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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1552 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1552

   To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
                 through 2006, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

  Mr. Cox (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
                 through 2006, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Tax Nondiscrimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT MORATORIUM.

    (a) Extension; Internet Access Taxes.--Section 1101 of the Internet 
Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``taxes during the period beginning on 
        October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of enactment 
        of this Act--'' in subsection (a) and inserting ``taxes:'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(1) Taxes on Internet access.'';
            (3) by inserting before ``multiple'' in paragraph (2) of 
        subsection (a) the following: ``During the period beginning on 
        October 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2006,'';
            (4) by striking subsection (d); and
            (5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
        (d) and (e), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1104(10) of Internet Tax Freedom 
Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ``services unless such 
tax was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 
1998.'' and inserting ``services.''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 28, 2009 

s1021 

Order 

 

October 28, 2009 

139112 

KENSINGTON HEIGHTS COOPERATIVE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139112 

 COA: 289817 

Oakland CC: 2008-008807-AV 

PATRICIA OROZCO, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

REINSTATE the district court’s April 14, 2008 order granting a default and default 

judgment. In granting the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, the district court placed 

the defendant on notice that she was subject to a default judgment for failure to comply 

with the discovery request. Such a sanction was reasonable given the facts of this case 

and the defendant’s repeated failure to comply with discovery requests. Accordingly, the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the default judgment for the plaintiff.
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Historical Data
  About
  Announcements
 Current Release  (250 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 3 Motor Vehicle Assemblies  Item
2011Average
2011
2012Q1
2011Dec.
2012Q2
Q3
Q4
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
MayTotal
8.66
8.01
8.69
9.22
10.13
9.41
10.15
10.14
10.09
10.67
10.39Autos
2.98
2.77
2.93
3.40
3.86
3.57
3.85
3.84
3.90
4.25
4.27Trucks
5.68
5.23
5.76
5.82
6.26
5.84
6.31
6.30
6.18
6.42
6.12Light
5.44
4.99
5.51
5.55
5.98
5.58
6.05
6.01
5.88
6.11
5.81Medium and heavy
.24
.24
.25
.27
.28
.26
.26
.29
.30
.31
.31Memo:Autos and light trucks
8.41
7.76
8.44
8.95
9.84
9.14
9.89
9.85
9.78
10.36
10.08      Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
Exhibit
31.2
 
 Certificate
Pursuant to Section 302
 of
Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002
 CERTIFICATION
OF CFO
 
 I, Gary
D. Pickett, the Registrant's Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bovie Medical
Corporation;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 
 Date:
November 6, 2009
 
 /s/
      Gary D. Pickett
                Chief
      Financial Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000081

27-MAY-2015

10:13 AM
1

DECLARATION OF SARAH LEFFLER

I, Sarah Leffler, declare:

1. I am employed at the U.S. Attorney=s Office for the District of Colorado as 

a Debt Collection Agent. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.

2. On April 30, 2014, the Writ of Continuing Garnishment and the Application 

For Writ of Continuing Garnishment in the case of U.S. v. John Phillip Gallegos, 

Criminal Case No. 11-CR-000355-MK was personally served on the Corporation 

Service Company, the registered agent of Garnishee, Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Ex. 2)

3. On May 8, 2014, the Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment, Writ 

of Continuing Garnishment, and Clerk=s Notice of Post Judgment Garnishment were 

mailed to the Defendant by first class mail at the defendant's last known address. 

These documents notified Defendant of the right to request, within twenty days, a 

hearing to determine exempt property.

4. The Defendant has not filed a request for a hearing, and has not notified 

our office that a hearing on the garnishment is requested.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct and this declaration was executed at Denver, 

Colorado on July 15, 2014.

s/Sarah Leffler 

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 377-1 filed 07/15/14 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
---

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02006
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02007
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02008
          1
          0
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: September 30, 2008
#### In the Matter of Onondaga County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Patricia L., Respondent, v Junior L.C., Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 788]

Appeal from an order *846of Family Court, Onondaga County (Klim, J.), entered March 23, 2001, which dismissed respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation and support, entered June 15, 1992.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order dismissing his pro se motion to vacate an order of filiation and support entered in 1992. Although the 1992 order recites that respondent was present in court for the filiation and support proceeding and admitted to paternity, respondent alleged in the instant motion that he was never notified of the filiation and support proceeding and never appeared in Family Court on the date set for the hearing. Respondent explains in his brief that he first became aware of the existence of the order when he was notified by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles in the year 2000 that his driving privileges were being suspended based on child support arrears, pursuant to Family Ct Act § 548-a.

Respondent was not physically present in court on the return date of his motion, but the record establishes that he was “available by telephone” to communicate with the court. The child’s mother was present, and she stated on the record that respondent was present in court at the proceeding in 1992, admitted paternity at that time, and the child believed respondent was her father. The court did not attempt to communicate with respondent by telephone, and respondent did not participate in the “inquest.” The court dismissed the motion on the ground that respondent failed to set forth sufficient grounds to reopen the 1992 order of filiation and support.

Relief from an order of paternity is governed by CPLR 5015 (a) *(see Matter of D’Elia v Douglas B.,*138 Misc 2d 370, 375), which provides for relief from a judgment or an order on the grounds of, inter alia, fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Respondent alleges fraud, claiming that he was not the person who admitted paternity in court in 1992. Respondent also alleges lack of jurisdiction, based on his lack of notice of the filiation and support proceeding. In light of the allegations of respondent, we agree with respondent that the court should have conducted a hearing to determine the validity of those allegations *(see e.g. Matter of Mancini v Simes,*247 AD2d 270). The “inquest” with the child’s mother and with respondent “available by telephone” but neither contacted nor provided the opportunity to cross-examine the child’s mother cannot be said to *847have provided respondent with the “day in court” that he seeks. We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court, Onondaga County, for a hearing on the motion. Present — Hayes, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02254-WYD-KMT

NIMBL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BNIMBL, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

This matter is before me on a review of the file. My daughter is an associate at

the law firm of Faegre & Benson, counsel for Defendant bNimbl, Inc. For this reason, I

believe that it would be inappropriate for me to preside over this case. Accordingly, I

should recuse myself. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the Judge’s file be returned to the clerk and that the case be

reassigned by random draw. 

