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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2866 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2866

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to clarify 
the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit 
  Corporation to enter into memorandums of understanding with a State 
  regarding the collection of approved State commodity assessments on 
  behalf of the State from the proceeds of marketing assistance loans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commodity Assessment, Protection, 
and Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF COMMODITY ASSESSMENTS.

    Subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``SEC. 1210. COLLECTION OF COMMODITY ASSESSMENTS.

    ``(a) Definition of Assessment.--In this section, the term 
`assessment' means funds that are--
            ``(1) collected with respect to a specific commodity in 
        accordance with this Act;
            ``(2) paid by the first purchaser of the commodity in 
        accordance with a State law or this title; and
            ``(3) not collected through a tax or other revenue 
        collection activity of a State.
    ``(b) Authority to Collect Commodity Assessments From Marketing 
Assistance Loans.--The Secretary may collect commodity assessments from 
the proceeds of a marketing assistance loan made under this subtitle in 
accordance with an agreement between the Secretary and the State.''.

            Passed the Senate November 21 (legislative day, November 
      20), 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2866

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to clarify 
the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Credit 
  Corporation to enter into memorandums of understanding with a State 
  regarding the collection of approved State commodity assessments on 
  behalf of the State from the proceeds of marketing assistance loans.
```
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Kathy Tracy, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-01851-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Petitioner Saul Armando Palomino-Cruz’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 16.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition. (Doc. 16 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could 

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner did 

not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 

636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 

an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any 

part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court 

has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept 

Case 2:15-cv-01851-DLR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court 

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 

made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, 

or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to 

the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R, (Doc. 16), is ACCEPTED. 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED and DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this 

case. 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01851-DLR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2
#### IN THE MATTER OF RULES ADOPTION REGARDING INMATE MAIL TO ATTORNEYS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND NEWS MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification granted. (See 232 *N.J.Super.*478)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     ( THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES BALANCE SHEET ON JULY 31, 1997, AND
THE STATEMENT OF EARNINGS ENDING JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS)
</LEGEND>
       
<CAPTION>

<CIK>                                        0000922358
<NAME>                        FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>      <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         14,788
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  63,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,234
<INVENTORY>                                    43,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,641
<PP&E>                                         614,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                 209,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 657,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,530
<BONDS>                                        487,334
<COMMON>                                       103,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (58,417)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   657,076
<SALES>                                        759,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               804,298
<CGS>                                          470,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  719,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             45,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                23,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            23,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   23,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.74

<FN>

1.  The Ferrellgas Partners L.P. ("MLP"), both the Common and Subordinated
units are considered to possess the characteristics of Common Stock.  Note that
both are included in the determination of the EPS providing support for such a
classificaiton.

</FN>
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"X-59 All Lit Up","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6Ma36r2jDp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/x-59-photo-shoot\/\">X-59 All Lit Up<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/x-59-photo-shoot\/embed\/#?secret=6Ma36r2jDp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“X-59 All Lit Up” — NASA\" data-secret=\"6Ma36r2jDp\" 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\/2024\/01\/p23-168-087.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
- 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

SCHUTT LAW FIRM, P.L.C.

Kenneth W. Schutt, Jr. /007497

9375 E. Shea Blvd., Ste. 100

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

(480) 225-7777

(480) 779-1345 (Facsimile)

kenschutt@cox.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Parties stipulate and agree to stay these proceedings for 75 days to 

permit the parties to pursue private mediation without incurring additional attorneys’ fees 

in connection with processing the litigation aspects of the case. The Parties thus 

respectfully request that the Court stay these proceedings for 75 days, vacating the 

Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for January 13, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., extend 

the deadline for the Parties to file a Proposed Case Management Plan and/or Proposed 

Scheduling Order until 10 days before the new date for the Scheduling Conference, and 

extend the deadline for serving initial disclosure statements until the new date for the 

Scheduling Conference.

ROBERT E. WAINWRIGHT, individually,

 Plaintiff,

vs. 

