alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending May 3, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodLANDMARK BANCORP INC                                                                                                    3A1
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02261-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2131 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2131

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through 
               fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2131

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through 
               fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS.

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 2431c(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``major''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO SUPPORT REDUCTION OF DEBT 
              UNDER THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 AND TITLE I OF 
              THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 
              1954.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 806 of the Tropical Forest 
Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Years After Fiscal 
Year 2001.--For the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal 
Credit Reform Act of 1990) for the reduction of any debt pursuant to 
this section or section 807, there are authorized to be appropriated to 
the President the following:
            ``(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
            ``(2) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
            ``(3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 808(a)(1)(D) of the Tropical 
Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431f(a)(1)(D)) is amended 
by striking ``to appropriated under sections 806(a)(2) and 807(a)(2)'' 
and inserting ``to be appropriated under sections 806(a)(2), 807(a)(2), 
and 806(d)''.

SEC. 3. CHAIRPERSON OF THE ENTERPRISE FOR THE AMERICAS BOARD.

    Section 811(b)(2) of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 
(22 U.S.C. 2431i(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``from among the 
representatives appointed under section 610(b)(1)(A) of such Act or 
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection'' and inserting ``and shall be the 
representative from the Department of State appointed under section 
610(b)(1)(A) of such Act''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 14, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 14, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0026. JOSHUA DAVIS v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14CR0178
#### L. G. (Jack) THOMPSON, Appellant, v. J. G. O’DONOHOE, Appellee.

No. 5167.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.

May 31, 1972.

*712John M. Gillis, Dallas, for appellant.

Sanders, Masters & Watson, Wichita Falls, for appellee.

OPINION

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by appellant Thompson from an order sustaining appellee O’Don-ohoe’s plea of privilege to be sued in Wichita County, the county of his residence.

Appellant sued appellee in Dallas County. Appellee filed a single instrument containing a plea in abatement; a plea of privilege “subject to the plea in abatement”; and a general denial, subject to the foregoing pleas.

Appellant controverted the plea of privilege.

The trial court set and heard the plea of privilege and after hearing, entered an order reciting that appellee “moved to strike” from his plea of privilege the words “subject to the foregoing plea in abatement”, which motion “was granted”; that no evidence was presented by appellant, but appellant contended appellee “had waived his plea of privilege by arranging the plea in abatement * * * before his plea of privilege” in his answer; that all parts of appellee’s answer were filed simultaneously, and the first matter considered by the court was the plea of privilege; that the plea of privilege is sustained; and the cause transferred to Wichita County.

Appellant appeals on one point: “The trial court erred in sustaining appellee’s plea of privilege, said plea having been filed subsequent to and subject to plea in abatement”.

Appellee filed in one instrument: l).his plea in abatement; and 2) his plea of privilege, subject to his plea in abatement.

Appellant controverted the plea of privilege.

The trial court set hearing on the plea of privilege; the parties were present; appellant did not invoke any action of the court on the plea in abatement, but moved the court to strike from his plea of privilege, “subject to the foregoing plea in abatement”, which motion the court granted.

The test as to whether appellee waived his plea of privilege is not whether he filed the plea in abatement, but whether he invoked the action of the court on such plea in abatement prior to insisting on his plea of privilege. Here appellee insisted only on his plea of privilege, and did not invoke action on the plea in abatement.

In such situation appellee did not waive his plea of privilege. Hagood v. Dial, 43 Tex. 625; Martin v. Kieschnick, Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 330; O’Neal v. Texas Bank & Trust Co., 118 Tex. 133, 11 S.W.2d 791; Talbert v. Miles, Tex.Civ.App. (NWH), 477 S.W.2d 710.

Appellant’s point is overruled.