Dated: August 30, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

U. S. District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02254-PAB-KMT Document 7 Filed 08/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02244-CMA-MJW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD WILMER, and 

ROCK WEISS,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Rock Weiss’s Motion to Dismiss. 

(Doc. # 6.) Although Defendant filed his motion “using the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure,” he did not cite the specific provision governing his motion. (See id.) 

Regardless, the Court is unaware of any pre-trial rule that would entitle Defendant to

relief on either of the grounds he asserts: (1) that “no contract of any kind” existed, as

described in the Complaint (Doc. # 1), and (2) that Defendant is “not a ‘person’ as

defined” in the Complaint (Doc. # 1). 

The Government brought this case under § 107(a) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a),

as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1980

(“CERCLA”), seeking to recover costs spent investigating and removing, from a

residential property, hazardous wastes allegedly owned by Defendant. The CERCLA

Case 1:11-cv-02244-CMA-MJW Document 15 Filed 11/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

imposes liability on “any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for

disposal or treatment . . . of hazardous substances . . .” that requires the Government to

incur assessment or clean-up expenses. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3)-(4) (emphasis added). 

As indicated by the plain language of the statute, liability does not depend on the

existence of a contract. See id. In fact, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the

Government did not even allege that the defendants had formed a contract. (See Doc.

# 1 at 2, ¶ 6 (claiming that defendants “by agreement . . . arranged for the disposal of

the hazardous materials”) (emphasis added).) Further, whether Defendant is a “person”

as defined under the statute is, effectively, one of the central questions at issue in this

case. Unfortunately for Defendant, he must do more than simply assert–without

support–that he is not such a person. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 6) is

DENIED.

DATED: November 30 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02244-CMA-MJW Document 15 Filed 11/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 09-cr-03-01-JL

Christian German

O R D E R

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

37) 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.

_______________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Date: July 21, 2009

cc: Sven D. Wiberg, Esq. 

 James W. Dennehy, Esq.

Terry L. Ollila, Esq. 

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00003-JL Document 38 Filed 07/21/09 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CHIEF JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: September 19, 2013

Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom

Probation Officer: Nicole Peterson

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Linda Kaufman

Martha Paluch

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS, William Taylor

Darlene Bagley

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

1:46 p.m. Court in session.

Defendant present on bond.

Change of Plea Hearing on February 11, 2013. Defendant pled guilty to Count 1 of the

Information.

The Court addresses Motions to Restrict (Doc. #259, 264, 270, 307 and 310) and Restricted

Doc. #274

ORDER: Motion to Restrict (Doc. #259) is DENIED.

Motion to Restrict (Doc. #264) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It

is GRANTED as to Exhibit B and DENIED as to all other documents.

Motion to Restrict (Doc. #270) is DENIED;

Motion to Restrict (Doc. #307) is DENIED;

Motion to Restrict (Doc. #310) is DENIED..

Restricted Doc. #274 will be UNRESTRICTED.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 336 filed 09/19/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Sentencing Minutes

Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

The parties do not request departure.

The defendant does contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a). Argument.

Allocution. - Statements made by: The Government, the defendant, defense counsel.

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. Further argument.

THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

The defendant is advised of his right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant shall surrender to the facility designated by the United States Bureau

of Prisons before noon within 2 weeks of receiving a designation. Bond will be

exonerated at the time of voluntary surrender to the designated institution. 

3:09 p.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 1 hour 23 minutes.

Hearing concluded.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 336 filed 09/19/13 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          21,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      612
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,079
<PP&E>                                          11,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,932
<BONDS>                                            518
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,261
<SALES>                                          3,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,322
<CGS>                                              588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,491
<INCOME-TAX>                                        79
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,412
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,412
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        
</TABLE>
#### Roy HEBERT v. Howard E. HATCH. CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. Howard E. HATCH.

No. 3900.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1954.

R. Gbrdon Kean, Jr.,'City Atty., Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Durrett & Hardin, W. A. Hunter, Baton Rouge, for appellee. ■

CAVANAUGH, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Hebert v. Hatch, La.App., 75 So.2d 865, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, at the cost of the .appellant. .
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: April 5, 2012

Court Reporter: Paul Zuckerman

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

Parties: Counsel Appearing:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAUNITA WEINGART,

JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendant.

Linda Kaufman

Martin Stuart

Darlene Bagley

William Taylor

Paula Ray

COURTROOM MINUTES

HEARING: Motions

4:07 p.m. Court in session.

Defendants Weingart are present on bond. Defendant Gallegos is not present.

The Court addresses Motion to Excuse Defendant from Appearing (Doc. #80).

Argument. The Government orally moves to continue the hearing to allow defendant Gallegos’

presence.

ORDER: Motion to Excuse Defendant from Appearing (Doc. #80) is GRANTED. The

hearing is continued to April 10, 2012 at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom A901, 901 19th

Street, Denver, CO and all defendants must be present.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 83 filed 04/05/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 2
Courtroom Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

ORDER: The Government’s Unopposed Motion for Variance in Numbering exhibits (Doc.

#78) is WITHDRAWN.

ORDER: Bond is continued.

4:29 p.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 22 minutes.

Hearing concluded.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 83 filed 04/05/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 2