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a Pennsylvania corporation; ABC 

CORPORATIONS I-X; XYZ PARTNERSHIPS 

I-X; JOHN DOES I-X; and JANE DOES I-X, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01944-PHX-ROS

 

 STIPULATION TO STAY 

 PROCEEDINGS

Case 2:15-cv-01944-ROS Document 13 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 16th day of January 2016. 

 SCHUTT LAW FIRM, P.L.C.

By /s/ Kenneth W. Schutt, Jr.

 Kenneth W. Schutt, Jr.

9375 E. Shea Blvd., Suite 100

Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 

& SMITH, LLLP

By /s/ Gregory L. Biehler

Gregory L. Biehler

Dane A. Dodd

Phoenix Plaza Tower II

2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700

Phoenix AZ 85012

Attorneys for Defendant Ace Insurance 

Company

Case 2:15-cv-01944-ROS Document 13 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 2
#### The Commonwealth *v.*Jonathan Jacobs et al.

Criminal Law — Disturbing Religious Worship — Sufficiency of Indictment.

An indictment for disturbing religious worship, without stating how, is not sufficiently specific to notify the accused of the character of the proof he will have to repel, or so to identify the offense as to make the judgment a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

APPEAL FROM ROBERTSON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

An indictment for disturbing religious worship without stating *how*is not sufficiently specific to notify the accused of the character of the proof he will have to repel, or so to identify the offense as to make a judgment a bar to another prosecution for the same act of disturbance; and some specifications of the facts constituting the misdemeanor is necessary to enable the court, on demurrer, to decide whether, the facts being admitted, the law has been violated. Unlike “keeping a tippling house,” “disturbing religious worship” has no inherent or defined import.

Wherefore the indictment charging only a deduction from unstated facts is insufficient and the demurrer to it was properly sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4783 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4783

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel GRIEFSWALD.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 1998

  Mr. Ortiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel GRIEFSWALD.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), 
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 
12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel GRIEFSWALD 
(Liberian registration number 90212).
                                 <all>
```
| (3)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |                                                                                |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: November      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Paul      Campbell                                                         |   |
|                               |   | Paul      Campbell                                                                  |   |
|                               |   | Interim      Chief Financial      Officer        |   |
|                               |   |                                                                                |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IOS CAPITAL, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,335,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                            2,478,377,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     128,515,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                              58,439,000<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,589,431,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                  1,865,798,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                 392,430,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,589,431,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           298,970,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            67,226,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         114,961,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            143,237,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                54,910,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         88,327,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                88,327,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F4>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDE NET INVESTMENTS IN LEASES OF $2,401,572,000 AND OTHER ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE.
<F2>INCLUDES LEASED EQUIPMENT OF COST - $110,735,790; ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION -
$51,055,000.
<F3>COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, 1,000 SHARES OUTSTANDING. SINCE TOTAL IS LESS
THAN $1,000, ZERO IS REPORTED.
<F4>NOT REQUIRED AS THE REGISTRANT IS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Robin Mitnick, M.D., Appellant, v Jesse Rosenthal, M.D., Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 12]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered September 26, 2003, which, in postjudgment divorce proceedings, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff mother’s motion to compel defendant father to pay their son’s college expenses, and granted the father’s cross motion to compel the mother to psLy such expenses out of the son’s custodial accounts, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly exercised its discretion in directing that the child’s custodial accounts, which were originally funded by a close friend of the father with the mother as custodian, be used by the mother to pay the son’s college expenses and exhausted before the parties pay such expenses themselves (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; *see Otero v Otero,*222 *441AD2d 328, 329 [1995]; *Turecki v Turecki,*211 AD2d 450 [1995], *lv dismissed*85 NY2d 967 [1995]). Like the IAS court, we reject the mother’s argument that the divorce judgment addressed the issue of future college expenses in the provision pertaining to the parties’ respective obligations for the payment of “tuition and other related school expenses billed and charged by the private or religious schools that the children attend” *(cf. Gallet v Wasserman,*280 AD2d 296, 298 [2001]; *Zion v Zion,*201 AD2d 404 [1994]). The IAS court also properly found that the parties had, during the marriage, “discussed, planned and assumed” that the custodial accounts would be used to pay the son’s college expenses, based on the mother’s failure to explicitly deny the father’s allegations to that effect. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32





SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies
in his capacity as an officer ofMutualFirstFinancial, Inc.
(the “Registrant”) that the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such period.





Date:  March 29,
      2010
            By:
            /s/  David W.
      HeeterDavid W.
    HeeterPresident and Chief Executive
      OfficerDate:  March 29,
      2010
            By:
            /s/  Timothy J.
      McArdleTimothy J.
      McArdleTreasurer and Chief Financial
      Officer