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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 838 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 838

   To allow modified bloc voting by cooperative associations of milk 
  producers in connection with a referendum on Federal Milk Marketing 
                             Order reform.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2005

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow modified bloc voting by cooperative associations of milk 
  producers in connection with a referendum on Federal Milk Marketing 
                             Order reform.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    The Act may be cited as the ``Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. MODIFIED BLOC VOTING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding paragraph (12) of section 8c of 
the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, in the 
case of the referendum conducted as part of the consolidation of 
Federal milk marketing orders and related reforms under section 143 of 
the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7253), if a 
cooperative association of milk producers elects to hold a vote on 
behalf of its members as authorized by that paragraph, the cooperative 
association shall provide to each producer, on behalf of which the 
cooperative association is expressing approval or disapproval, written 
notice containing--
            (1) a description of the questions presented in the 
        referendum;
            (2) a statement of the manner in which the cooperative 
        association intends to cast its vote on behalf of the 
        membership; and
            (3) information regarding the procedures by which a 
        producer may cast an individual ballot.
    (b) Tabulation of Ballots.--At the time at which ballots from a 
vote under subsection (a) are tabulated by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, the Secretary shall adjust the vote of a cooperative 
association to reflect individual votes submitted by producers that are 
members of, stockholders in, or under contract with, the cooperative 
association.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          38,757
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,004
<INVENTORY>                                        503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,267
<PP&E>                                         567,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 607,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,913
<BONDS>                                        249,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              305
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,506
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   607,394
<SALES>                                        196,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,110
<CGS>                                          152,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  186,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,736)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,630)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,630)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 951 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 951

 To suspend temporarily the duty on titanium dioxide anatase hombitan 
                                 LC-S.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2005

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on titanium dioxide anatase hombitan 
                                 LC-S.

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

SECTION 1. TITANIUM DIOXIDE ANATASE HOMBITAN LC-S.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.32.08    Titanium dioxide  Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     anatase                                                                 31/2008          ''
                     hombitan LC-S                                                                             .
                     (CAS No. 13463-
                     67-7) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     3206.11.00)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                            A-FEM MEDICAL CORPORATION
                   CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        For the three months ended
                                                                                 March 31
                                                                      ------------------------------
                                                                          1998              1997
                                                                      ------------      ------------
<S>                                                                   <C>               <C>         
Actual weighted average shares outstanding for the period               13,177,456        10,453,502

Dilutive common stock, options and warrants using the
  treasury stock method(1)                                                      --                --
                                                                      ============      ============
Total shares used in per share calculations                             13,177,456        10,453,502
                                                                      ------------      ------------
Net loss                                                              $  1,209,205      $    635,399
                                                                      ------------      ------------
Basic and diluted net loss per share                                  $       0.09      $       0.06
                                                                      ============      ============
</TABLE>

(1)   Warrants and options outstanding are not included, as the effect would be
      anti-dilutive.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), I, William D. Hibbetts, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 1, 2007 |  | /s/ William D. Hibbetts                          
|                        |  | William D. Hibbetts                              
|                        |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Braxton

Case below: 183 N.C. App.-(1 May 2007)

No. 259P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-848)

Denied 10/11/07
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4045-4046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1156]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.

[[Page 4046]]

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Mechanism of Immunological 
Tolerance.
    Date: February 19, 2009.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Contact Person: Cheryl K. Lapham, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, DEA, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700-
B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Room 3127, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 
301-402-4598, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94f7f8f5e4fcf5f9d4fafdf5fdf0bafafdfcbaf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fece3eeffe7eee2cfe1e6eee6eba1e1e6e7a1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 13, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-1156 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[913 NE2d 936, 885 NYS2d 244]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James McGrantham, Appellant.

Decided June 25, 2009

*893APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frankie & Gentile, P.C.,*Mineóla *(Joseph A. Gentile*of counsel), for appellant.

*Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,*Brooklyn *(Rhea A. Grob*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by dismissing the count of the indictment charging defendant with criminally negligent homicide; and, as so modified, affirmed.

There was evidence before the grand jury that, in the early morning hours of March 29, 2006, defendant was driving eastbound on Cropsey Avenue in Brooklyn and intended to enter the westbound lanes of the Belt Parkway. Defendant, who was sober and had not been speeding, missed the entrance ramp and mistakenly drove onto the exit ramp for westbound traffic. Attempting to correct his mistake, defendant slowly made a U-turn across the three westbound lanes of traffic. He had almost completed the turn when a westbound motorcycle struck his *894driver’s side door. The 20-year-old operator of the motorcycle was killed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the count of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide must be granted. Defendant’s decision to make a U-turn across three lanes of traffic to extricate himself from a precarious situation was not wise, but it does not rise to the level of moral blameworthiness required to sustain a charge of criminally negligent homicide *(see People v Cabrera,*10 NY3d 370, 378 [2008]). The evidence was sufficient, however, to support the charge that defendant engaged in reckless driving by driving his vehicle “in a manner which unreasonably interfere [d] with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangere[d] users of the public highway” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
#### The Arcturus.

*(District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.*

April Term, 1883.)

Libel por Wages op Master.

The master of a vessel has no lien cn the cargo of the vessel for his wages beyond the amount of the freight thereof, and where, for any reason, he does not unload the cargo, he is only entitled to a lion upon such of the freight as tiie vessel has actually earned, that being the freight less what it costs to unload.

