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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 725 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent joinder. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. BUCK (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 

FARENTHOLD, and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent 

joinder. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Innocent Party Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT JOINDER. 

7 Section 1447 of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(f) FRAUDULENT JOINDER.— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 725 IH

1 ‘‘(1) This subsection shall apply to any case in 

2 which— 

3 ‘‘(A) a civil action is removed solely on the 

4 basis of the jurisdiction conferred by section 

5 1332(a); 

6 ‘‘(B) a motion to remand is made on the 

7 ground that— 

8 ‘‘(i) one or more defendants are citi9 zens of the same State as one or more 

10 plaintiffs; or 

11 ‘‘(ii) one or more defendants properly 

12 joined and served are citizens of the State 

13 in which the action was brought; and 

14 ‘‘(C) the motion is opposed on the ground 

15 that the joinder of the defendant or defendants 

16 described in subparagraph (B) is fraudulent. 

17 ‘‘(2) The joinder of a defendant described in 

18 paragraph (1)(B) is fraudulent if the court finds 

19 that— 

20 ‘‘(A) there is actual fraud in the pleading 

21 of jurisdictional facts with respect to that de22 fendant; 

23 ‘‘(B) based on the complaint and the mate24 rials submitted under paragraph (3), it is not 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 725 IH

1 plausible to conclude that applicable State law 

2 would impose liability on that defendant; 

3 ‘‘(C) State or Federal law clearly bars all 

4 claims in the complaint against that defendant; 

5 or 

6 ‘‘(D) objective evidence clearly dem7 onstrates that there is no good faith intention 

8 to prosecute the action against that defendant 

9 or to seek a joint judgment including that de10 fendant. 

11 ‘‘(3) In determining whether to grant or deny 

12 a motion under paragraph (1)(B), the court may 

13 permit the pleadings to be amended, and shall con14 sider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence 

15 submitted by the parties. 

16 ‘‘(4) If the court finds that all defendants de17 scribed in paragraph (1)(B) have been fraudulently 

18 joined under paragraph (2), it shall dismiss without 

19 prejudice the claims against those defendants and 

20 shall deny the motion described in paragraph 

21 (1)(B).’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       11575 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               283519 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            295093 
<PP&E>                                     5461523 
<DEPRECIATION>                             1593604 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             4172151 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       381996 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     68272 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 525000 
<OTHER-SE>                                 2509382 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               4172151 
<SALES>                                     145150 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            193744 
<CGS>                                       108439 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               470137 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           25730 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (276393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (276393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (276393)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.04)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11 - Computation of Earnings per Common Share

HMN Financial, Inc.
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
(Unaudited)



                                  Three months ended        Six Months ended
                                    June 30,                   June 30,
                               1999          1998        1999           1998
                              ---------------------     ----------------------
Weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding
 used in basic earnings per
 common share calculation     4,442,471   5,051,205     4,465,679    5,248,262

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options                        167,858     379,759       177,041      391,398
 Restricted stock awards         20,019      54,197        23,267       57,773
                              ---------   ---------     ---------    ---------
Weighted average number of
 shares outstanding adjusted
 for effect of dilutive
 securities                   4,630,348   5,485,161     4,665,987    5,697,433
                              =========   =========     =========    =========

Income available to common
 shareholders               $ 1,716,347     784,030     3,318,347    2,447,385

Basic earnings per
 common share               $      0.39        0.16          0.74         0.47

Diluted earnings per
 common share               $      0.37        0.14          0.71         0.43

The earnings per share calculations reflected above are presented as if the
split had been completed at the beginning of each period presented for the
weighted average number of shares outstanding for each period.
### GENERAL TEE ATTORNEY

OF TEXAS AuaTur 11.

TEXAS

Jlonorable Carlor Atiloy, Chaimaa yo~Baar&r ContPol * Dear Rr. Ashloyr 

### opinlaa No. o-7417 kg Earth8 

### atat Baud 

### 0r cone01 **~VO**



### T t **to** (liV0 the atato of Texar azldui u.awon 

## county aa 

## o-t y;eabtate laad for the pm-pore of

23 eonrtrueted a farm-to

### market ?



### Chalxmenof the013 8eptembrr21, 19M, the lawnted Judgelbaver H. Balcm, #ate 

### Boardof Control,in perhapshir lad ofilalal act, mquerted an opinion from thb departmenton the abovo matter. It Beema a very mtr~aolnoldenae that on the follows momlngho wt hi8 tragic death on the publla hshway at alms& thmldentiml place where the land inquired about ir loaated.

