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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2187

To amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts collected from

mineral leasing activities on certain naval oil shale reserves available

to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with respect

to the reserves.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 2001

Mr. HEFLEY (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, and Mr. MCINNIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts

collected from mineral leasing activities on certain naval

oil shale reserves available to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with respect

to the reserves.

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

•HR 2187 IH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS FROM MINERAL

2 LEASING ACTIVITIES ON CERTAIN NAVAL OIL

3 SHALE RESERVES.

4 Section 7439(f)(1) of title 10, United States Code,

5 is amended in the second sentence by striking ‘‘Subject

6 to a specific authorization and appropriation for this pur7 pose, such moneys may be used for reimbursement of’’

8 and inserting ‘‘The moneys received shall be available,

9 without further appropriation and until September 30,

10 2006, for expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior to

11 cover’’.

Æ
#### Schnell et al. *v.*City of Troy et al.

(No. 24673

— Decided April 4, 1934.)

*Messrs. Faust & Fcmst*and *Mr. Baird Broomhall,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Paul G. Gingrich,*city solicitor, for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error *147be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Allen, J., not participating.
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2007   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2008   | 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: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending February 7, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCITIZENS BANK, THE                                                                                                      * BranchThe Citizens Bank, Batesville, Arkansas, to establish a branch facility to be located at 4429 Central Avenue, Suite C, Hot Springs, Arkansas.Newspaper: 02/17/2015Federal Register: Not applicableHOPFED BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                    CICNotice by HopFed Bancorp 2015 Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, to gain control of HopFed Bancorp, Inc., Hopkinsville, Kentucky.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
##### Figure 3: Foreign Residents' Holdings of U.S. Long-term Securities by Security Type
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Moise P. William

v. Civil No. 08-cv-6-JL

Auburn, NH Town of, et al.

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $9.60 is due no later than

February 28, 2008. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the

Rockingham County Department of Corrections when the amount in

the account exceeds $10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been

paid. Failure to pay the fee as ordered will result in dismissal

of the action without prejudice. In all other respects

plaintiff’s request for in forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 30, 2008

cc: Moise P. William, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 Rockingham County Department

 of Corrections, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:08-cv-00006-JL Document 4-1 Filed 01/30/08 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: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending March 17, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment Period1ST BANK                                                                                                                * 18C
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0048 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SKY M. LITTLECOYOTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 20, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 13 2022

05/13/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0048
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-72,807-04
EX P ARTE ISMAIL S HABAZZ , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 8785 IN THE 411 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM TRINITY COUNTY Per curiam . O R D E R P u rs uant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, t h e cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Cri m . Ap p . 1 967). Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenc ed to fifty

year s’ imprisonment. The Thirtee nth Court of Appea ls affirme d his c onviction. Shabazz v

. State , No. 13-05-00237- CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 11, 2006) (not designated f

or publication). Applicant contends that a juror was related to the victim and was biased. He also alleg es that when the prosec utor lear

ned of this, he committed prosec utorial misconduct when he told the juror that “it was better that she was rela ted to the victim” and did not repor t this conver sation to the court2

or the defe nse. The rec ord contains an aff idavit from the juror dated afte r Applicant’s prior writ was decide d. Applicant has a lleg ed fa cts that, if true, might entitle him to relief
. In these circumstance s, additional fac ts areneede d. As we he ld in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)
. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing, it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hearing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw as to whether one of the jurors was biased ag ainst Applicant, depriving him of a fair trial by an impartial jury
. The trial court shall also make finding s of fac t addre ssing Applicant’s contention that the p ro s ecutor committed prosec utorial misconduct. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropriate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus r elief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues sh al l b e re s o l ved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwar ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order
. Any extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court.
Filed: Mar ch 2, 2016 Do not publish
**Exhibit      21**

**THE      DRESS BARN, INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT**

|                                                     | **State                of Incorporation** |
|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                                     | **or                Formation**           |
| **Subsidiaries                of The Dress Barn, Inc.**  |                                      |
|                                                     |                                      |
| D.B.R.,                Inc.                              | Delaware                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| DBX                Inc.                                  | New                York                   |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Dunnigan                Realty, LLC                      | Delaware                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Dress                Barn Credit Management, LLC         | Virginia                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Maurices                Incorporated                     | Delaware                                  |
|                                                     |                                      |
| **Subsidiaries                of Maurices Incorporated** |                                      |
|                                                     |                                      |
| Maurices                Credit Management, Inc.          | Virginia                                  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02251-CMA-MJW

SHAWN D. ALLEN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JUDITH DAWSON,

MATT,

K. WISCHMEIER, and

THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Claims One and Two

and a Defendant (Docket No. 11) is granted. 

The amendments tendered by the plaintiff are merely additions to the original

Complaint rather than an entire pleading that contains the original averments and the

plaintiff’s proposed amendments. Plaintiff is advised that for any future motions to

amend or supplement pleadings in this or in any other action before this court, he shall

tender one complete amended pleading rather than merely the proposed amendments

or supplements. However, for the purpose of expediting this matter, it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall re-scan the original Complaint

(Docket No. 1) and the tendered amendments (Docket No. 11 at 2-4) together to make

one complete pleading which shall be filed by the Clerk of Court as the plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint.

