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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 931 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 6, 2008.
Whereas the Daytona 500 is the most prestigious stock car race in the United 
        States;
Whereas the Daytona 500 annually kicks off the National Association for Stock 
        Car Auto Racing (``NASCAR'') Sprint Cup Series, NASCAR's top racing 
        series;
Whereas millions of racing fans have spent the third Sunday of each February 
        since 1959 watching, listening to, or attending the Daytona 500;
Whereas the purse for the Daytona 500 is typically the largest in motor sports;
Whereas winning the prestigious Harley J. Earl Trophy is stock car racing's 
        greatest prize and privilege;
Whereas nearly 1,000,000 men and women in the Armed Forces in nearly 180 
        countries worldwide listen to the race on the radio via the American 
        Forces Network;
Whereas Daytona International Speedway is the home of ``The Great American 
        Race'', the Daytona 500;
Whereas fans from all 50 States and many foreign nations converge at the ``World 
        Center of Racing'' each year to see the motor sports spectacle;
Whereas Daytona International Speedway becomes one of the largest cities in the 
        State of Florida by population on race day, with more than 200,000 fans 
        in attendance;
Whereas well-known politicians, celebrities, and athletes take part in the 
        festivities surrounding the Daytona 500; and
Whereas February 17, 2008, would be an appropriate day to designate as ``Race 
        Day in America'' because the Daytona 500 celebrates its historic 50th 
        running on this day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 50th running of the Daytona 500, ``The Great 
        American Race''; and
            (2) supports designation of a ``Race Day in America'' in honor of 
        the Daytona 500.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02290-CMA-MEH

RICHARD CROW,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. J. A. JAMES, and

JOHN DOE MEDICAL STAFF AT DRDC,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 6, 2012.

Defendant James’ Motion to Vacate the Final Pretrial Conference and Stay All Proceedings

Until Resolution of the Qualified Immunity Defense Asserted in the Motion for Summary Judgment

[filed August 31, 2012; docket #36] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court notes that

the only “proceeding” pending in this action is the Final Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

September 13, 2012; there are no additional “proceedings” pending in the case and the Defendant

identified none. Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court will vacate the Final Pretrial

Conference set for September 13, 2012. Defendant shall file a Status Report with the Court within

five business days of the District Court’s order on the motion for summary judgment, informing this

Court whether the case is ripe for resetting the Final Pretrial Conference.

Case 1:11-cv-02290-CMA-MEH Document 38 Filed 09/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKENS, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Action

Pursuant to 28 USC § 636(e) (Docket No. 215) is denied without prejudice. The Bureau

of Prisons has represented in its response (Docket No. 222) that it is in the process of

collecting the additional responsive files and will produce the July 6, 2010, investigation

files, along with a privilege log, by June 7.

Date: May 1, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 223 Filed 05/01/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon Mejias, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 726]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered February 26, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and petit larceny under an accomplice theory of liability *(see*Penal Law § 160.15 [2]; § 20.00). The evidence was also legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime of possession of burglar’s tools. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*584The trial court, having read verbatim Penal Law § 20.00 defining criminal liability for the conduct of another, and having instructed the jury on the elements of burglary in the second degree and the remaining counts, correctly instructed the jury with respect to the issue of intent (see *People v Kaplan,*76 NY2d 140; *People v Accely,*272 AD2d 337; *People v Latchman,*251 AD2d 683).

The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dien,*77 NY2d 885; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818). In any event, the comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence (see *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105) or responsive to arguments presented in the defense counsel’s summation (see *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Alyssa S. Administration for Children’s Services—Queens, Appellant; Danielle P., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Alyanna S. Administration for Children’s Services—Queens, Appella*463nt; Danielle P., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[744 NYS2d 719]

In two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated January 10, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied its motion to stay enforcement of stated portions of two prior orders of the same court, both dated December 24, 2001 (one entered in each proceeding), and directed that the children be returned to the mother’s custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner did not meet its burden of establishing that the children should remain in its custody *(see Matter of Shevonne C.,*292 AD2d 452). The evidence adduced by the petitioner failed to establish that the return of the children posed an imminent risk to their health since the offending circumstances had been remedied. Moreover, the respondent mother fully complied with the service plan offered by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly directed the return of the children to the mother pending the final determination of the petitions *(see Matter of Commissioner of Admin. for Children’s Servs. of City of N.Y. [Stephen D.] v Angela D.,*250 AD2d 845; *Matter of Hiram V.,*162 AD2d 453, 454). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

2005...... 17 2 11 4 0 .039 .005 .024 .009 .000

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                             CRAGAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE                                   Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                                        1997           1996
                                                                        ----           ----
<S>                                                                 <C>             <C>
Net Earnings                                                        $  282,322        479,710
                                                                    ==========      =========

Weighted average number of common shares equivalent
  Weighted average common shares outstanding (1)                     2,210,305        930,584

  Common equivalent shares using the Treasury Stock Method (2)         158,296        184,972
                                                                    ----------      ---------

Average common shares outstanding                                    2,368,601      1,115,556
                                                                    ==========      =========

Net earnings per common share and common equivalent share           $     0.12           0.43
                                                                    ==========      =========
</TABLE>

(1)  Gives effect to the weighted average number of actual common shares
     outstanding during each period presented.

