alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1173

___________

Stephen M. Partin, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Robinson, Ms., I.P.O. Parole * Appeal from the United States

Officer, Maximum Security Unit, * District Court for the Eastern

ADC; G. Harmon, Warden, * District of Arkansas.

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

L. May, Deputy Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department of Correction; Larry *

Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Mike *

Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2002

Filed: May 3, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Stephen M. Partin appeals the district court's pre-service dismissal of Partin's

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
-2-

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper. We thus

affirm the judgment of the district court, and we deny the pending motion. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
them, wrestled with the asset protection specialist, and "tried to make

physical contact with [the assistant store manager] by trying to swing at him." The asset protection specialist testified that prior to the confrontation, she verbally identified herself to Monroe as "Home Depot security" and while doing so "might have touched his hand." Surveillance videotape of the incident was played for the jury.

Circumstantial evidence alone may sustain a conviction. Buchanan v. State, 119 Nev. 201, 217, 69 P.3d 694, 705 (2003). It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give conflicting testimony, McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992), and a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient evidence supports the verdict, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981); see also NRS 200.380(1). Therefore, we conclude that Monroe's contention is without merit.

Second, Monroe contends that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed jury instruction defining "larceny." Monroe fails to offer any cogent argument or legal authority in support of his claim and we need not address it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Nevertheless, we note that the State met its burden of proof on the greater offense of robbery and Monroe's contention is without merit. See Lisby v. State, 82 Nev. 183, 188, 414 P.2d 592, 595 (1966) (holding that "if the prosecution has met its burden of proof on the greater offense and there is no evidence at the trial tending to reduce the greater offense, an instruction on a lesser included offense may properly be refused"); see also Davis v. State, 110 Nev. 1107, 1115, 881 P.2d 657, 662 (1994). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2Hardesty

Monroe's proposed instruction. See Ouanbengboune v. State, 125 Nev. 763, 774, 220 P.3d 1122, 1129 (2009). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre Cherry
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Janet S. Bessemer Michael V. Roth Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A • , s 3
MICHAEL D. REED, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1085

___ __________________________/

Opinion filed September 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Robin Bresky and Jeremy Dicker, Boca Raton , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thom as H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The R. & L. Company, Appellant, v. James Stanley Frazer, Respondent.

Order modified by striking out the word “ thereto ” after the words “ supplemental answer,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Order to be settled on notice. . Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §3112. Instrumentalities of the United States

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (whether enacted before or after the enactment of this section) which grants to any instrumentality of the United States an exemption from taxation, such instrumentality shall not be exempt from the tax imposed by section 3111 unless such other provision of law grants a specific exemption, by reference to section 3111 (or the corresponding section of prior law), from the tax imposed by such section.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 416.)
§ 3191.5-1 Indian lands included in delegation. ( a ) No activity under a delegation made under this subpart may be carried out on Indian lands without the written permission of the affected Indian tribe or allottee.
( b ) A State requesting a delegation involving Indian lands shall provide, as evidence of permission, a written agreement signed by an appropriate official(s) of the Indian tribe for tribal lands, or by the individual allottee(s) or their representative(s) for allotted lands. The agreement shall at a minimum specify the type and extent of activities to be carried out by the State under the agreement, and provisions for State access to carry out the specified activities.
( c ) Delegations covering Indian lands shall be separate from delegations covering Federal lands.
----

Appeal brought on 24 August 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis against the order made on 2 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-326/03: Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-322/05 P)

(2005/C 257/11)

Language of the case: French

An appeal was brought on 24 August 2005 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by Hippocrate Vounakis, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, against the order made on 2 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-326/03: Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of his appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in its definition of the decision challenged by the appellant.

The Court of First Instance wrongly held the decision challenged by the appellant to be the decision establishing the list of promoted officials, that decision consisting of a collection of individual acts of which the promoted officials are the addressees, whereas the decision challenged is the strictly individual decision not to include the appellant's name on the list of those promoted.

Since the appellant was not an addressee of the decision to promote the other officials, wrongly regarded as the challenged act, the Court of First Instance held that the second sentence of the second indent of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was applicable and that therefore, with regard to him, although he was on annual leave until 16 September and the decision was published on 14 August 2002, the time-limit for his complaint started to run, in any event, on the date of publication of that list.

