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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6916

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES EDWARD BROWN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00018-JPB-JES-1) 

Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas 

Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

James Edward Brown appeals the district court’s order 

granting in part and denying in part his motion for sentence 

reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Brown, No. 3:06-cr-00018-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. May 28, 

2008), and the reasons expressed in our recent decision in 

United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 253-56 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 94 

Commending Sally Quillian Yates for refusing to enforce Donald Trump’s 

discriminatory Executive Order 13769 (82 Fed. Reg. 8977; relating 

to ‘‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United 

States’’). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2017 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. TED

LIEU of California, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. 

SOTO, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, and Ms. BASS) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Commending Sally Quillian Yates for refusing to enforce 

Donald Trump’s discriminatory Executive Order 13769 

(82 Fed. Reg. 8977; relating to ‘‘Protecting the Nation 

From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States’’). 

Whereas Sally Quillian Yates has served the United States 

honorably as United States Assistant Attorney for the 

Northern District of Georgia, United States Attorney for 

the Northern District of Georgia, United States Deputy 

Attorney General, and United States Acting Attorney 

General; 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 94 IH 

Whereas in these capacities, and in private practice, Ms. 

Yates has maintained the highest standards of professional ethics; 

Whereas by refusing to defend the discriminatory Executive 

Order 13769 (82 Fed. Reg. 8977; relating to ‘‘Protecting 

the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the 

United States’’), Ms. Yates faithfully upheld the Constitution and defended American values of tolerance, 

compassion, and respect for diversity; 

Whereas the actions of Ms. Yates fulfill her commitment to 

the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to carry out orders that are unfaithful to the Constitution; 

Whereas by standing up to power for the most at risk in our 

society, Ms. Yates demonstrated moral courage at the 

highest level; and 

Whereas Ms. Yates will stand as a role model of professional 

ethics for men and women across the Nation for years to 

come: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends Sally Quillian Yates for refusing 

3 to enforce Donald Trump’s discriminatory Executive 

4 Order 13769 (82 Fed. Reg. 8977; relating to ‘‘Pro5 tecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry 

6 Into the United States’’); 

7 (2) honors those who faithfully uphold the Con8 stitution by refusing to carry out orders that are 

9 contrary to our laws, ideals, and founding document; 

10 and 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 94 IH 

1 (3) recommits itself to fighting to ensure that 

2 all people receive the dignity, respect, and rights 

3 guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of gender, 

4 sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity, or na5 tional origin. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROW 

BY: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MADELINE MORRISON, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

RICHARD ZUCKER; HILLSDALE 

COLLEGE; FISHER HOUSE 

FOUNDATION; SOUTHWESTERN 

LAW SCHOOL; JIM RUZICKA; AND 

ELAINE STREGER, 

Res • ondents. 

No. 83700 

ILE 

SEP 2 0 2022 

CLERretiETH V 

•-•' • ( P 

kE7VREOA NURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Law Offices of Mitchell S. Sisson 

Goldsmith & Guymon, P.C. 

Elaine Streger 

Jim Ruzicka 

Lee Kiefer & Park, LLP 

Michaelson Law 

Richard Zucker 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

02.2. -PMLiti 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER
#### BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER, PROSECUTOR, v. NANCY COX, DEFENDANT.

Argued January 19, 1938

Decided February 20, 1939.

Before Justices Heher and Perskie.

For the prosecutor, *Milton T. Lasher.*

For the defendant, Nancy Cox, *Crawford Jamieson*and *George Staff*and *Samuel Staff*(of the New York bar); *(Oscar R. Wilensky,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reason expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine, rendered on the return to the writ of *habeas corpus.*122 *N. J. L.*150.

In our view, the case is ruled by *Coughlin*v. Sullivan, 100 *N. J. L.*42. As applied to defendant, Cox, the ordinance constituted an invasion of her fundamental rights. See *Lovell*v. Griffin, 303 *U. S.*444; 58 *S. Ct.*666; 82 *L. Ed.*949. The case of *Town of Irvington*v. Schneider, 120 *N. J. L.*460; *affirmed,*121 *Id.*542, is not in point.

Having thus disposed of the meritorious question, it is unnecessary to pass upon the point made by the named defendant, that, under section 53 of the *Habeas Corpus*act *(Comp. Stat.*1910, *p.*2651; *R. S.*1937, 2:82-48), prosecutor is without standing to secure a review by *certiorari*of the order in question.
§ 1317.60 Inner liner requirements. ( a ) An inner liner shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) The inner liner shall be waterproof, tamper-evident, and tear-resistant;
( 2 ) The inner liner shall be removable and sealable immediately upon removal without emptying or touching the contents;
( 3 ) The contents of the inner liner shall not be viewable from the outside when sealed;
( 4 ) The size of the inner liner shall be clearly marked on the outside of the liner (e.g., 5-gallon, 10-gallon, etc.); and
( 5 ) The inner liner shall bear a permanent, unique identification number that enables the inner liner to be tracked.
( b ) Access to the inner liner shall be restricted to employees of the collector.
( c ) The inner liner shall be sealed by two employees immediately upon removal from the permanent outer container and the sealed inner liner shall not be opened, x-rayed, analyzed, or otherwise penetrated.
#### § 200.506 Audit costs.

