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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1738 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1738

   To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make a 
 technical correction to the water rights settlement for the Shoshone-
 Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2023

  Mr. Amodei introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make a 
 technical correction to the water rights settlement for the Shoshone-
 Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, and for other 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 ``Technical Correction to the 
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON TRUST FUNDS ESTABLISHED 
              UNDER SETTLEMENT.

    Section 10807(b)(3) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1408) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``There is'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--There is''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Adjusted interest payments.--In addition to 
                funds made available under subparagraph (A), there is 
                authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
                deposit into the Development Fund $5,124,902.12.
                    ``(C) Indexing.--Amounts made available under 
                subparagraph (B) shall be adjusted on deposit to 
                reflect changes since January 25, 2016, in the Consumer 
                Price Index for All Urban Consumers West Urban 50,000 
                to 1,500,000 published by the Bureau of Labor 
                Statistics.''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40317 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRYAN AND BRYAN ASPHALT - ROAD OIL COMPANY, William Todd Bryan, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (USDC No. 6:96-CR-38-1)

- - - - - - - - - - September 4, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Bryan and Bryan Asphalt and Road Oil Company appeals from the
district court’s order of restitution to Panola County, Texas. The
defendant argues that the district court erre d by assessing
restitution for loss caused by conduct beyond the specific conduct
that was the basis of the offense of conviction and beyon d the2

parties’ agreement concerning restitution contained in the plea
agreement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. S ee United States v. Arnold , 947 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir.
1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         106,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,543,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,506,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    94,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,708,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,134,000
<PP&E>                                       5,988,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,664,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,458,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,550,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       363,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,454,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,458,000
<SALES>                                     14,722,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,722,000
<CGS>                                       10,736,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,317,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,405,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   488,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            917,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   917,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### John Miller *v.*James Gaither, et al.

Quieting' Title — Possession.

In order to obtain a judgment quieting title to real estate in a court of equity the plaintiff by himself or tenant must be in possession of the real estate.

Possession.

The right to possession of real estate can only be determined in an action at law, and cannot be determined in a court of equity.

APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 11, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This is intended to be action by the appellant to quiet his title and possession to a tract of four hundred acres of land purchased by him of one Hunt, and his right to maintain it, cannot be doubted if the allegations of the petition constitute a cause of action. It is essential in a case like this, in order to obtain the aid of the chancellor, that the party seeking the relief should be in the possession of the premises by himself or tenant, else his possession cannot be said to have been disturbed, nor a possession quieted that does not exist.

The mere right to the possession will *not*suffice, as the remedy is ample by an action at law. In this case the appellant claims only a constructive possession, and is asking the chancellor to interfere, not to quiet an actual .possession, but to enable him to perfect his title, by settling the question as to a disputed boundary and giving to him the possession. His vendors, or those under whose title he claims, had been defeated in an action of ejectment, asserting the same title upon an issue involving the, identical question of boundary as presented in this case; and the appellant, who claimed a constructive possession by reason of his deed from Hunt, alleges that he attempted to take the actual possession of the disputed land by his tenant, Harris, and that this tenant was expelled from the possession. *251in a proceeding of forcible entry and detainer by the appellees, who claimed the land, and had, by virtue of their claim, a tenant in the actual possession.

*W. B. Read, for appellants.*

*R. D. Murray, for appellees.*

The appellant’s vendor had also instituted another action or actions for the recovery of the land, and these proceedings ended in a compromise. What that compromise was, is not alleged. The appellant, as well as his vendor, failing to have any possession, and also failing to manifest any right to the possession in their actions at law, or to maintain a possession acquired by a forcible entry, are now seeking to establish their right of entry and possession by the aid of a court of equity. If appellant has the legal title and the right to entry, he can maintain his action of ejectment, and a court of equity where he has no possession, will not assume the jurisdiction or the right to search for these lost clauses and lines for the purpose of perfecting a title or enforcing an alleged right of possession. If the appellant has the equitable title, as he maintains he has, and the right of possession, there is no obstacle in the way of recovery in the proper form.

The judgment of the court below is *affirmed,*the petition presenting no cause of action.

Judge Cofer not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,552
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               2
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,705
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     39,502
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          28,069
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            27,061
<LOANS>                                        193,327
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,298
<DEPOSITS>                                     210,082
<SHORT-TERM>                                    45,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,241
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           253
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 276,298
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,313
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,455
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   187
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,955
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,576
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,257
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,698
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  78
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,613
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,613
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,289
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.94
<LOANS-NON>                                         31
<LOANS-PAST>                                       650
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    674
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,742
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       81
<RECOVERIES>                                        37
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,798
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,798
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.16


 


Amendment Agreement


 


Party A: Anhui Renrenjia Solar Energy Co.,
Ltd.


 


Party B: Anhui Haishuai Electronic Manufacture
Co., Ltd.


 


In regarding to the ¥13,500,000 loan
agreement signed by both parties on Jan 01, 2012, both parties signed the following amendment agreement in Nov 30, 2012.


 


		1.	Both parties are willing to support
                                         each other with cash loans.



 


		2.	The interests of all the loans between
                                         Party A and Party B shall be waived.



 


		3.	The term of this amendment is one year.
                                         By the end of the term, agreed by both parties, this amendment agreement shall extend
                                         for one year. This amendment agreement shall be terminated on Nov 30, 2015 if both parties
                                         discontinue to sign this agreement.