In -Admiralty.

*Mix, Noble & White,*lor libelant.

*Goulder & Weh,*for the Arcturus.

Welker, J.

The libelant was the master of the Arcturus, and had wages due him as such master from the owners of the vessel about the month of November, 1882. At that time he had on board the vessel a quantity of telegraph poles, owned by A. A. Colby, which had been carried on board the Arcturus, and were to be delivered at the port of Sandusky, upon which the said Colby was to pay freight in the usual way. Before the telegraph poles were unloaded at San-dusky the vessel was seized by the United States marshal under a libel filed by W. TI. Wolf *et al.*against the Arcturus, so that the master could not, and did not, unload the poles at Sandusky, and Colby, the owner, was compelled to pay $70 to procure the poles to be unloaded, and before he was allowed to do so he paid the whole freight money into the registry of the court which would have been earned by the Arcturus if the contract of affreightment had been ful*96filled by the delivery of the poles. The libelant, Jones, the master, claims the whole'freight should be applied on his unpaid wages, and also a lien on the poles, the cargo,' for the amount due him for services as master.

The court finds that the libelant had no lien on the cargo for the wages beyond the amount of the freight thereof; that in this proceeding he is only entitled to the freight actually earned by the vessel, that being the freight less what it costs to unload it at Sandusky; that the libelant is entitled to a decree for that part of the freight so actually earned, to be applied on his wages as such master; that Colby is entitled to repayment out of the registry of the amount he paid for the unloading of the cargo, being the sum of $70.

Decree accordingly.

See *The De Smet,*10 Fed. Rep. 483, and note, 496.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rasheem Tartt, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 787]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered October 18, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly allowed the People to impeach their witness with his grand jury testimony because a portion of his trial testimony on redirect examination affirmatively damaged the People’s case *(see*CPL 60.35 [1]; *People v Fitzpatrick,*40 NY2d *52844, 51-52, [1976]). In any event, we conclude that any error in allowing that impeachment was harmless *(see People v Crim-mins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is both unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### Debra H., Appellant, v Janice R., Respondent.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 460.

Motion by National Association of Social Workers et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 70 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 70

     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 
  restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker 
provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility 
            to a patient only under the care of a physician.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

                           February 17, 2005

       Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 
  restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker 
provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility 
            to a patient only under the care of a physician.

    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 ``Autonomy for Psychologists and 
Social Workers Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL 
              SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE SERVICES IN A COMPREHENSIVE 
              OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITY TO A PATIENT ONLY 
              UNDER THE CARE OF A PHYSICIAN.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by striking ``physician'' and 
inserting ``physician, except that a patient receiving qualified 
psychologist services (as defined in subsection (ii)) may be under the 
care of a clinical psychologist with respect to such services to the 
extent permitted under State law and except that a patient receiving 
clinical social worker services (as defined in subsection (hh)(2)) may 
be under the care of a clinical social worker with respect to such 
services to the extent permitted under State law''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
EX 10


EX 10.1




                                     Consent of Gordon N. Henriksen BSC, Geologist




                                             

                                             GORDON N. HENRIKSEN

                                             850 ROUTE DES PIONNIERS

                                             BELLECOMBE, QUEBEC,  

                                             CANADA






















Lakefield Ventures, Inc.                                                      August 19, 2004

104-1015 Columbia Street, Suite 811

New Westminster BC, Canada




Attention: Michael Iverson, President




Re: Consent to use name as an “expert”







Dear Sir, this letter is my authorization to use my name and make reference to my name 

As an expert, in Lakefield Ventures, Inc.’s Form 10SB/A 12G and 10KSB.
[920 NE2d 929, 892 NYS2d 822]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashad McNair, Appellant.

Argued September 17, 2009;

decided October 22, 2009

*822APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Paul Wiener*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Marc Krupnick*and *Frank Glaser*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of forgery in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 170.10 (1) relative to his execution of an application to open a joint bank account. On appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred in accepting his plea because his statements to the court negated the element of intent to defraud. Defendant neither moved to withdraw his plea nor to vacate the judgment of conviction; rather, he sought to challenge the sufficiency of the plea allocution for the first time on direct appeal. In doing so, he seeks to invoke the “narrow exception” to the preservation requirement delineated in *People v Lopez*(71 NY2d 662 [1988]). That exception applies only “[i]n that rare case . . . where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea,” thereby imposing on the trial court “a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary” *(id.*at 666 [citations omitted]). When such a situation arises, if the trial court accepts the plea without conducting the required further inquiry, a defendant is entitled to challenge the allocution’s sufficiency on direct appeal, even if the defendant fails to make a postjudgment motion *(id.).*

We agree with defendant that, during the plea allocution, he initially made remarks that “cast significant doubt” on his guilt concerning the element of intent to defraud, thereby triggering the trial court’s duty to conduct a further inquiry to ensure *823that defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. The plea minutes demonstrate that the trial court properly conducted such an inquiry and found that defendant possessed the necessary criminal intent to defraud. Having failed to move thereafter to withdraw his plea, defendant waived any further challenge to the allocution, and thus no issue is preserved for our review *(see Lopez,*71 NY2d at 668).

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.