See § 200.425.

[85 FR 49571, Aug. 13, 2020]
38496.

#### THE HITCHCOCK CORPORATION v. STONER *et al.*

Decided September 27, 1960.

*451*Smith, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hancock, James B. Hiers, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Rogers & Turoff, Jack Turoff,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

1. In *Brooks v. Ready Mix Concrete Co.,*94 Ga. App. 791 (96 S. E. 2d 213), Judge Felton discussed in a very thorough opinion the absolute liability of one who voluntarily sets in force the motion of an explosion which creates a concussion that causes damages to real property. The liability in such circumstances is absolute and need not again be discussed here.

The defendant contends, in support of its general demurrer, that the instant case is distinguishable from the *Brooks*case, supra, because here the plaintiffs failed to allege that such explosion was voluntarily set in motion by the defendant. The petition alleged: “The defendant herein *caused*to be exploded dynamite.” It was also alleged that “the explosion was created by agents and employees of the defendant,” and that such agents and employees “were acting within the scope of their agency and employment.”

In *Skelton v. Gambrell,*80 Ga. App. 880 (1) (57 S. E. 2d 694), it was said: “The word ‘caused’ more generally conveys the meaning of intention and affirmative action.” In that case, construing a petition on general demurrer, it was held that “caused” should be so construed. While a petition is to be construed most strongly against the pleader on general demurrer, as was said in *Raines v. Jones,*96 Ga. App. 412, 414 (100 S. E. 2d 157): “Even in construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, a strained and unreasonable construction can not be placed on an allegation in testing its sufficiency as against a demurrer.”

So construing the allegation that “the defendant caused to be exploded” it must be construed as meaning “the defendant intentionally had exploded the dynamite.” The petition otherwise set forth a cause of action, and the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

*4522. The defendant filed various special demurrers in which it sought to attack the measure of damages alleged. Each of these special demurrers contends that the measure of damages alleged is incorrect, but neither is the purported true measure of damages alleged, nor is it shown why or wherein some other measure of damages is correct. Accordingly, under the decisions of this court in *Crawford v. Sumerau,*100 Ga. App. 499 (111 S. E. 2d 746); and *Bartow County v. Darnell,*95 Ga. App. 193 (97 S. E. 2d 610), the demurrant failed to lay, as it were, his finger on the very point, and the trial court did not err in overruling such special demurrers.

3. The remaining questions presented by the special demurrers have been carefully examined, and are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
§ 1240.60 Molluscan shellfish. ( a ) A person shall not offer for transportation, or transport, in interstate traffic any molluscan shellfish handled or stored in such an insanitary manner, or grown in an area so contaminated, as to render such molluscan shellfish likely to become agents in, and their transportation likely to contribute to the spread of communicable disease from one State or possession to another.
( b ) All shellstock shall bear a tag that discloses the date and place they were harvested (by State and site), type and quantity of shellfish, and by whom they were harvested (i.e., the identification number assigned to the harvester by the shellfish control authority, where applicable or, if such identification numbers are not assigned, the name of the harvester or the name or registration number of the harvester's vessel). In place of the tag, bulk shellstock shipments may be accompanied by a bill of lading or similar shipping document that contains the same information.
( c ) All containers of shucked molluscan shellfish shall bear a label that identifies the name, address, and certification number of the packer or repacker of the molluscan shellfish.
( d ) Any molluscan shellfish without such a tag, shipping document, or label, or with a tag, shipping document, or label that does not bear all the information required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, shall be subject to seizure or refusal of entry, and destruction.
[40 FR 5620, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 65202, Dec. 18, 1995]
§ 123.7 Corrective actions. ( a ) Whenever a deviation from a critical limit occurs, a processor shall take corrective action either by: ( 1 ) Following a corrective action plan that is appropriate for the particular deviation, or
( 2 ) Following the procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) Processors may develop written corrective action plans, which become part of their HACCP plans in accordance with § 123.6(c)(5), by which they predetermine the corrective actions that they will take whenever there is a deviation from a critical limit. A corrective action plan that is appropriate for a particular deviation is one that describes the steps to be taken and assigns responsibility for taking those steps, to ensure that: ( 1 ) No product enters commerce that is either injurious to health or is otherwise adulterated as a result of the deviation; and
( 2 ) The cause of the deviation is corrected.
( c ) When a deviation from a critical limit occurs and the processor does not have a corrective action plan that is appropriate for that deviation, the processor shall: ( 1 ) Segregate and hold the affected product, at least until the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section are met;
( 2 ) Perform or obtain a review to determine the acceptability of the affected product for distribution. The review shall be performed by an individual or individuals who have adequate training or experience to perform such a review. Adequate training may or may not include training in accordance with § 123.10;
( 3 ) Take corrective action, when necessary, with respect to the affected product to ensure that no product enters commerce that is either injurious to health or is otherwise adulterated as a result of the deviation;
( 4 ) Take corrective action, when necessary, to correct the cause of the deviation;
( 5 ) Perform or obtain timely reassessment by an individual or individuals who have been trained in accordance with § 123.10, to determine whether the HACCP plan needs to be modified to reduce the risk of recurrence of the deviation, and modify the HACCP plan as necessary.
( d ) All corrective actions taken in accordance with this section shall be fully documented in records that are subject to verification in accordance with § 123.8(a)(3)(ii) and the recordkeeping requirements of § 123.9.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 801 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 801