In the purSn6 ot JuUeeBaker the Stat0 lort a moatoonl oimtlour and valuable servant. Ye rlacerely trwt that you, aa the 

### ~~ooeemorto his plme, will 

### bo able to and ua feel aorta&a Lou till manure up 

### to the hl@ rtandard of servhe whiohhe reMwe&

In Ju e Baker’8 lettw k stated that the 2tak oi Texa8 

### own0

appralmat.4 

### 7 acrw of lud adJao*nt to the lhmet-Au&in SUghway *hi~l~a001011~J~~touthekk~ir7urdBob~: thatan unimprovedpub110mad borders thr, bow -7 le2oi?& rtion of the 6tate land leadine fPomuid Burn&-Awtln H cc k; 

### thatthe com- ~irrlonerr~ Court of Yllllmuon Oountyud ho 6tate W CarPlir8loa are desl.rou8 of aowtruotlng an laproved hrm-to-market road 6enerallp along the looatlon of th now-exlrtl.ag uniapmved mad, uhlak till require the we of more land than 

### la now alng wed ror hlghlay prupollom.

Under the abovo raatr, VW oplalon ua8 mquedod a8 to uhether the 8tate Board of Contml8an exoauk an la8ement oa a portion of the atato’a land, ior the urpoao of 

### eartruot A6 you knou no one aan 

### m8.L 

# 4 uld iur-to-merket road a blading oontmot been authorized by 

### the fsgislature er 

### the Itate unlemr ho ha1 to uooute 

### the aoatraot. Them 18 noth: ln the 

## rtatute whloh @ithaP exprordy or by lRpUwtion l UthoX@iuB

or penaltr the 8tat8 Board of Cod841 to exoeuk an oarwnt to w one on any of the 8tate~8 land tar the purpose of havlag con&mated thereon a farm-to-market- roa4. In the abeenoe of suoh a 

### l tatuto, w m-ion from the Legislature It la our o&Ion that the Itato Board of ‘ontrol **doer not**  **have any**  

# l

dhorlty to **ueeute** the easementto the **St8t.a of**  **Tuu or**  to K&yhoGty 

### ror the purpose of having oomtrwt.4 thenon a fanu-tolthe matter mhouldk cad to 

### ltrattention, 10 that if the Vbrtunately tboLeslalaturetill6ooakiamuiae~~ T aerlrer to wafer that authority upaa tin Itate Hoara of co&r0 , 

### oMot8ppmplato1e#i8latioa. it may

~exooutloaof8n 

### euemeat overbad ir oi a-, the aonveyanaeof aa intereat la bad, aadthe 8ktoBonH ~~Coatroldoer aot have any authority ta e&way ta say me the 

### laterertofthe Itat. inlead uaeptwhwe 

### l

utbrltythnforham booa8raatadWtho Lylrlatum.



## Approveacplaion caamlttee E&8/ mmchalman
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 

August 26, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 26, 2016

154046(45)

MAYFIELD TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154046

v COA: 323774

Lapeer CC: 2012-045398-CZ

DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before September 6, 2016.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11421 Conference Calendar

CORY WINTER RICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RONALD DREWRY, Head Warden; CRAIG RAINES, Assistant Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-273-BA

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The appeal of Cory Winter Richard, Texas prisoner #710543, from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Richard’s notice of appeal is untimely; therefore, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is mandated. See Robbins v. Maggio , 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) and (c).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Shawn HILLS.

