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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2429 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2429

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the 
 Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands 
       for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2004

 Mr. Durbin (Mr. Daschle (for himself and Mr. Johnson)) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the 
 Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands 
       for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes.

    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 ``Pactola Reservoir Reallocation 
Authorization Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) it is appropriate to reallocate the costs of the 
        Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased 
        demands for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife 
        purposes; and
            (2) section 302 of the Department of Energy Organization 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) prohibits such a reallocation of costs 
        without congressional approval.

SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF COSTS OF PACTOLA DAM AND RESERVOIR, SOUTH 
              DAKOTA.

    The Secretary of the Interior may, as provided in the contract of 
August 2001 entered into between Rapid City, South Dakota, and the 
Rapid Valley Conservancy District, reallocate, in a manner consistent 
with Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
U.S.C. 371 et seq.)), the construction costs of Pactola Dam and 
Reservoir, Rapid Valley Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, South 
Dakota, from irrigation purposes to municipal, industrial, and fish and 
wildlife purposes.
                                 <all>
```
Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice Page 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

 PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

 LAW FIRM

 A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN C. DAVIS, No. 030754

PRESTON K. FLOOD, No. 032764

(602) 288-1610 ext. 432

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nawwar Alo, individually; and Haifaa

Ibrahim, individually, and as husband and

wife,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Anthem Senior Living, LLC, an Arizona

corporation; Cheryl Ables and Samuel Ile,

husband and wife,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:15-CV-02207-JWS

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

The parties, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree to 

dismiss this matter with prejudice with each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ 

fees. 

Dated: January 31, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM PC

By: /s/ Sean C. Davis

Trey Dayes

Sean C. Davis

Preston K. Flood

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-cv-02207-JWS Document 40 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 2
Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice Page 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

AIKEN SCHENK HAWKINS &RICCIARDI

P.C.

By: /s/ Michael J. Petitti, Jr. (with permission) 

Michael J. Pettiti, Jr.

Attorney for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 31st day of January, 2017, I electronically transmitted 

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF Registrant:

Michael J. Petitti, Jr. – Az. Bar No. 011667

Erin A. Hertzog – Az. Bar No. 030770

AIKEN SCHENK HAWKINS &RICCIARDI P.C.

2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 248-8203

Facsimile: (602) 248-8840

E-Mail: mjp@ashrlaw.com

E-Mail: eah@ashrlaw.com

By: /s/Sean C. Davis

Sean C. Davis

Case 2:15-cv-02207-JWS Document 40 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 2023

- 2429

_____________________________

H ENRY J ARED D OSTER ,
Appellant,

v.

H AND A RENDALL H ARRISON S ALE , LLC

,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations

. Angela Primiano, Chairperson

.
September 11, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
Jared Doster, a former associate attorney at Hand Arendall Harrison Sale, LLC (“Firm”)

, was terminated after he had a disagreement with numerous partners. He filed a charge with the Florida Commission on Human Resources, alleging that the Firm unlawfully discriminated against him and unlawfully terminated his employment as an associate attorney based on his religion. FCHR determined the re was no reasonable cause to believe that the Firm engaged in unlawful discrimination against him.

Doster then filed a petition for relief with FCHR, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57,2 Florida Statutes. Following the final hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order, recommending that FCHR dismiss Doster’s petition. Doster timely filed exceptions to certain findings of fact in the ALJ’s order.

FCHR entered its final order, adopting the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law entirely, and dismissing Doster’s petition with prejudice. Importantly, the Commission found Doster’s exceptions to be untimely and therefore did not consider them. This was error.

Appellant’s exceptions were filed with FCHR within the fifteen

- day period prescribed by r ule 28

- 106.217(1) of the Florida Administrative Code . And his exceptions clearly identified the disputed portions of the recommended order by paragraph, identified the legal basis for the exception, and included appropriate and specific citations to the record, in accordance with section 120.57(1)(k) , Florida Statutes, and r ule 28

- 106.217(1). FCHR should have ruled on those exceptions as section 120.57(1)(k) requires a n agency’s final order to include a ruling on each exception. We therefore set aside FCHR’s final order and remand for the purpose of ruling with particularity on each of Doster’s exceptions to the recommended order. See Boundy v. Sch. Bd. of Miami

- Dade Cty. , 994 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

S ET A SIDE and R EMANDED with directions

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and M.K. T HOMAS and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Henry Jared Doster, pro se

, Appellant.

Kelly B. Holbrook of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Tampa

, for Appellee.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Gemini’s First Docking Turns to Wild Ride in Orbit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eR6z2g2qiY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/gemini\/gemini-viii\/geminis-first-docking-turns-to-wild-ride-in-orbit\/\">Gemini’s First Docking Turns to Wild Ride in Orbit<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/gemini\/gemini-viii\/geminis-first-docking-turns-to-wild-ride-in-orbit\/embed\/#?secret=eR6z2g2qiY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Gemini’s First Docking Turns to Wild Ride in Orbit” — NASA\" data-secret=\"eR6z2g2qiY\" 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\/2016\/02\/2-s66-27513a.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":411}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
for the nine months ending September 30, 2000, and such is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<NAME>              GLENOIT ASSET CORPORATION
<CIK>               0001051260
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,913
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,913
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,577
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,539)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,108
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,838