Affirmed.
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3910

___________ National Labor Relations Board, * * Petitioner, * * v. * Petition for Enforcement of * Order of the National Labor Budrovich Contracting Company; * Relations Board. and Budrovich Excavating Company, * a Single Employer, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondents. *

___________ Submitted: September 10, 2001 Filed: October 15, 2001

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and KYLE, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board petitions to enforce its order finding that Budrovich Contracting Company and Budrovich Excavating Company violated 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and § 158(a)(3) in a number of ways, most notably by laying-2- off and discharging two union employees for demanding rights secured to them by a collective bargaining agreement, and by coercively interrogating another union employee. We detect no error in the Board's appreciation or application of the law, and its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record, that is, " 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' " Carleton College v. NLRB , 230 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000), quoting Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). We therefore grant the Board's petition and enforce its order in its entirety. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey M. Gray, et al.

 v. Civil No. 08-cv-443-PB 

Lisa A. Sorenson, et al.

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 150

Ruling: Appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted, but pursuant to 28 USC § 1915, the filing fee must be 

paid as follows:

The sum of $0.52 is due no later than January 3, 2012. 

In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income 

credited to the appellant’s account shall be remitted 

by the Institution when the amount in the account 

exceeds $10.00 until the sum of $455.00 has been paid. 

 /s/Landya B. McCafferty _

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 2, 2011

cc: Jeffrey M. Gray, pro se

Janette L. Gray, pro se

Daniel D. Lustenberger, Esq.

Scott Sorenson, pro se

Rockingham County Inmate Accounts

Case 1:08-cv-00443-PB Document 152 Filed 12/02/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ROBERT VINCENT HARRIS,

Defendant.

4:23-CR-3057

ORDER

Senior District Judge John M. Gerrard is no longer taking criminal cases 

and plans to transfer his pending criminal cases to District Judge Susan M. 

Bazis. A reassignment deadline of June 17, 2024 has been established.

On June 17, 2024, if this case has not been set for a change of plea 

hearing, it will be reassigned to District Judge Susan M. Bazis.

If the defendant is prepared to plead guilty, counsel should contact the 

Magistrate Judge's chambers on or before June 14, 2024 to set a change of 

plea hearing. Cases involving multiple defendants will be reassigned unless all 

the defendants have either pled guilty or set a change of plea hearing. 

A change of plea hearing in this case, once set, will not be continued 

absent a showing of good cause. If the defendant later elects not to change his 

or her plea, moves to withdraw that plea, or does not show good cause for 

continuing the change of plea hearing, the case will be reassigned to Judge 

Bazis for trial.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. On June 17, 2024, this case will be reassigned to District 

Judge Susan M. Bazis if a change of plea hearing has not 

been scheduled or held.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a case management 

deadline for June 17, 2024, with the following docket text: 

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-JMD Doc # 39 Filed: 04/15/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 66
- 2 -

Reassign to District Judge Susan M. Bazis if change of plea 

hearings have not been scheduled or held.

Dated this 15th day of April, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard

Senior United States District Judge

4:23-cr-03057-JMG-JMD Doc # 39 Filed: 04/15/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 67
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6213

SCOTT SOWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-2539-JFM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Sowell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Scott Sowell, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sowell v. Corcoran , No. CA97-2539-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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*)

2006: Q3... 12 58 30 17 71 11 15 77 9 11 60 28 8 45 

 Q4... 18 47 35 27 66 7 15 78 7 9 53 38 17 40 2007: Q1... 10 51 38 23 68 8 13 79 8 5 51 45 9 42  Q2... 10 59 30 23 71 6 12 79 8 8 48 44 11 55  Q3... 15 50 35 16 72 12 9 86 5 5 58 37 13 46  Q4... 16 42 41 27 67 6 9 80 11 5 62 33 18 32 2008: Q1... 20 46 34 41 55 4 17 77 6 8 59 33 19 35  Q2... 26 49 25 45 52 3 22 72 6 10 56 34 26 36  Q3... 18 37 45 31 64 4 19 76 5 13 67 20 8 35 

