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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 412 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 29, 1998.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services: Ms. Lee of California.
    Committee on Science: Ms. Lee of California.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Robinson Stewart *v.*Alvin Stewart.

Vendor and Purchaser — Title Bond by One Since Deceased — Proof of Signature.

The holder of a title bond for land, executed by a person who has since died, must produce satisfactory evidence of the signature of the deceased before he can recover against the heirs.

APPEAL FROM LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

May 5, 1871.

•Opinion by

Judge Peters:

It was important that appellant should have proved by the subscribing witnesses if there were any, that Ralph Stewart executed the bond under which he asserts claim. Without some evidence of the execution of the bond, or of the signature of Ralph Stewart to the writing, appellant cannot successfully assert claim to the land against the heirs. The paper presented to Brown when the answer was drawn purported to be a bond for a title for the land, but Brown does not prove that the signature to it was Ralph Stewart’s, nor that he ever heard him acknowledge it nor that he knew the signature to it to be R. Stewart’s. We are not therefore prepared to say that the evidence was *320sufficient to establish the execution, and. existence of the asserted bond.

*Brown & Dawson, for appellants.*

*L. T. Moore, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Timothy Edward GUTHRIE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30111.

D.C. No. CR-02-00434-KI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 8, 2004.

*538Fred N. Weinhouse, USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Christine Stebbins Dahl, Esq., FPDORFederal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before T.G. NELSON, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.**

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. Because the defendant did not object to the special condition of supervised release before the district court, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Bahe,*201 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.2000). The district court did not plainly err in imposing as a condition of supervised release the requirement that defendant “participate in a mental health evaluation upon request of the probation officer” and participate in any recommended treatment. The Presentence Report reflected that defendant exhibited agitation and had engaged in “outbursts of anger toward staff, the Courts, and the United States Government.” These circumstances supported imposition of the special condition. *See United States v. Lopez,*258 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir.2001); *see also*U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(5) (2002).

2. The district court did not improperly delegate judicial authority to the probation officer. Rather, the district court permissibly delegated the administrative detail of arranging for the evaluation. *See United States v. Rearden,*349 F.3d 608, 619 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.2 – Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxleyact of 2002
I, Todd H. Katz, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TarponCoast Bancorp, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s)and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesigned or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
 

 

small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: April 26, 2004 /s/ Todd H. Katz  Todd H. Katz President
#### Jas. Casteel *v.*Peter L. Scaggs, etc.

Pleadings — Action to Recover Land — Sufficiency of Petition — Contradiction.

The petition states that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of the land and after describing the land it then alleges that the larger portion thereof is the property of the plaintiff, thus contradicting the previous averment that he owned all of the land.

*186Held, that it cannot be determined, from the petition, what portion of the land belonged to the plaintiff.

APPEAL PROM LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 26, 1871.

*Roe, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

A petition should contain a concise statement of the facts which constitute plaintiff’s cause of action, and set forth his claims with such certainty as to enable the court to determine the precise extent of relief (taking the facts as stated to be true) to which he is entitled, and the judgment that should be rendered in the case.

The petition in this case sets out by stating that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of a tract of land in Lawrence county, Kentucky, containing *about*fifty acres— and after describing the land by metes and bounds — it is then alleged that “the larger portion of which is the property of the plaintiff” — thus contradicting the previous averment that he owned all of the land. Moreover he described the tract as containing *about*fifty acres, of which he owns the larger portion. From that description how could the court determine how much land he was entitled to? First, there might be more, or there might be less than fifty acres. And *second,*what portion of the land that is really in the tract that appellant is entitled to is not stated; whether two-thirds or nine-tenths or any other quantity the court is left to guess. The demurrer was properly sustained and the judgment must be *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 316 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 316

 Recognizing and honoring former South Vietnamese commandos for their 
      heroism, sacrifice, and service during the Vietnam conflict.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 1997

 Ms. Sanchez submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing and honoring former South Vietnamese commandos for their 
      heroism, sacrifice, and service during the Vietnam conflict.

Whereas South Vietnamese commandos were recruited by the United States as part 
        of OPLAN 34A or its predecessor or OPLAN 35 from 1961 to 1970;
Whereas these commandos conducted covert operations in North Vietnam during the 
        Vietnam conflict;
Whereas many were captured and imprisoned by North Vietnamese forces, some for 
        as long as 20 years;
Whereas these commandos served and fought proudly during the Vietnam conflict; 
        and
Whereas many of these commandos lost their lives serving in operations conducted 
        by the United States during the Vietnam conflict: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and honors 
these former South Vietnamese commandos for their heroism, sacrifice, 
and service during the Vietnam conflict.
                                 <all>
```
CFTC Ex. 525

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-19 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:765
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-19 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:766
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-19 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:767
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 76-19 Filed: 11/04/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:768
#### CHILDRESS v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES

No. 21P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 669

Petition by petitioner (Elizabeth Childress) for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 June 1997.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00299

Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

Hardy Lee Browner

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, August 13, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. as to Hardy Lee

Browner (1): Motions for pre−trial conference [23], protective order [24], and designation

of Classified Information security Officer [25] are granted. In regard to the protective

order, counsel are directed to submit the signed protective order (memorandum of

understanding) to the Courtroom Deputy for entry on the docket. In addition, by

agreement of the parties, Daniel O. Hartenstine is designated as the CISO for this case, to

perform the duties and responsibilities prescribed for CISO's in the Security Procedures

promulgated by the Chief Justice. The status hearing set for 8/14/2020 at 9:45 a.m. will

proceed so that the Court can set a date for the pre−trial conference and a date for a further

status hearing. Mailed notice (cdh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 28 Filed: 08/13/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:102
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 998 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 998

                   For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 1995

Mr. Davis of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

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

SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Lloyd B. Gamble of 
Fairfax, Virginia, the sum of $253,488.
    (b) Basis.--The payment required by subsection (a) shall be to 
compensate Lloyd B. Gamble for the injuries sustained by him as a 
result of the administration to him, without his knowledge, of lysergic 
acid diethylamide by United States Army personnel in 1957.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

    The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in full 
satisfaction of all claims Lloyd B. Gamble may have against the United 
States for any injury described in such section.

SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

    Upon payment of the sum referred to in section 1, Lloyd B. Gamble 
shall not be eligible for any compensation or benefits from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense for any 
injury described in such section.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount of more than 10 percent of the 
amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to or received by any 
agent or attorney for any service rendered to Lloyd B. Gamble in 
connection with the benefits provided by this Act. Any person who 
violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be 
subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United States 
Code.
                                 <all>
```
H. Res. 143