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,270
<EPS-BASIC>                                       5.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.27


</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1850

___________ Keith Brown El, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Unknown Giessing; R/O Doe I; * Unknown Doe II, Sgt.; Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED] Jackson, DHO; Unknown Murphy, * Nurse, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 11, 2010 Filed: February 17, 2010

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Keith Brown El (Brown El), a Missour i inmate, moved to recall our mandate in this appeal, asserting this court incorrec tly attributed to him “strikes,” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for lawsuits that were filed by a different Missouri inmate, also named Keith Brown El. Becau se we have determined Brown El is correct, and he did not have three qualifying strikes at the time he filed the instant appeal, we grant his motion to recall the mandate in this appeal, and we reinstate our previous grant of in forma pauperis status.1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.
-2- Brown El appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful review, we conclude the di strict court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Brown’ s action without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order directing hi m to file an amended complaint. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino , 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Schooley v. Kennedy , 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (reasoning that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal is without prejudice and this militates against finding abuse of discretion) . We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Brown El’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. See Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Hope Elec. Corp. , 293 F.3d 409, 415 (8th Ci r. 2002) (stating the standard of review and e xplaining Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the most exceptional of cases). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

_____________________________
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )) Plaintiff, )) v. ) CR 98-425-03-PHX-PGR ) Keith Hunking, ) DETENTION ORDER

) Defendant. ) ______________________________)

On November 28, 2005, defendant Keith Hunking appeared before this Court

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the

information provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining

whether the defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and

placed on supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection

with a petition to revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and

convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the

community if released pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142(b) or (c).

Case 2:98-cr-00425-PGR Document 166 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings. 18 U.S.C. §3143, Rule 46(c), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

Case 2:98-cr-00425-PGR Document 166 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Long-Term Rotational Dynamics of Defunct Earth-Orbiting Satellites","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bB132Gjzm2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/long-term-rotational-dynamics-of-defunct-earth-orbiting-satellites\/\">Long-Term Rotational Dynamics of Defunct Earth-Orbiting Satellites<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/space-tech-research-grants\/long-term-rotational-dynamics-of-defunct-earth-orbiting-satellites\/embed\/#?secret=bB132Gjzm2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Long-Term Rotational Dynamics of Defunct Earth-Orbiting Satellites” — NASA\" data-secret=\"bB132Gjzm2\" 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\/2016\/06\/hubble_friday_06242016.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":374}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7189

LEVON STOKES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-3962-DKC)

Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levon Stokes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is “stamped” July 30,

1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on August 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was

entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of

the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Levon Stokes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Stokes’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Stokes v.

Corcoran, No. CA-98-3962-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 2, 1999).* We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2331

AN ACT

For the relief of Fereshteh Sani.

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

2

S 2331 ES

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR

2 FERESHTEH SANI.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

4 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

5 Act, Fereshteh Sani shall be eligible for issuance of an

6 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an

7 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil8 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under

9 section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status to law10 ful permanent resident.

11 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Fereshteh Sani en12 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified

13 in subsection (c), Fereshteh Sani shall be considered to

14 have entered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible

15 for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immi16 gration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment

17 of this Act.

18 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

19 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap20 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica21 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

22 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

23 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—

24 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res25 idence to Fereshteh Sani, the Secretary of State shall in26 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current
†

3

S 2331 ES

1 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi2 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun3 try of birth of Fereshteh Sani under section 203(a) of the

4 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

5 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

6 to natives of the country of birth of Fereshteh Sani under

7 section 202(e) of that Act.

Passed the Senate October 11, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2331

AN ACT

For the relief of Fereshteh Sani.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No.05-2721

GLADEN VELEZ,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JANSSEN ORTHO, LLC,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued on November 3, 2006, is

amended as follows:

On page 6, insert the following language at the end of

Footnote 6: 

For example, if, as a matter of standard procedure, a

company never advertises specific positions that are

available for promotion or employment, it might be

inappropriate to require the identification of specific

positions in a job application. However, as we have

indicated, Janssen did advertise the availability of

specific positions if no current employees were selected.

Velez's August 2001 letters were not sent in response to

any such advertisement.