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
   consideration of legislation in the House unless the text of the 
 legislation which will be considered has been made publicly available 
       in electronic form for a mandatory minimum review period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2018

 Mr. Garrett submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
   consideration of legislation in the House unless the text of the 
 legislation which will be considered has been made publicly available 
       in electronic form for a mandatory minimum review period.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Review Every Act Diligently 
In Total Resolution'' or the ``READ IT Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONSIDERATION OF TEXT OF LEGISLATION UNTIL 
              COMPLETION OF MANDATORY MINIMUM REVIEW PERIOD.

    Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
    ``13.(a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 
resolution, resolution, or conference report unless the text of the 
bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference report which will be 
considered has been publicly available in electronic form for the 
mandatory minimum review period.
    ``(b) In this clause, the `mandatory minimum review period' with 
respect to a bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference report 
is the period--
            ``(1) which begins with the first hour beginning after the 
        text of the bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference 
        report which will be considered is first made publicly 
        available in electronic form; and
            ``(2) which consists of a number of minutes equal to two 
        times the number of pages of the text of the bill, joint 
        resolution, resolution, or conference report which will be 
        considered.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 61 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 61

      Supporting the goals and ideals of a Juan Pablo Duarte Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 2017

Mr. Espaillat submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Supporting the goals and ideals of a Juan Pablo Duarte Day.

Whereas the people of the Dominican Republic acquired autonomy and sovereignty 
        on the 27th day of February 1844;
Whereas the Island of Quisqueya, the indigenous name for what later became the 
        island of Hispaniola, was the cradle of thinking and achievement in the 
        western hemisphere, establishing the first university and cathedral of 
        the New World;
Whereas on the 26th day of January 1813, Juan Pablo Duarte, the founding father 
        of the Dominican Republic, was born;
Whereas, during the month of January 2017, Dominicans will celebrate the 204th 
        Anniversary of Juan Pablo Duarte's birth;
Whereas Juan Pablo Duarte, along with Francisco Del Rosario Sanchez and Ramon 
        Matias Melia, formed La Trinitaria, a secret organization that initiated 
        the movement for the independence of the Dominican Republic; and
Whereas, during the month of February 2017, Dominican Nationals and Dominican 
        Americans from throughout the Dominican Republic and the United States 
        will celebrate the independence of the Dominican Republic: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of a Juan Pablo Duarte 
        Day;
            (2) supports the establishment of a national day of 
        recognition for Juan Pablo Duarte to honor the founding father 
        of the Dominican Republic; and
            (3) urges the people of the United States to observe a 
        national day of recognition for Dominican-Americans with 
        appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.
                                 <all>
```
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge 

Frank Milford Peck 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney/Civil Division 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A cilRe),
D1

1

2 Z1 1

5 MIXED VALUE CAPACITORS

7 MIXED VALUE RESISTORS

D4

C1 D4- SS3P3-E3/84AGICT-ND

Front side of the board

IC-1

IC-2

IC-3

F1

D2

D3

Q1

3

1

Z1 1

2

2

1

1

C1- P930-ND
IC-1, IC-2 - SP8M8TBCT-ND 

IC-3-PIC16F684-I/SL-ND 

Z1-DL5244B-TPMSCT-ND

F1-F2933CT-ND 

D1, D2, D3 - B340A-FDICT-ND 

Q1- BC848C-TPMSCT-ND
Other side of the board

Q1 Q2

Q3 

Q4

Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7-

BC848C-TPMSCT-ND

IC-2

IC-2- SN65MLVD200D

2

6

2

2

2

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

IC-2- SN65MLVD200D

IC-1

IC-1- UA78L05ACDRE4-ND

4

2

2

2

3

2

1

27 MIXED VALUE RESISTORS

3 MIXED VALUE CAPACITORS

Z2

IC-3
Z2- DL5244B-TPMSCT-ND

IC-3-

4 pin conn-
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 87

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Resources in the 
                      One Hundred Ninth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2005

    Mr. Pombo (for himself and Mr. Rahall) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Resources in the 
                      One Hundred Ninth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Resources, including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $14,805,934.00 for the One Hundred 
Ninth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amounts specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $7,289,521.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2005, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2006; and
            (2) not more than $7,516,413.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2006, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2007.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```