In so doing, the Court of First Instance misconstrued the first sentence of the second indent of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations since the act challenged is the individual decision not, after comparing the merits of the officials eligible for promotion, to promote the appellant and not the individual decisions to promote the other officials promoted who are not complaining about them.

Since it was part of an individual decision, it should have been ‘properly’ brought to his knowledge.

From the entirety of the arguments set out above, it is apparent that the Court of First Instance made an error of law.

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComputational Study of Near-limit Propagation of Detonation in Hydrogen-air MixturesA computational investigation of the near-limit propagation of detonation in lean and rich hydrogen-air mixtures is presented. The calculations were carried out over an equivalence ratio range of 0.4 to 5.0, pressures ranging from 0.2 bar to 1.0 bar and ambient initial temperature. The computations involved solution of the one-dimensional Euler equations with detailed finite-rate chemistry. The numerical method is based on a second-order spatially accurate total-variation-diminishing (TVD) scheme, and a point implicit, first-order-accurate, time marching algorithm. The hydrogen-air combustion was modeled with a 9-species, 19-step reaction mechanism. A multi-level, dynamically adaptive grid was utilized in order to resolve the structure of the detonation. The results of the computations indicate that when hydrogen concentrations are reduced below certain levels, the detonation wave switches from a high-frequency, low amplitude oscillation mode to a low frequency mode exhibiting large fluctuations in the detonation wave speed; that is, a 'galloping' propagation mode is established.Document ID20020090897Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsYungster, S.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Radhakrishnan, K.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2002Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:211889NASA/CR-2002-211889ICOMP-2002-06E-13571AIAA Paper 2002-3712Meeting InformationMeeting: 38th Annual Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitLocation: Indianapolis, INCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 7, 2002End Date: July 10, 2002Sponsors:Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society for Electrical EngineersFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 708-48-13CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC3-542Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020090897.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### Part B—Miccosukee Settlement
§ 4.1151 Time for filing. ( a ) A petition for review of a proposed assessment of a civil penalty must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the proposed assessment; or
( b ) If a timely request for a conference has been made pursuant to 30 CFR 723.18 or 845.18, a petition for review must be filed within 30 days from service of notice by the conference officer that the conference is deemed completed.
( c ) No extension of time will be granted for filing a petition for review of a proposed assessment of a civil penalty as required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. If a petition for review is not filed within the time period provided in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the appropriateness of the amount of the penalty, and the fact of the violation if there is no proceeding pending under section 525 of the Act to review the notice of violation or cessation order involved, shall be deemed admitted, the petition shall be dismissed, and the civil penalty assessed shall become a final order of the Secretary.
[43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978, as amended at 51 FR 16321, May 2, 1986; 59 FR 1488, Jan. 11, 1994]
#### In the Matter of the Application of John S. McQuade, Respondent. Topics Publishing Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
Sacramento River

T12N R1E T12N R2E

7

6

18

8

1

12

13

5

17

Kirkville

49.7 L

49.0 L

Contract No. 14-06-200-880X-R-1

Exhibit B

Hiatt, Thomas and Illerich, Phillip

725-202-70

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.5 1

Miles

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion

Date: March 22, 2005

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\hiatt_thomas_and_illerich_phillip\hiatt_thomas_and_illerich_philip.mxd
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4906 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the National 

Neurological Conditions Surveillance System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Neurological 

5 Conditions Surveillance System Reauthorization Act of 

6 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4906 IS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL NEUROLOGICAL 

2 CONDITIONS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM. 

3 (a) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Subsection (i) of sec4 tion 399S–1 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 280g–7a) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(i) IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.—Not less than 

7 every 2 years after the date of enactment of the National 

8 Neurological Conditions Surveillance System Reauthoriza9 tion Act of 2022, the Secretary shall submit to the Con10 gress a report concerning the implementation of this sec11 tion. Each such report shall include information on— 

12 ‘‘(1) the development and maintenance of the 

13 National Neurological Conditions Surveillance Sys14 tem; 

15 ‘‘(2) the type of information collected by the 

16 surveillance system; 

