Edwards v. Edwards, 29 La. Ann. 597; Holbrook v. Holbrook, 32 La. Ann. 13; Heroman v. Louisiana Institute, 34 La. Ann. 805; Anderson v. Benham, 40 La. Ann. 336, 4 So. 454; Lazarus v. McGuirk, 42 La. Ann. 194, 8 So. 253; Succession of Williams, 168 La. 1, 121 So. 171.

The judgment appealed from is annulled, the plea of res judicata is overruled, and the ease is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with what we have said in this opinion. The costs of this appeal are to be borne by the defendants; the question of liability for all other court costs is to depend upon the final disposition of the suit.
----

| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 (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: August 15, 2011 | /s/ Paul Van Ostenbridge              |   |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Paul Van Ostenbridge                  |   |
|                   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                   |                                  |   |
|                   |                                  |   |
| Dated: August 15, 2011 | /s/ Claire M. Chadwick                |   |
|                   | Claire M. Chadwick                    |   |
|                   | Senior Vice President and             |   |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer               |   |

----