No. 2011-K-1120.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Hills, Shawn; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, *941Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 24750; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1521.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25329]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Notice of Adjustment of Disaster Grant Amounts

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount for 
Small Project Grants to State and local governments and private 
nonprofit facilities for disasters declared on or after October 1, 
2010.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010, and applies to major disasters 
declared on or after October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-3834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, 
prescribes that FEMA must annually adjust the maximum grant amount made 
under section 422, Small Project Grants, Simplified Procedure, relating 
to the Public Assistance program, to reflect changes in the Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of 
Labor.
    FEMA gives notice of an increase of the maximum amount of any Small 
Project Grant made to the State, local government, or to the owner or 
operator of an eligible private nonprofit facility, under section 422 
of the Stafford Act, to $63,900 for all disasters declared on or after 
October 1, 2010.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price 
Index for All Urban Consumers of 1.1 percent for the 12-month period 
ended in August 2010. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. 
Department of Labor released the information on September 17, 2010.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-25329 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Rappsodi R. ALI, Appellant, v. Sgt. Leslie A. LYONS, et al., Appellee.

No. 1D10-1225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 2010.

Rappsodi R. Ali, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Hiñóte v. Ford Motor Co.,*958 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
#### Pedro ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 27, 2011.

Julio Gutierrez, Hialeah, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, CORTIÑAS, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Hernandez v. State,*61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3591

_____________________________

MICHAEL A. HAYES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John T. Brown, Judge.

May 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized 

motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

Michael A. Hayes, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24552]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DOD-2010-OS-0120]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 23, 2010 (75 FR 55907), DoD published a notice 
that cited an incorrect Air Force system name. This notice corrects 
that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the notice published on September 23, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-
23791, on page 57907, in the first column, under the heading 
``Corrections'', in lines 13 and 14, remove the system name 
``Applications for Appointment and Extended Active Duty Files'' and add 
in its place ``Military Personnel Records System''.

    Dated: September 27, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-24552 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### COLONIAL FINANCE, LLC v. COLONIAL GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC.

No. 2011-CC-2399.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Colonial Golf & Country Club, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 686-934; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-CA-5.

Denied.
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of NSTAR



|                                 |  |                      
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                                 |  | State ofIncorporation
|BEC Energy                       |  | Massachusetts        
|Commonwealth Energy System       |  | Massachusetts        
|Boston Edison Company            |  | Massachusetts        
|Commonwealth Electric Company    |  | Massachusetts        
|Cambridge Electric Light Company |  | Massachusetts        
|Canal Electric Company           |  | Massachusetts        
|NSTAR Gas Company                |  | Massachusetts        
|NSTAR Steam Corporation          |  | Massachusetts        
|Hopkinton LNG Corp.              |  | Massachusetts        
|Advanced Energy Systems, Inc.    |  | Massachusetts        
|Harbor Electric Energy Company   |  | Massachusetts        
|BEC Funding LLC                  |  | Delaware             
|BEC Funding II, LLC              |  | Delaware             
|CEC Funding, LLC                 |  | Delaware             
|NSTAR Communications, Inc.       |  | Massachusetts        
|MATEP, LLC                       |  | Delaware             
|NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation |  | Massachusetts
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40641 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO C. LOPEZ, a/k/a Francisco Lopez-Casanova, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-93-CR-152-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Lopez, federal prisoner # 63537-079, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to vacate his conviction. The district court denied that motion and Lopez now seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To succeed, Lopezmust show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).No. 96-40641 -2-

Lopez argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional and because he was not on federal property or territory at the time he committed the crime. This court has determined that § 841 is a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power and that a conviction under this section does not require proof of specific nexus with interstate commerce. United States v. Owens , 996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th Cir. 1993). Lopez has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**The followingcertification is furnished pursuant to the requirements of the Securities andExchange Commission and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to theliability of that section.  Suchcertification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, exceptto the extent that such certification is specifically incorporated by referenceby the registrant.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MetroOne Telecommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), we, James M. Usdan, Chief Executive Officer and Duane C.Fromhart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

          (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

          (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | May 15, 2006 |   | /s/  James M. Usdan |                         |
|--------|--------------|--------|--------------------------|------------------------------|
|   |         |   |                     | James M. Usdan               |
|   |         |   |                     | Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |         |   |                     |                         |
|   |         |   |                     |                         |
|   |         |   |                     | /s/   Duane C. Fromhart |   |
|   |         |   |                     | Duane C. Fromhart            |
|   |         |   |                     | Senior Vice President,       |
|   |         |   |                     | Chief Financial Officer      |
|        |              |        |                          |                              |  |  |

 

1

----