(2)  Gives effect to the exercise of various outstanding warrants and options
     using the treasury stock method.

                                       17
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEPHEN ANTHONY MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00013-TDS-2)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Anthony Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7245 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Anthony Miller appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We have reviewed the record on appeal 

and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United 

States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Miller, No. 1:10-cr00013-TDS-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2022).*

 We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* On appeal, Miller requests permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. However, such a request should be made in a separately filed 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244 motion. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7245 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02263-LTB

PETER GEORGACARAKOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES DANIELS,

Defendant.

ORDER TO CURE DEFICIENCY

Babcock, Senior Judge

Petitioner submitted a Notice of Appeal on January 13, 2012. The court has determined that

the document is deficient as described in this order. Petitioner will be directed to cure the following

if he wishes to pursue this appeal.

(A) Filing Fee 

 X is not submitted

(B) Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915

and Fed. R. App. P. 24:

 X is not submitted

 is missing affidavit

 is missing certified copy of prisoner’s trust fund statement for the 6-month period

immediately preceding this filing

 is missing required financial information

 is missing an original signature by the prisoner

 is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form)

 other 

Accordingly, it is 

Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 20 Filed 01/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that Petitioner cure the deficiencies designated above within 30 days from

the date of this order. Any papers that Petitioner filed in response to this order must include the

civil action number on this order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail to Petitioner, together with a

copy of this order, an original and one copy of the following forms: Motion and Affidavit for

Leave to Proceed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner fails to cure the designated deficiencies within

30 days from the date of this order, the court of appeals will be so notified.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 18th day of January, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:11-cv-02263-LTB Document 20 Filed 01/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                         1605
<SECURITIES>                                   3,493
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                   640
<INVENTORY>                                    3,076
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,509
<PP&E>                                         13,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,115
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,045
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,626
<SALES>                                        34,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               34,514
<CGS>                                          24,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  31,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2579
<INCOME-TAX>                                   967
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1612
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .51
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 02-cv-00311-RPM

CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLYCHEM, LLC,

Defendant,

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE

Pursuant to the pretrial conference on June 1, 2007, it is

ORDERED that this matter is set for trial to the Court on September 24, 2007, at

9:00 a.m., with counsel to be present at 8:30 a.m. on the first morning of trial, in

Courtroom A, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 18th and Stout

Streets, Denver, Colorado. Trial procedures may be found at

www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges_frame.htm.

DATED: June 5th, 2007

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

___________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cv-00311-RPM Document 222 Filed 06/05/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-73-01-JD

Patrick Lord

O R D E R

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

10) 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: September 26, 2008

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Alfred J.T. Rubega, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00073-JD Document 11 Filed 09/26/08 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. WELCH,

AMRA WELCH, as nominee/alter ego of James D. Welch,

JAMES D. WELCH, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust, and

CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AGAINST CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC.

The Court having reviewed the United States’ motion for the entry of default

judgment against Defendant CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc., and good cause

having been shown, said motion is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that judgment shall be entered in favor of the United

States and against CIT Group/Equipment Financing as to all counts of the United

States’ Complaint.

DATED: December 17 , 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM Document 92 Filed 12/17/12 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 FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending June 15, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodGREEN DOT BANK DBA BONNEVILLE BANK                                                                                      * 18CGreen Dot Bank, Provo, Utah, to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of GE Capital Retail Bank, Draper, Utah.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not applicable
#### In the Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent, v Joy Moore, Respondent, Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 715]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Allstate Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Archer, J.), dated November 7, 2001, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that “[t]he decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses” *(Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Allen,*279 AD2d 576; *see Matter of CGU Ins. Co. v Velez,*287 AD2d 624; *Matter of American Home Assur. Co. v Munoz,*287 AD2d 619; *Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush,*264 AD2d 848). The Supreme Court’s determination that the offending vehicle was properly identified by Joy Moore as a vehicle owned by Ruby Stephens is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. As it is undisputed that the Stephens’ vehicle was insured by Allstate Insurance Company at the time of the accident, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to stay arbitration. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Miguel Angel Fierro, Jr., * From the 42nd District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 28390A

.

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 266

- CR * August 25 , 20 2 2

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by W illiams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

we modify the judgment nunc pro tunc of the tr ia l court to reflect “1/5/2019” as the

“Date of Offense” and to delete the special finding. As modified, we affirm the

judgment nunc pro tunc of the trial court.