alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Doe, on the Demise of Brown and Others, *v.*Owen.

If, in ejectment, there be a verdict and judgment for the defendant, the judgment for costs must be entered against the nominal plaintiff, and not against the lessor.

But a judgment in such case, against the lessor, being defective only in form, may be amended on motion in the Court below. Even after the cause is removed by *453writ of error, the proceedings in the Supreme Court will be stayed, on motion, till the amendment can be made; and, after the amendment, a new transcript may be obtained, on suggestion of diminution, and the judgment affirmed.

ERROR to the *Posey*Circuit Court.

*Crawford*and Hall, for the plaintiff.

*Judah*and *Baitell,*for the defendant.

Tuesday, *November*8.

Stevens, J.

This was an action of trespass and ejectment, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, to recover the possession of certain lands set forth and described in the declaration. The parties entered into the common consent rule, and an issue was joined on the plea of not guilty. A jury trial was had, and a correct and regular verdict found in favour of the defendant; on which the Court rendered judgment in favour of the defendant, that he should recover of the lessors of the plaintiff his costs, &c. To reverse this verdict and judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.

Several errors are relied on by the plaintiff, but we think none are well taken except the last one, which is, that the judgment should have been against the nominal plaintiff, and not against the lessors of the plaintiff. This error is well taken; the judgment should have been against the nominal plaintiff and not against the lessors (1). This being mere matter of form, the defendant might have had it amended, on motion, in the Court below, even after the transcript was transmitted to this Court. And the amendment being in the form of the judgment only, this Court would have stayed the proceedings, on motion, until the amendment could have been made in- the Court below; a diminution could then have been alleged, and a transcript of the amended record brought up on certiorari, and a reversal of the judgment have thus been prevented (2). The defendant has not thought proper to take that course, and we must act upon the record as it stands.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment, as to the lessors, is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 The law is now otherwise. By a late statute, the defendant in ejectment, if the judgment be in his favour, may take ajudgmenl for costs against the lessor of the plaintiff. Stat. 1833, p. 113. Vide note to *Eaton*v. Benefield, ante, p. 54.

(2)

 Vide note to *Songer,*adm'r. v. *Walker et al.*Vol. 1, of these Rep. 251.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barbara VanSciver,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00386-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/12/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 19, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 866 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

THE MISSION:

Space shuttle Endeavour’s six-member crew will deliver the Alpha Magnetic 

Spectrometer-2 (AMS) and the Express Logistics Carrier-3 (ELC-3) with spare parts 

to the International Space Station on the STS-134 mission. The AMS experiment 

is a state-of-the-art particle physics detector that will help advance knowledge 

of the universe and its origins.

During the 14-day flight, mission specialists will make four spacewalks to upgrade 

and equip parts of the space station’s exterior. The AMS will be attached to the 

station’s S3 truss segment. The ELC-3, containing two S-band communications 

antennas, a high-pressure gas tank, spare parts for the two-armed robot named 

Dextre and micrometeoroid debris shields, will be attached to the P3 truss segment. 

STS-134 is Endeavour’s 25th and last scheduled flight, the 134th shuttle mission 

and the 36th flight to the space station.

THE CREW:

Commander Mark Kelly will lead the 

STS-134 crew on his fourth spaceflight. 

Greg H. Johnson will serve as pilot on his 

second spaceflight. Mission specialists 

are Michael Fincke, Greg Chamitoff, 

Andrew Feustel, and European Space 

Agency astronaut Roberto Vittori.

www.nasa.gov SP-2011-03-051-KSC
**EXHIBIT
      23**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
      333-07589, No. 333-31105, No. 333-83235, and No. 333-126876 each on Form S-8,
      of
      our report dated February 29, 2008 on our audits of the consolidated financial
      statements of Heritage Oaks Bancorp and Subsidiaries and the effectiveness
      of
      internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on
      Form 10-K.








/s/
      Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP





Rancho
      Cucamonga, California


February
      29, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43114) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan
and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of ViroLogic, Inc. of our report dated
February 9, 2001, with respect to the financial statements of ViroLogic, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.