17 ‘‘(3) the use and availability of such informa18 tion, including guidelines for such use; 

19 ‘‘(4) the use and coordination of data sources 

20 that collect or maintain information on neurological 

21 diseases; and 

22 ‘‘(5) any upcoming expansions of the National 

23 Neurological Conditions Surveillance System to col24 lect information with respect to additional neuro25 logical diseases.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4906 IS

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

2 399S–1(k) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 280g–7a(k)) is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000,000 for each 

4 of fiscal years 2018 through 2022’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 and 2024, 

6 $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, and $20,000,000 for 

7 each of fiscal years 2026 and 2027’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
(No. 891

Claimant awarded $3,266.85.)

#### John M. Smyth, et al., Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas M. Smyth, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Inheritance *tax*— renunciation *liy widow. When refund made under Sec. 25.*' Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, and the widow afterwards renounces the provisions of the will made for her, and it appears upon appeal that by reason of such renunciation the amount of the tax was in excess of the amount due the State: *Held.*Claimant entitled to an award for the amount of the excess found to be due claimant by the county court.

McCulloch & McCulloch, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimants, John M. Smyth, Mary A. Smyth Nelson and Frank G. Nelson and Jane F. Smyth Patera, individually and as executors of the last will and testament of Thomas M. Smyth, deceased, claim a refund of inheritance tax under and by virtue of Section 25 of the Inheritance Tax laws of Illinois.

Decedent died testate June 16, 1917, and John M. Smyth, Mary A. Smyth Nelson and Frank G. Nelson were appointed executors under deceased’s last will and testament. The inheritance tax is $6,526.72. By reason of the renunciation by the widow, of the provisions of the will, the said sum is too large, but it was paid by executors under protest. The case was appealed to the county court of Cook county, and upon hearing in said court on the 12th day of January, 1925, an order was entered by the court in the sum of $2715.39, and that sum was erroneously paid under Section 25 aforesaid.

A certified copy of the county court’s findings and order are on file in evidence in this case. The Attorney General files his written consent to allowance of same as prayed. The claim is duly proven by the record evidence. It is therefore ordered and adjudged £hat claimants individually, and the executors aforesaid have an award of $2,715.39 with interest at the rate of 3 *%*per annum from the 9th day of August. A. D. 1918.
#### Shirley Seltzer, an Infant, by Pauline Seltzer, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant.

*881Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Ta37lor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
### §3906. Tribal demonstration project

#### (a) In general

The Director may establish and carry out a program providing for demonstration projects involving open dumps on Indian land or Alaska Native land. It shall be the purpose of such projects to determine if there are unique cost factors involved in the cleanup and maintenance of open dumps on such land, and the extent to which advanced closure planning is necessary. Under the program, the Director is authorized to select no less than three Indian tribal governments or Alaska Native entities to participate in such demonstration projects.

#### (b) Criteria

Criteria established by the Director for the selection and participation of an Indian tribal government or Alaska Native entity in the demonstration project shall provide that in order to be eligible to participate, an Indian tribal government or Alaska Native entity must—

(1) have one or more existing open dumps on Indian lands or Alaska Native lands which are under its authority;

(2) have developed a comprehensive solid waste management plan for such lands; and

(3) have developed a closure and postclosure maintenance plan for each dump located on such lands.

#### (c) Duration of funding for project

No demonstration project shall be funded for more than three fiscal years.

(Pub. L. 103–399, §7, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4167.)
#### § 41.210 Military and merchant marine educational institutions.

These Title IX regulations do not apply to an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for a military service of the United States or for the merchant marine.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                            9307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      829
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 12413
<PP&E>                                           81215
<DEPRECIATION>                                   34503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   59622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2380
<BONDS>                                          39632
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       17392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     59622
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12712
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1708
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1708
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1708
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    32.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    32.03
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-09-00527-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

CARLOS PENA, Appellant,

v.

J. TODD BOYD AND RUBY BOYD, Appellees.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law

No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas, in cause number 2008-CCL-1294-B. Appellant has filed

an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have reached an
2

agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellant requests that this Court

dismiss the appeal with prejudice.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs

are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed

the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed

the 1st day of April, 2010.