Date: October 27, 2011 

Case 1:11-cv-02251-CMA-MJW Document 15 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-63-PB

Scott Ledoux

 O R D E R

The defendant has moved, through counsel, to continue the

trial scheduled for August 18, 2009, citing newly appointed

counsel and the need for additional time to complete discovery

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 August 18, 2009 to November 3, 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 reason, 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-00063-PB Document 45 Filed 08/17/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on October

20, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 14, 2009

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Michael Zaino, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00063-PB Document 45 Filed 08/17/09 Page 2 of 2
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: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending January 30, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward G.Caminos, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to andsolely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledgeand belief, that:

 

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)         The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/  Edward G. Caminos* |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Edward G. Caminos        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  |   |
| August 9, 2010      |   |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-225-PB

Jose Caraballo

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

January 8, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and 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 January 8, 2008 to May 6, 2008. 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.

The December 19, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 23, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00225-PB Document 10 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 17, 2007

cc: Thomas F. McCue, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00225-PB Document 10 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21.1

GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA, INC.
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

GTA
GP, Inc., a Maryland corporation

GTA
LP, Inc., a Maryland corporation

Golf
Trust of America, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership in which GTA GP, Inc. is the sole general partner.

GTATierra
Del Sol, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAPalm
Desert, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAManagement,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAWekiva,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTACypress
Creek, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTABlack
Bear, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAPete
Dye, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAMystic
Creek, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAStonehenge,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAInnisbrook,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company

GTAIB,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company

GTAIB
Operations, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

GTAIB
Management, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

GTAIB
Condominium, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

GTAIB
Golf Resort, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

---
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: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending October 13, 2012FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBROOKLINE BANK                                                                                                          * BranchApplication by Brookline Bank, Brookline, Massachusetts, to establish a full-service branch at 131 Clarendon Street, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant to Section 208.6 of Regulation H.Newspaper: 10/19/2012Federal Register: Not applicable
Exhibit 10.44  


VITAL LIVING, INC.
  5080 North 40th Street

Suite 105

Phoenix, Arizona 85018 


Gentlemen: 


        This
letter shall serve to amend the Stockholders' Agreement ("Agreement"), dated as of August 14, 2003, among Vital Living, Inc., Bradley Edson, Stuart Benson, Donald
Hannah, Stephen Morris, SkyePharma PLC and Fifth Avenue Capital, Inc. (capitalized terms used herein that are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meanings herein as in the Agreement). 


        For
purposes of the Agreement: 



	1.
	The
term "Founders Group" shall mean Benson and Hannah but will exclude Edson; and



	2.
	The
terms "Stockholder" and "Stockholders" shall mean Benson, Hannah, Skye, Fifth Avenue
Capital and Morris but will exclude Edson.



	3.
	Section 1.1(b)(i) shall
be amended and restated as follows: 





"For
so long as the Founders Group shall beneficially own, in the aggregate, at least 65% of the Shares held by them on the date hereof, after the consummation of the Transactions, they shall be
entitled to nominate and have elected three (3) directors acceptable to them in their sole discretion (the "Founders Directors")." 





Dated
as of January 13, 2004 



	

 	
 	

 	
 	

VITAL LIVING, INC.
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  STUART A. BENSON      
 Name: Stuart A. Benson

Title: Chief Executive Officer
	

AGREED:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

SKYEPHARMA PLC	
 	

FIFTH AVENUE CAPITAL, INC.
	

By:	
 	

/s/  DONALD NICHOLSON      
 Name: Donald Nicholson

Title: Finance Director	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  STEPHEN MORRIS      
 Name: Stephen Morris

Title: President
	

/s/  BRADLEY EDSON      
 Bradley Edson	
 	

/s/  STEPHEN MORRIS      
 Stephen Morris
	

/s/  STUART BENSON      
 Stuart Benson	
 	

/s/  DONALD HANNAH      
 Donald Hannah
186 La. 168

#### BREWER et al. v. THOELE.

No. 34114.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1937.

Joseph G. Thoele, in pro. per.

Martin E. ICranz, of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

 The defendant obtained an order for a devolutive appeal from a judgment granting a preliminary injunction against him, after a hearing on a rule to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. The appellant promptly filed an appeal bond for the amount required by the order of appeal. In the order, which was granted on the 30th day of July, 1936, the appeal was made returnable to this court on the 22d day of September, 1936. The record was not filed in this court on the 22d day of September, but, on the 24th day of September, which was within the three days of grace allowed by law for the filing of a transcript of appeal, the appellant filed a motion in the district court for permission to prosecute his suit in forma pauperis, that is, without paying court costs, or giving a bond for costs, as allowed by Act No. 156 of 1912, as amended by Act No. 165 of 1934. The motion was accompanied by the affidavits required by the statute. The judge therefore signed the order, permitting the defendant, appellant, to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellant filed the transcript of appeal in this court on the 25th day of September, which was on the last day of the three days of grace, and which, therefore, was in time to save the right of appeal. But the appellant, availing himself of the permission which he had obtained to proceed in forma pauperis, did not make the deposit for costs, which would otherwise be required. The appellees, therefore, promptly filed a motion to have the case remanded to the civil district court in order that they might traverse the affidavits on which the appellant obtained permission to proceed in forma pauperis. A rule to show cause why the case should not be remanded was granted and served upon the defendant, appellant, nearly two months ago. He has not answered the rule. We assume that he acknowledges the right of the appellees to have the case remanded in order that they may traverse the affidavits on which the appellant was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. In Buckley v. Thibodaux, 181 La. 416, 159 So. 603, it was held that since the act of 1934 has allowed a litigant to file his affidavits at any stage of the litigation, to be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, and since the act of 1912 even yet allows an opposing party to the suit to traverse the affidavits, the opposing party may demand that the case be remanded for that purpose when the affidavits are filed so late that there is no opportunity to traverse them before the case reaches the appellate court.

It is ordered that this case be remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division B, in order that the appellees may traverse the affidavits on which the appellant was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.