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

2006: Q3... 23 63 14 21 67 12 11 80 4 11 85 5 13 59 

 Q4... 14 66 20 26 63 11 10 80 5 10 85 6 11 66 2007: Q1... 13 64 24 18 72 10 12 77 5 12 81 7 7 65  Q2... 8 66 26 16 74 10 17 75 2 13 80 7 7 69  Q3... 10 72 18 15 75 10 11 80 3 8 75 18 7 69  Q4... 11 63 26 16 71 13 7 90 3 8 76 16 8 64 2008: Q1... 22 57 21 29 65 6 11 86 4 17 76 7 19 55  Q2... 21 56 23 40 53 8 13 85 2 8 78 14 15 51  Q3... 15 71 15 31 65 4 11 89 0 13 74 13 11 58 

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

2006: Q3... 47 53 0 29 64 7 31 69 0 31 69 0 42 58 

 Q4... 25 70 5 18 76 6 24 76 0 16 68 16 25 70 2007: Q1... 26 58 16 20 67 13 21 64 14 44 50 6 21 58  Q2... 12 88 0 6 94 0 13 88 0 11 78 11 11 84  Q3... 36 64 0 18 82 0 20 80 0 8 58 33 21 71  Q4... 39 56 6 33 67 0 31 69 0 24 76 0 17 61 2008: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.  Q2... 25 56 19 20 73 7 21 71 7 19 56 25 13 75  Q3... 60 33 7 36 64 0 46 54 0 29 64 7 40 47  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
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: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending May 23, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBNC BANCORP                                                                                                             * 3A5BNC Bancorp, High Point, North Carolina, to acquire Valley Financial Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire Valley Bank, Roanoke, Virginia, pursuant to Section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act.Newspaper: 06/02/2015Federal Register: 06/08/2015DELMARVA BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                               * 3A5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Otis Daniels

v. Civil No. 08-cv-299-SM

Larry Blaisdell, Warden,

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Otis Daniels filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

(document no. 1) on July 23, 2008. The matter came before me for

preliminary review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring initial

review to determine whether the petition is facially valid);

United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule

4.3(d)(2) (authorizing magistrate judge to preliminarily review

pro se filings by incarcerated persons). On October 22, 2008, I

directed Daniels to amend his petition to demonstrate why his

petition should not be dismissed as untimely (document no. 3). 

Daniels has now filed a motion to amend his petition (document

no. 5) in response to my October 22 Order. 

Case 1:08-cv-00299-SM Document 6 Filed 01/08/09 Page 1 of 3
2

Daniels was specifically instructed to explain why he has

never filed an appeal of his 1999 criminal conviction, despite

his awareness of his right to such an appeal since at least 2003. 

Daniels was also instructed to explain why he has never filed a

motion for a new trial or state habeas action challenging the

allegedly ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. By way of

explanation, Daniels offers only that the proof of his assertions

are to be found in his trial and sentencing transcripts, and that

he has been denied access to those transcripts in the state

courts. This is insufficient to demonstrate why, however, he has

been unable to initiate an appeal in the New Hampshire Supreme

Court, or seek permission to file a late appeal therein, or why

he has not been able to, without transcripts, allege the

deficiencies in his trial and trial counsel’s performance to the

state courts. It is typical for notices of appeal to be filed in

the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and post-conviction challenges

to a trial to be filed in the Superior Court, prior to the

preparation of a trial transcript, even if the preparation of a

transcript is necessary to ultimately prove the assertions made

in the appeal or post-conviction motions. The denial of a preappeal or pre-motion transcript, therefore, does not suffice to

Case 1:08-cv-00299-SM Document 6 Filed 01/08/09 Page 2 of 3
3

excuse the untimely filing of the federal habeas petition here. 

For these reasons, and as explained in my October 22 Order, I

recommend that this petition be dismissed as untimely filed.

