alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6195
RODDY S. HAYDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS; CHERYL SAUNDERS, R.N.; JACK MOMODU, M.D., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 3386-L) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 13, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roddy S. Hayden, Appellant Pro Se. Severn Eyre Savage Miller, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Philip Melton Andrews, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hayden v. Corcoran , No. CA-96-3386-L (D. Md. Jan. 23, 1997). 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
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUTANTS


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No.  333-80450 and  333-91863) and Forms S-3 (File Nos.
033-99736-01,  333-03526-01, 333-39365-01 and 333-61394-01) of Tanger Properties
Limited  Partnership  of our reports  dated  January  17,  2003  relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form
10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Raleigh, NC
March 28, 2003
§ 302-5.101 What governing policies must we establish for the househunting trip expenses allowance? You must establish policies and procedures governing: ( a ) When you will authorize a househunting trip for an employee;
( b ) Who will determine if a househunting trip is appropriate in each situation;
( c ) If and when you will authorize the lump sum option for househunting trip subsistence expenses reimbursement;
( d ) Who will determine the appropriate duration of a househunting trip for an employee who selects a per diem allowance under part 302-4 of this chapter to reimburse househunting trip subsistence expenses; and
( e ) Who will determine the mode(s) of transportation to be used.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18336, Apr. 1, 2011]
#### § 109-45.309-52 Classified property.

Classified property shall be made available for sale only after the declassification requirements of § 109-43.307-51 of this subpart have been met.
M EMORANDUM

T O : Docket for Reid Gardner Generating Station: EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0148

Docket for Navajo Generating Station: EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

F ROM : Anita Lee

D ATE : April 15, 2013

R E : Meeting on April 12, 2013 with Nevada Energy (NV Energy) and Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection (NDEP)

Participants:

 Starla Lacy (NV Energy)

 Mike Elges and Rob Bamford (NDEP)

 Deborah Jordan, Ann Lyons, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

 David Carson

, by phone (US Department of Justice)

Location:

 EPA Region 9 Office in San Francisco, CA

Summary:

 NV Energy provided a summary and update of “NVision”, the proposal to the Nevada State Legislature

that may involve early closure of Reid Gardner Generating Station and sale of its share of Navajo

Generating Station.
§ 300-80.3 What must be done to apply for test program authority? The head of the agency or designee must design the test program to enhance cost savings or other efficiencies to the Government and submit in writing to the Administrator of General Services, Office of Government-wide Policy, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405: ( a ) An explanation of the test program;
( b ) If applicable, the specific provisions of the FTR from which the agency is deviating;
( c ) An analysis of the expected costs and benefits; and
( d ) A set of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the program.
[FTR Amdt. 83, 64 FR 28881, May 27, 1999, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-04, 72 FR 51374, Sept. 7, 2007; 85 FR 39848, July 2, 2020]
# Comments on: 2018-1358: Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.
§ 301-70.705 What methods of payment for official travel expenses may we authorize when an exemption from use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card is granted? When you grant an exemption from use of the Government contractor-issued travel charge card, you may authorize one or a combination of the following methods of payment: ( a ) Personal funds, including cash or personal charge card;
( b ) Travel advances; or
( c ) Government Transportation Request (GTR).
Note to § 301-70.705 :
City pair contractors are not required to accept payment by the methods in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on April 11, 2000, Penick 
Corporation, 158 Mount Olivet Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07114, made 
application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Dihydrocodeine (9120)......................  II
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II
Hydromorpnone (9150).......................  II
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II
Meperidine (9230)..........................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
Thebaine (9333)............................  II
Opium extracts (9610)......................  II
Opium powdered (9639)......................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for 
distribution as bulk pharmaceutical products to its customers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than August 25, 2000.