                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Palo Alto, California
March 21, 2001
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Advanced Air Vehicles Program Gallery","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GQsO4E22FI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/advanced-air-vehicles-program\/\">Advanced Air Vehicles Program Gallery<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/advanced-air-vehicles-program\/embed\/#?secret=GQsO4E22FI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Advanced Air Vehicles Program Gallery” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GQsO4E22FI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/ttbw1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":281}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

H. PEREZ; M. MIMS, Sheriff of Fresno

County at Fresno County Jail; SHARP,

Officer,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 15905

D.C. No. 1:19

- cv

- 01447

- DAD

- BAK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023 * *

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael Hernandez Gonzalez appeals pro se from

the district court’s jud gment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and failure to protect while

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 15905

Gonzalez was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291.

We review for abuse of discretion, Pa gtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gonzalez’s

action because, despite multiple, explicit warnings, Gonzalez failed to comply with

orders instructing him to ce ase filing duplicative and baseless motions. See id. at

642

- 43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963

F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) ( although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district

court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction”

that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

All pending motions and r equests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23


<PAGE>


                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 related to the Bedford bancshares,  Inc. 1994 Stock Option
Plan  of our  report  dated  October  27,  2000,  relating  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  of Bedford  Bancshares,  Inc.  appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2000.

                                        /s/BDO Seidman, LLP
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        BDO Seidman, LLP


Richmond, Virginia
December 14, 2000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Virginia Plott,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03572-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 18, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8350 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Hillary Smith","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/hsmith10\/","title":"Cooperative Autonomous Distributed Robotic Explorers (CADRE)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"EhFUKDwpsc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/cooperative-autonomous-distributed-robotic-explorers-cadre\/\">Cooperative Autonomous Distributed Robotic Explorers (CADRE)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/cooperative-autonomous-distributed-robotic-explorers-cadre\/embed\/#?secret=EhFUKDwpsc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Cooperative Autonomous Distributed Robotic Explorers (CADRE)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"EhFUKDwpsc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/cadre_side_image.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
No. 87-6494.

#### Tyler *v.*Peart et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 06

- 165 V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

LAIRD R. JONES and *

SVITLANA V. BUDZHAK

- JONES, *

legal representatives of a *

minor child, W.O.J., *

*

Petitioner s

, *

* Filed: November 24 , 2014

v. *

* Decision on Attorney’s

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 1 I is sued a

decision on August 20 , 2014

. On November 21 , 2014 , the parties filed a joint stipulation of fact

concerning attorney’s fees and costs in this matt er. The parties’ stipulation reques ts a total

payment of $35,087.51 , representing atto rney’s fees and costs for work performed by the law

firm of Robert J. Krakow

.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis

for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

300aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems r easonable and appropriate.

Accordingly, I h er eby award the to tal $35,087.51 as a lump sum in the form of a check

payable jointly to p etitioner s and petitio ners’ counsel, Robert J. Krakow

.

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may exped ite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the

right to seek review.
#### W. H. Long et al *v.*Commonwealth for use of McGoodwin et al.

Sureties on Bond — Liability for Default of Sheriff — Estate.

Where a settlement is made by a sheriff with the court commissioner, 'showing a balance due, in a suit against his sureties, and the administrator of his estate, they are held jointly liable.

APPEAL FROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 22, 1868.

*Marble, James, for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin

As it does not appear that any other claims existed against the county of Lyon than those of the appellees, for the erection of public buildings, it seems to us that the order of the county court made at its October term, 1863, was sufficiently specific and certain to require the sheriff to pay on the claims in controversy, the funds remaining in his hands collected as county levy for the years 1862 and 1863. Llis settlements with the commissioner of the court showed that a balance of the levy for 1862 remained in his hands of $620.22 and that a balance of $1,212.03 remained in his hands of the levy of 1863, and although the sureties in the bond executed on the 27th of April, 1863, were not liable for said balance of $620.22 the estate of Young, the sheriff, was, and the bond embraced the levy for 1863. From these views it results that the court properly adjudged that the plaintiff recover against the estate of Young alone the balance of funds remaining of the levy for 1862, and for the residue of the claims rendered judgment against the sureties as well as the administrators of Young.

"Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Lee Harris Sr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04108-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8999 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

William D. Floyd, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03547-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8824 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2508 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2508

     To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake 
                              Nighthorse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2004

 Mr. Domenici introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake 
                              Nighthorse.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF RESERVOIR.

    The reservoir known as the ``Ridges Basin Reservoir'' located on 
the Animas River in Colorado, constructed under section 6(a) of the 
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 
2975; 114 Stat. 2763A-260), shall be known and designated as ``Lake 
Nighthorse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the reservoir referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to Lake Nighthorse.
                                 <all>
```