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 8, 2009

cc: Otis Daniels, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00299-SM Document 6 Filed 01/08/09 Page 3 of 3
Third Department,

January, 2006

(January 5, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victoria Reyes, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 213]

IN from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Czajka, J.), rendered October 25, 2002, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant and her paramour were charged in a nine-count indictment with numerous drug-related crimes after the police recovered approximately seven ounces of cocaine and miscellaneous drug paraphernalia from the apartment that defendant shared with her infant daughter. Defendant later maintained that the drugs belonged to her and admitted that she was making and selling crack from her apartment. She testified at the trial of her paramour that he was not involved in her drug selling operation. Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. No sentencing promise was made as part of the plea, although County Court informed defendant that she could receive anywhere from three years to life in prison. Defendant was ultimately sentenced to five years to life in prison and she now appeals.

We affirm. Upon reviewing the record, we find that defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion that would warrant reducing the sentence in the interest of justice. Defendant possessed a significant quantity of drugs, operated a well-organized distribution network from her home and, in doing so, exposed her child to a potential danger. In view of this, we find no reason to disturb the sentence *(see People v Rosa-Oyola,*301 AD2d 750 [2003], *lv denied*99 NY2d 658 [2003]; *People v Roberts,*301 AD2d 756, 757 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Anthony J. DeCintio, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Marie DeCintio, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Lawrence Hospital et al., Defendants, and Paul Weinstein, M.D., Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 341]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered September 1, 2004, granting the motion of defendant Paul Weinstein, M.D., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After defendant Dr. Weinstein met his burden as summary judgment movant by submitting an expert’s affidavit attesting that, in treating plaintiffs’ decedent, Weinstein did not depart from the accepted standard of care in the medical community *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]), the burden shifted to plaintiffs to submit evidentiary facts or *321materials raising a triable issue of fact *(id.).*That burden was not met. Although plaintiffs, through their expert, point to “discrepancies” in the decedent’s medical records, they do not explain how the purported discrepancies implicate Weinstein’s care and treatment of the decedent *(see id.*at 324-325) or how the decedent’s outcome would have changed had the mistakes purportedly reflected in the discrepant records not been made *(see Candia v Estepan,*289 AD2d 38, 39-40 [2001]; *see also Mortensen v Memorial Hosp.,*105 AD2d 151, 158-159 [1984]). Even if, for example, decedent experienced a ventricular fibrillation about which Weinstein was not immediately informed, plaintiffs offer no explanation of how such information might have been utilized to prolong the decedent’s life.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

 

**CONSENT OF SENIOR SECURED NOTEHOLDER FOR EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATE OF SENIOR SECURED NOTE**

 

Power Efficiency Corporation

3900 Paradise Road

Suite 283

Las Vegas, NV 89109

 

March 14, 2005

 

To: 15% Note Holders

 

Dear             :

 

                Werefer to the 15% promissory notes (the “Notes”) of Power EfficiencyCorporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) due October 26, 2005 (the“Original Maturity Date”).

 

                Inconsideration of the Company’s agreement evidenced by this letter to continueto pay interest on the Notes in accordance with their terms through the NewMaturity Date (as defined below), we understand that you are agreeable toextending the Original Maturity Date to October 26, 2006 (the “New MaturityDate”).

 

                Pleaseconfirm your agreement to the extension of the Original Maturity Date to theNew Maturity Date by signing and dating a copy of this letter in the spaceprovided below and returning such copy to us. On receipt of your agreement, your Note(s) shall be amended to mature onOctober 26, 2006, and to provide for the payment of interest quarterly on eachJanuary 26, April 26, July 26 and October 26 through the New MaturityDate.  The Notes shall remain in fullforce and effect in accordance with their terms as so amended.

 

                Pleasealso affix a copy of this letter to the original Note or Notes held by you toevidence their amendment.

 
|   | Very truly yours,

 

 

   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Steven Strasser, Chairman  & CEO  |
|   | POWER EFFICIENCY  CORPORATION              |

 

 

**The undersigned holder of Noteshereby agrees to the amendment of such Notes to extend their maturity date toOctober****26, 2006, on the terms and conditions set forth above:**

 
| ** **                                                                       | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| **Signature of Noteholder** **Dated: March     , 2005** | ** ** |

** **

 

----