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

Union Calendar No. 65

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1886

[Report No. 107–121]

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third

parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

JUNE 28, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third parties in certain patent reexamination

proceedings.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1886 RH

1 SECTION 1. APPEALS IN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION

2 PROCEEDINGS.

3 (a) APPEALS BY THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER IN PRO4 CEEDINGS.—Section 315(b) of title 35, United States

5 Code, is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(b) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER.—A third-party

7 requester—

8 ‘‘(1) may appeal under the provisions of section

9 134, and may appeal under the provisions of sec10 tions 141 through 144, with respect to any final de11 cision favorable to the patentability of any original

12 or proposed amended or new claim of the patent;

13 and

14 ‘‘(2) may, subject to subsection (c), be a party

15 to any appeal taken by the patent owner under the

16 provisions of section 134 or sections 141 through

17 144.’’.

18 (b) APPEAL TO BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND

19 INTERFERENCES.—Section 134(c) of title 35, United

20 States Code, is amended by striking the last sentence.

21 (c) APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FED22 ERAL CIRCUIT.—Section 141 of title 35, United States

23 Code, is amended in the third sentence by inserting ‘‘, or

24 a third-party requester in an inter partes reexamination

25 proceeding, who is’’ after ‘‘patent owner’’.
3

•HR 1886 RH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by this Act apply with respect

3 to any reexamination proceeding commenced on or after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.
Union Calendar No. 65

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1886

[Report No. 107–121]

A BILL

To amend title 35, United States Code, to provide

for appeals by third parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

JUNE 28, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 196

To prohibit federally sponsored research pertaining to the legalization of

drugs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

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

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To prohibit federally sponsored research pertaining to the

legalization of drugs.

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 ‘‘Anti-Drug Legalization

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds the following:

8 (1) The sale, possession, and use of drugs pose

9 a pervasive and substantial threat to the social, edu10 cational, and economic health of the United States.
2

•HR 196 IH

1 (2) The impact of drug abuse is reflected in the

2 violence that it causes and in the disintegration of

3 families, schools, and neighborhoods.

4 (3) The effects of rampant drug use are amply

5 illustrated by national violent crime statistics.

6 (4) The overwhelming majority of health care

7 and law enforcement experts agree that drug legal8 ization would have disastrous consequences for the

9 people of the United States.

10 (5) Recent studies demonstrate that drug use

11 by young people is on the rise in the United States.

12 SEC. 3. RESTRICTION.

13 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no de14 partment or agency of the United States Government shall

15 conduct or finance, in whole or in part, any study or re16 search involving the legalization of any controlled sub17 stance (as that term is defined in section 102 of the Con18 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00343-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. JOEL MELKIN BANEGAS-PACHECO,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter has been scheduled for a three-day jury trial on the docket of Judge

Philip A. Brimmer in the U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A701, 7th Floor, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence on November 7, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. It is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by October 4, 2011 and

responses to these motions shall be filed by October 11, 2011. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall

be made no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any

challenges to such experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is

further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made

one week after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such

experts shall be made no later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is

further

Case 1:11-cr-00343-PAB Document 10 Filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is set for November 1, 2011 at

1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A701. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in

person. 

The parties shall be prepared to address the following issues at the Trial

Preparation Conference:

1) jury selection;

2) sequestration of witnesses;

3) timing of presentation of witnesses and evidence;

4) anticipated evidentiary issues;

5) any stipulations as to fact or law; and

6) any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial. 

DATED September 12, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00343-PAB Document 10 Filed 09/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, May 5-9, 200Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,000 $24,000 $49,000 $99,000 $249,000 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 590,927 36,307 57,878 56,454 91,759 134,80Number of loans 17,598 9,265 3,939 1,711 1,396 90Weighted average maturity (months)1 20.65 10.87 11.07 14.90 22.36 30.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 4.72 2.41 2.82 6.79 8.15 5.6

Weighted average risk rating3 3.22 3.21 3.25 3.16 3.11 3.0

Weighted average interest rate4 5.47 6.30 6.03 5.97 5.66 5.7

 Standard error5 .23 .17 .19 .14 .09 .2

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 6.69 7.23 6.92 6.92 6.44 7.0 25th percentile 4.33 5.36 4.86 5.00 4.86 4.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.78 5.97 6.28 6.15 5.84 5.3 Other livestock 4.59 5.86 5.95 6.37 4.52 5.0 Other current operating expenses7 5.96 6.42 6.16 5.96 5.70 6.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.98 6.37 5.67 5.82 5.75 5.3 Farm real estate 6.13 6.44 6.45 6.31 6.34 6.3 Other8 4.77 5.80 5.51 5.78 5.45 5.0

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 81.46 84.77 82.57 71.82 76.03 75.8 Under commitment 85.28 91.78 88.12 77.76 82.64 77.5 Callable 22.73 35.01 35.88 35.04 29.75 31.6 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.81 4.77 5.53 9.50 8.84 10.4 Other livestock 7.13 3.95 4.90 7.75 4.96 5.6 Other current operating expenses7 44.79 69.68 65.31 47.39 50.89 44.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 10.11 8.19 9.15 9.30 12.31 9.4 Farm real estate 4.05 .67 1.18 2.78 6.41 6.1 Other8 24.11 12.75 13.92 23.27 16.59 23.4

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 15.80 5.38 7.15 13.15 13.74 20.5 Other 75.47 84.10 84.99 82.15 82.66 70.6 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Laura A. Camisa, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Calton, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
     covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financing reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
     of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls.