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 7, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3) to combat violent youth crime and increase

accountability for juvenile criminal offenses. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in

the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against

the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for
2

•HRES 143 EH

failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. No

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

Each amendment may be considered only in the order printed

in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated

in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable

for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall

not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the

House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of

the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time

during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole

a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting

on any postponed question that follows another electronic

vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum

time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and

report the bill to the House with such amendments as may

have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote

in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee

of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in
3

•HRES 143 EH

the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 401

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that social promotion

in America’s schools should be ended and can be ended through the

use of high-quality, proven programs and practices.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 30, 1998

Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. RIGGS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

social promotion in America’s schools should be ended

and can be ended through the use of high-quality, proven

programs and practices.

Whereas high student achievement and academic advancement are vitally important to our Nation’s schools and

the future success of America’s workforce;

Whereas some pupils proceed through school without having

mastered the knowledge and skills required of them, and

graduate from high school ill-equipped to handle collegelevel work or obtain an entry-level job;

Whereas ‘‘social promotion’’, the practice of moving pupils

from one grade to the next regardless of whether they
2

•HRES 401 IH

have the knowledge and skills necessary for the next

level, is one reason for a pupil’s inadequate academic

achievement levels;

Whereas research has shown that retention, the customary alternative policy to social promotion, is also an inadequate

response to the problem in that pupils are usually presented with the same instructional practices and materials that were ineffective the first time around;

Whereas to help underachieving students learn, it is essential

that policies and programs address the underlying causes

of failure and rectify the problems through various proven instruction practices; and

Whereas high-quality teacher training and education, and

other proven practices will provide our teachers with the

tools necessary to educate our Nation’s children and work

toward high academic achievement by students: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) ending social promotion should be addressed

4 in America through a coordinated effort by govern5 ment officials, teachers, and parents committed to

6 high academic achievement of students;

7 (2) the problems associated with social pro8 motion can be resolved effectively through a commit9 ment to provide high-quality training and education

10 for our teachers, and the use of other proven prac11 tices; and
3

•HRES 401 IH

1 (3) States should adopt high, rigorous stand2 ards and standards-based assessments aimed at re3 quiring academic accountability with the specific aim

4 of ending social promotion and raising student

5 achievement.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANETA HADZI-TANOVIC, 

individually and as a natural mother and 

next friend for SP, KP, and MP, all 

minors, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT W. JOHNSON, DAVID P. 

PASULKA, and SLOBODAN M. 

PAVLOVICH 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 20 C 03460 

Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. 

JUDGMENT ORDER 

This action having been decided by Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. on a motion to dismiss, it is 

hereby ORDERED: 

Judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants Robert W. Johnson, David P. Pasulka, 

and Slobodan M. Pavlovich, and against plaintiff Aneta Hadzi-Tanovic. This judgment is without 

prejudice to the assertion of the plaintiff’s claims in state court. The parties shall bear their own 

costs. 

Dated: November 24, 2021 John J. Tharp, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

Case: 1:20-cv-03460 Document #: 40 Filed: 11/24/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:223
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 307

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

Ms. FURSE submitted the following resolution; which failed of adoption

RESOLUTION

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election

as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th

District of California by the Secretary of State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives

on January 7, 1997;

Whereas a Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the

Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December

26, 1996;

Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the

46th District of California met on February 26, 1997, in

Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1997, in Orange County,

California, and on October 24, 1997, in Washington,

D.C.;

Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now pursuing a

duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the
2

HRES 307 IH

committee’s possession by the Secretary of State of California;

Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the

46th District of California and the committee have been

reviewing these materials and has all the information it

needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all

the information it needs to make judgments concerning

those votes;

Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over

nine months of review and investigation failed to present

credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of

Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never-ending

and unsubstantiated areas of review;

Whereas contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election

is other than Congresswoman Sanchez’ election to the

Congress;

Whereas as a Member of Congress whose election in 1994

was won by far smaller a majority than that which Ms.

Sanchez won the 46th District race in 1996;

Whereas, as an immigrant myself who proudly became a U.S.

citizen in 1972, I believe that this Republican campaign

of intimidation sends a message to new citizens that their

voting privilege may be subverted;

Whereas we should encourage new voters, not chill their enthusiasm; and

Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should complete

its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end:

Now, therefore, be it
3

HRES 307 IH

1 Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Over2 sight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final

3 disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California

4 is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Æ