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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2104 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 574
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2104

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2004

 Mr. Schumer  (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BARBER CONABLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Barber Conable Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Barber 
Conable Post Office Building.

                                                       Calendar No. 574

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2104

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2267 

To amend section 29(k) of the Small Business Act to establish funding 

priorities for women’s business centers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 31, 2004 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself Mr. DOMENICI, and Mr. CHAFFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend section 29(k) of the Small Business Act to 

establish funding priorities for women’s business centers. 

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 ‘‘Women’s Sustain5 ability Recovery Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WOMEN’S BUSINESS CENTERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 29(k) of the Small Busi8 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the 

10 following: 
2 

•S 2267 IS 

1 ‘‘(C) FUNDING PRIORITY.—Subject to 

2 available funds, and reservation of funds, the 

3 Administration shall, for fiscal year 2004, allo4 cate— 

5 ‘‘(i) $150,000 for each eligible wom6 en’s business center established under sub7 section (b), except for centers that request 

8 a lesser amount; 

9 ‘‘(ii) from the funds reserved under 

10 subsection (k)(4)(A), not more than 

11 $125,000, in equal amounts, to each eligi12 ble women’s business center established 

13 under subsection (l), except for centers 

14 that request a lesser amount; and 

15 ‘‘(iii) any funds remaining after allo16 cations are made under clauses (i) and (ii) 

17 to new eligible women’s business centers 

18 and eligible women’s business centers that 

19 did not receive funding in the prior fiscal 

20 year under subsection (b).’’; and 

21 (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by adding at the end 

22 the following: 

23 ‘‘(v) For fiscal year 2004, 48 per24 cent.’’. 
3 

•S 2267 IS 

1 (b) SUNSET DATE.—The amendments made by sub2 section (a) are repealed on October 1, 2004. 

Æ
#### TOMS RIVER MOBILE HOME PARK, INC. v. THE MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF DOVER.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

TROY LEE HACKETT, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JIM FARRIS, Warden, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-5131

(D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00322-GKF-TLW)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 12, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-5131 Document: 01019384969 Date Filed: 02/12/2015 Page: 1
#### Swails *v.*The State.-In error.

*Wednesday, January*1, 1845.

EVIDENCE that the defendant had beaten *Catharine*Swails, will not support an indictment for an assault and battery on *Ratharine Swails.*
MISSION EXPLORERS: DESIGN A SPACECRAFT

Design a spacecraft prototype that will complete your mission

objective!

Target Destination

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Mission Description

Spacecraft Type

Satellite

Orbiter

Scientific

Balloon

Lander Rover Drone

Submarine

Probe

Power Source

Solar

Panels

Nuclear

Generator

Batteries

Scientific Instruments

Camera Spectrograph

Sample

Collector

Magnetometer Other

Communications

Other

High Gain

Antenna

Low Gain

Antenna

Physical

Return

Orbiter

Relay

Other
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Spacecraft Name

Spacecraft Concept/Sketch

MISSION EXPLORERS: DESIGN A SPACECRAFT

Spacecraft Mission Description
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68620-68621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Century 
Homebuilders, LLC, No. 1:09-CV-22258, was lodged with the U.S. District 
Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 1, 2010.
    The proposed Consent Decree concerns a First Amended Complaint 
filed by the United States of America against Century Homebuilders, 
LLC, formerly known as Century Builders Group, LLC; Century Partners 
Group, Ltd.; Century Homebuilders of South Florida, LLC; and Cesar E. 
Llano to obtain injunctive relief and civil penalties against the 
defendants for violating Department of the Army Permit Number 200106379 
(IP-KBH) and section 301(a) of the Clean Water

[[Page 68621]]

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The proposed Consent Decree resolves these 
allegations by requiring the defendants to enhance wetlands, to 
purchase mitigation credits, and to pay a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Andrew J. Doyle, 
Trial Attorney, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, 
Washington, DC 20026-3986, and refer to United States v. Century 
Homebuilders, LLC, DJ <greek-i> 90-5-1-1-18402.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
U.S. District Court, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128, or 
electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Maureen M. Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environment & Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-28067 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>  
This   Schedule  contains   summary   financial  information    extracted   from
the consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  operations
and is  qualified  in  its  entirety by reference to  such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000892291
<NAME> Wellsford Residential Property Trust
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         17,791,920
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  625,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,852,441
<PP&E>                                         773,470,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                 77,391,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 739,823,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,373,586
<BONDS>                                        332,746,154
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    62,998
<COMMON>                                       170,999
<OTHER-SE>                                     381,469,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   739,823,145
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               97,152,362
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,999,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               19,682,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16,908,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                16,968,977
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            16,968,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   16,968,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.44
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS FRANCIS HALE, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4150

(D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00871-DN-1)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate and Remand 

for Resentencing Pursuant to Agreement (the “Motion”). The Motion is granted as 

provided below.

This matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the 

appellant’s sentence and for resentencing in accordance with the parties’ Motion.

The appellant’s Motion to Strike Motion for Release Pending Appeal is granted.

This appeal is dismissed. A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of 

this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 14, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4150 Document: 01019415244 Date Filed: 04/14/2015 Page: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income  Fund XIII,  Ltd. at June 30,  1999,  and its  statement  of
income  for the six  months  then  ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference  to the Form 10-Q of CNL  Income  Fund XIII,  Ltd.  for the six months
ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         682,240
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  80,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,734
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         24,692,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,299,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,693,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,064,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,693,708
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,709,825
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  462,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,014,786
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,014,786
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,014,786
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature of its  industry,  CNL Income  Fund  XIII,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                       EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
                       THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND THE ACCOMPANYING
                       NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS
                       QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINACIAL
                       STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000893162
<NAME>                        q#ygjp9a
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          56,694
<SECURITIES>                                    86,225
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,976
<INVENTORY>                                     32,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,222
<PP&E>                                          92,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,175
<BONDS>                                        105,960
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,190
<SALES>                                         64,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,590
<CGS>                                           34,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,483
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,885)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,158
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,727)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)



</TABLE>
#### Thomas P. Jedlicka, Appellant, v Gary Field, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 888]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered February 11, 2004, which, upon the *597granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff in this action to recover damages for legal malpractice bore the burden of establishing that a hypothetical judgment in the underlying action would have been collectible against the third-party debtor *(see McKenna v Forsyth & Forsyth,*280 AD2d 79, 82-84 [2001]; *see also Vooth v McEachen,*181 NY 28 [1905]; *Evangelista v Slatt,*295 AD2d 156 [2002]; *Chiaffi v Wexler, Bergerman & Crucet,*116 AD2d 614, 615 [1986]; *Titsworth v Mondo,*95 Misc 2d 233, 242-243 [1978]; *Leavy v Kramer,*34 Misc 2d 479, 480 [1962]; *Schweizer v Mulvehill,*93 F Supp 2d 376, 396 [2000] [applying New York law]; *but see Lindenman v Kreitzer,*7 AD3d 30 [2004]). His failure to establish a prima facie case on the issue of collectibility, even after the Supreme Court granted him leave to reopen his case to do so, warranted the granting of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
S. 2043

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan

Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 228 Walnut

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated

as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Federal Building’’. (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the building

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the Ronald Reagan Federal Building.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

ERIC WALKER; SHANNON WALKER,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

BUILDDIRECT.COM 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-6261

(W.D. Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00800-D)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before, HARTZ, MCKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 The essentials of this case have previously been set forth in our request to the 

Supreme Court of Oklahoma to accept a certified question of Oklahoma law, see Walker 

v. BuildDirect.com Technologies, Inc., 733 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2013), and the opinion 

of that court answering the certified question, see Walker v. BuildDirect.com 

 

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 12-6261 Document: 01019437446 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Technologies, Inc., No. 112075, 2015 WL 2074964 (Okla. May 5, 2015). Therefore, our 

discussion can be brief. 

 The Walkers sued BuildDirect in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma on several causes of action seeking damages for the alleged 

delivery of flooring infested with wood-boring insects. BuildDirect moved to compel 

arbitration, invoking the arbitration provision in a document available on its website. The 

district court denied the motion to compel, and BuildDirect appealed to this court. 

Uncertain whether under Oklahoma law the Walkers were bound by the provisions of the 

website document, we certified the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. That court 

has now informed us that the Walkers were not bound by the provisions. If the Walkers 

are not bound, then BuildDirect cannot compel arbitration and the district court’s order 

denying the motion to compel must be affirmed. 

 Upon receipt of the Oklahoma decision we requested responses from the parties 

regarding how we should proceed. BuildDirect argues that the decision does not resolve 

this appeal, because its contract with the Walkers is governed by the Oklahoma Uniform 

Commercial Code and the decision did not address the application of the UCC to the 

contract. This argument comes too late. BuildDirect’s precertification briefs to this court 

made no reference to the UCC. Any argument based on that statute is therefore waived. 

The decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court resolves this appeal. 

Appellate Case: 12-6261 Document: 01019437446 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 2 
3 

 We AFFIRM the district court’s decision denying BuildDirect’s motion to compel 

arbitration. 

 ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 12-6261 Document: 01019437446 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 3