Date:  April 15, 2005

/s/ Laura A. Camisa
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 920 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to strengthen the 

earmark point of order. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

Mr. MARSHALL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

strengthen the earmark point of order. 

1 Resolved, That (a) this resolution may be cited as the 

2 ‘‘Additional Earmark Disclosure Resolution’’. 

3 (b) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

4 of Representatives is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end 

5 of subparagraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 

6 a semicolon at the end of subparagraph (4), and by adding 

7 at the end the following new subparagraphs: 

8 ‘‘(5) a conference report to accompany a bill or 

9 joint resolution unless the joint explanatory state10 ment prepared by the managers on the part of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 920 IH 

1 House and the managers on the part of the Senate 

2 includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax 

3 benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the conference 

4 report or joint statement (and the name of any 

5 Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Sen6 ator who submitted a request to the respective 

7 House or Senate committees of jurisdiction for each 

8 respective item included in such list) that were not 

9 committed to the conference committee by either 

10 House, not in a report on such bill, or not in a re11 port of a committee of the Senate on a companion 

12 measure, or a statement that the proposition con13 tains no congressional earmarks, limited tax bene14 fits, or limited tariff benefits; or 

15 ‘‘(6) an amendment between the Houses to a 

16 bill or joint resolution unless the proponent has 

17 caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax 

18 benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the amend19 ment (and the name of any Member, Delegate, Resi20 dent Commissioner, or Senator who submitted a re21 quest to the respective proponent for each respective 

22 item included in such list) that were not in a report 

23 on such bill, not in the report of a committee of the 

24 Senate on a companion measure, or not in any ear25 lier amendment between the Houses to such bill or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HRES 920 IH 

1 joint resolution, or a statement that the proposition 

2 contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax ben3 efits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the 

4 congressional record prior to its consideration or to 

5 be contained in a separate part of that amendment 

6 to such bill or joint resolution.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02258-WYD-MEH

PAMELA D. NODLAND and

CHRISTIAN S. NODLAND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROSEMARY M. MURPHY, as Public Trustee of Montrose County, Colorado;

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., a California Corporation;

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE

FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES TRUST

2003-29, a Delaware corporation;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware

Corporation;

CAPITAL ONE BANK, a national banking institution; and

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

This matter was assigned to me after a removal from the state court on August

26, 2011. A motion to dismiss, dated February 24, 2011, accompanied the removal. 

After carefully reviewing the file in this matter, I find that many months have passed and

various procedural events have occurred since the motion to dismiss was drafted. 

Thus, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Additionally, all parties are ordered to review and comply with all directives

contained in both this Court’s Local Rules and My Practice Standards for all future

filings and proceedings. 

Dated: September 1, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-02258-WYD-MEH Document 8 Filed 09/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02195-PAB-MEH

MARSHA ATENCIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING SOOPERS,

ANN PIERCE,

SCOTT BRINSON,

NASH FORACI, and

CHARLES BIGLEN,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 17, 2012.

The Stipulated Motion to Amend the Case Caption [filed February 16, 2012; docket #14] is

granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case caption by replacing Defendant

Dillon Companies, Inc. with King Soopers. 

Case 1:11-cv-02195-PAB-MEH Document 16 Filed 02/17/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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 September 27, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIRST ARTESIA BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                          * 3A3First Artesia Bancshares, Inc., Artesia, New Mexico, to acquire by merger 100 percent of AmFin Holding Company, Silver City, New Mexico, and indirectly acquire AmBank, Silver City, New Mexico.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 10/20/2008ST FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.                                                                                                * 3A1ST Financial Group, Inc., Montgomery, Texas, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Snook Bancshares, Inc., Snook, Texas, and indirectly acquire First Bank of Snook, Snook, Texas.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 10/17/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-76-PB

Michael Horrigan

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

September 3, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete a residential drug treatment program

and engage in plea negotiations or prepare for trial. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from September 3, 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-00076-PB Document 14 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The August 26, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to December 22, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 20, 2008

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00076-PB Document 14 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000718827
<NAME>                        SEILER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         96,419
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    5,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,073,127
<PP&E>                                         9,482,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                 890,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,520,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,434,284
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       902
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,626,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,520,232
<SALES>                                        1,288,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,288,380
<CGS>                                          545,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,573,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,375,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             516,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,570,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,570,617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   766,084
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.45)



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen S. Bartlett

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00358-JL

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc.

ORDER

The Motion for Judicial Notice Under Rule 201 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence (document no. 199) is granted without

objection. The court takes judicial notice of Sulindac’s package

insert as an “adjudicative fact,” see Fed. R. Evid. 201, and of

the various statutory and regulatory materials as “legislative

facts,” which “have relevance to legal reasoning and the

lawmaking process, whether in the formulation of a legal

principle or ruling by a judge or court or in the enactment of a

legislative body.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a), advisory

committee’s note (1972). The court expresses no opinion on

whether the statutory and regulatory materials may be admitted as

substantive evidence for the jury to consider. See Getty Petro.

Mktg. v. Capital Terminal Co., 391 F.3d 312, 322 (1st Cir. 2004)

(Lipez, J., concurring) (explaining that legislative facts, such

as statutes, are generally “presented to the court as law, not to

the jury as evidence”) (citing John W. Strong, McCormick on

Evidence § 335 (5th ed. 1999)).

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 248 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: July 16, 2010

cc: Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Eric Roberson, Esq.

Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 248 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2