 


Party A: Anhui Renrenjia Solar Energy Co.,
Ltd.


 


Signature: /s/ Anhui Renrenjia Solar Energy
Co., Ltd. (corporate chop)


 


Nov 30, 2012


 


 


Party B: Anhui Haishuai Electronic Manufacture
Co., Ltd.


 


Signature: /s/ Anhui Haishuai Electronic Manufacture
Co., Ltd. (corporate chop)


 


Nov 30, 2012
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Vermont

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

(Rev.: September 2021)

Mass Echelon III

30 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

7000 lb to 1000 lb

Volume Transfer, II

200 gal to 5 gal 

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal to 25 gal

Hydrometers

(10 degrees to 0 degrees) Brix

(45 degrees to 35 degrees) Baume

2022 to 2023

____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2022-02-01 to 2024-02-01

NOTE: Amended on 2023-01-31 to increase range 

of Volume Transfer, II
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SAID ASMAR,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00028-H-1)

Submitted: February 24, 2010 Decided: March 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, 

Kentucky, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Said Asmar pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to 

illegal structuring of financial transactions, in violation of 

31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and (d) (2006), and was sentenced to 

sixty-three months in prison. The judgment was imposed on 

August 11, 2009; however, Asmar did not file a notice of appeal 

until September 3, 2009. After Asmar filed his appellate brief 

with this court, the Government filed a motion to dismiss, 

arguing Asmar had waived his right to appeal in the plea 

agreement and also that the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed. In his opposition to the motion, Asmar argues in 

relevant part that although his notice of appeal was filed 

outside the prescribed ten-day period, he had requested that the 

district court grant him an extension to file his notice of 

appeal. He asks this court to remand the case for the limited 

purpose of permitting the district court to rule on his motion 

for extension of time.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), “the district court may 

– before or after the time has expired, with or without motion 

and notice – extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a 

period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time 

otherwise prescribed” by Rule 4(b) for filing the notice. It is 

clear from the record that Asmar filed his notice of appeal 

within the applicable period under Rule 4(b)(4). The district 
3

court has not addressed Asmar’s request or made a determination 

as to whether he has shown excusable neglect or good cause 

warranting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. 

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court so it can 

determine whether Asmar has made the requisite showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause. Following this limited remand, 

the record as supplemented will be returned to this court. We 

defer ruling on the Government’s motion to dismiss pending the 

limited remand. 

REMANDED
#### SMITH, KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL LABS. et al. SMITH, KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. JABERT PHARMACAL CO., Inc., et al.

Nos. 11188, 11404.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

July 12, 1951.

*900Klein & Hart, New York City (George J. Harding, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Alfred Taffet, New York City (Howard R. Hirsch, Cleveland, Ohio; of counsel), for defendants International Pharmaceutical Labs., Arthur Yesk, and Eugene J. Yoss.

Strauss, Reich & Boyer, New York City (Howard R. Hirsch, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for other defendants.

BYERS, District Judge.

These are motions by plaintiff to strike from the jury calendar these two causes which have been so listed pursuant to the' demand of the respective defendants. The causes and issues are identical, and one memorandum will dispose of both.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the conduct of defendants in making and selling medicinal tablets of the same content, color and configuration as plaintiff’s, • and to have an accounting, by reason of the alleged unfair competition of the defendants. A preliminary injunction has already been granted, prior to the ■filing of an amended answer which asserts a counterclaim charging the plaintiff with violating the Sherman Law, *90115 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note, and the Clayton Law, 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq., by seeking unlawfully to perpetuate the monopoly of its patent rights which expired seemingly about September 27, 1949.

The language of some of the supporting allegations is somewhat lurid and wholly denunciatory, and more consonant with the canons of the cinema than Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., which provides that “A pleading * * * shall contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, * *

However, it is possible to gather that the defendants, by way of avoidance; wish to establish the unworthy nature of the plaintiff’s conduct and activities according to the defendants’ notions, and the courts are open to them for that purpose. It seems to be recognized that such issues are for a jury, as lately declared in Ring v. 'Spina, 2 Cir., 166 F.2d 546, but it does not follow that the defendants can thus compel the plaintiff to forego having a court decide the cause which it has proffered. Since the demand for a jury trial seems not to be in terms restricted to specific issues, the court may direct the procedural traffic so' as to accomplish the orderly and reasonably prompt progress of the cause.

The disposition of the motion is as follows:

Pursuant to Rule 42(b) a separate trial of the counterclaim is deemed to be in furtherance of convenience, and is therefore ordered. The demand for jury trial will be restricted to the issues so presented.

The cause is to be listed also- on the non-jury calendar, to be tried by the court as provided in Rule 38(b) prior to the trial of the issues presented in the counterclaim.

The final decree or judgment will be settled by the court on notice at a convenient time following the conclusion of the separate trials hereby ordered.

Settle order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                            168
<COMMON>                                             2
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       401
<SALES>                                             13
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    19
<CGS>                                               11
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       18
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (28)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (11)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (17)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (17)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.17(b)


      Schedule of Warrants (refinancings after October 31, 2005) Issued by
    NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind and outstanding as of December 13, 2005


                    Expiration                                       Shares
    Grant Date         Date           Exercise Price                Granted
    ----------         ----           --------------                -------
     12/07/05        12/07/10        Greater of: (i) $0.0052;      16,000,000
                                     or (ii) the par value of
                                     NCT Group, Inc.
                                     common stock on the
                                     date of conversion