    Dated: June 14, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-15985 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### § 109-1.5100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides guidance on DOE standards and practices to be applied in the management of personal property.
§ 302-2.103 How must we administer the authorization for relocation of an employee? To administer the authorization for relocation of an employee, you must: ( a ) Issue an employee a TA for relocation before the employee transfers to a new official station;
( b ) Inform the employee of the transfer within a timeframe that will provide the employee sufficient time for preparation;
( c ) Establish timeframes on when employees must submit a TA request;
( d ) Provide new employees with the applicable limitations of their travel benefits; and
( e ) Provide counseling about relocation benefits to all relocating employees. In addition, you should offer counseling as early as possible during the relocation process and you should consider offering counseling to employees who are contemplating acceptance of a job that would require them to relocate.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18336, Apr. 1, 2011; FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12254, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### The Walsh Mercantile Company v. John Fullam *et al.*

1. Judgment, *Not Disturbed.*A judgment on a verdict approved by the trial court, based upon conflicting and contradictory evidence, will not be disturbed when there is substantial evidence to uphold it.

2. *Instbuotions*— No *Exceptions.*Where no exceptions are taken to the giving or refusing of instructions at the trial, this court cannot examine them. *(Gafford v. Nall,*39 Kas. 166.)

*Error from Leavenworth District Court.*

The opinion states the case.

*Dorter & Hunter,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Dill,*for defendants in error.

Opinion by

Holt, C.:

The plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, recovered a judgment in the Leavenworth district court, at the September term, 1887, for $68.25, against John Fullam; and Ellen Fullam recovered against plaintiff a judgment for costs. The plaintiff complains of the judgment in favor of Ellen Fullam, claiming there should have been a judgment against both John Fullam and Ellen Fullam, as they were partners in the business of selling liquors in Leavenworth. The agent of the plaintiff claims that the liquors for which this action was brought were sold to both parties. This is denied by both defendants and their daughter, and the written order for wines and liquors offered in evidence by plaintiff was signed by John Fullam alone. Upon this conflicting and contradictory testimony the jury found in favor of the defendant, Ellen Fullam.

From a careful examination of the record we are inclined to think that the verdict was supported by a preponderance of evidence. In any event, under the well-established rule of this court, we shall not disturb the judgment based upon this verdict, there being substantial evidence to sustain it.

Another complaint of the plaintiff is, that the court erred *182in its instructions to the jury concerning a certain order for $16.25 for wines and liquors, given by John Fullam, at Leavenworth,'Kansas, to the agent, and by him forwarded to plaintiff at St. Joseph, Missouri. We are precluded from examining this alleged error, for the reason that neither the refusal to give the instruction asked nor the giving of the instruction submitted was excepted to by the plaintiff. *(Gafford v. Hall,*39 Kas. 166.)

These are the only errors complained of. We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.
#### § 301-71.101 What travel may we authorize?

You may authorize only travel which is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Government effectively and economically. This must be communicated to any official who has the authority to authorize travel.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 13, 2015

No. 04-14-00719-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION D.P., As a 

Mentally Ill Person,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-MH-3187

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Comments on: 20-2314: SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC. v. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 695

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior

to convey an administrative site in San Juan County, New Mexico,

to San Juan College.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mrs. WILSON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary

of the Interior to convey an administrative site in San

Juan County, New Mexico, to San Juan College.

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, OLD JICARILLA ADMINIS4 TRATIVE SITE.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.—Not later than one

6 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (herein

8 the ‘‘Secretaries’’) shall convey to San Juan College in

9 Farmington, New Mexico, subject to the terms and condi-
2

•HR 695 IH

1 tions under subsection (c), all right, title, and interest of

2 the United States in and to a parcel of real property (in3 cluding any improvements on the land) consisting of ap4 proximately ten acres known as the ‘‘Old Jicarilla Site’’

5 and located in San Juan County, New Mexico, in portions

6 of sections 29 and 30 of township 29 north, range 5 west.

7 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The exact acreage

8 and legal description of the real property conveyed under

9 subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory

10 to the Secretaries and the President of San Juan College.

11 The cost of the survey shall be borne by San Juan College.

12 (c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—

13 (1) Notwithstanding section 1(c) of the Act of

14 June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the Recreation

15 and Public Purposes Act; 43 U.S.C. 869(c)), consid16 eration for the conveyance described in subsection

17 (a) shall be—

18 (A) an amount that is consistent with the

19 Bureau of Land Management special pricing

20 program for Governmental entities under such

21 Act; and

22 (B) an agreement between the Secretaries

23 and San Juan College indemnifying the Govern24 ment of the United States from all liability of

25 the Government that arises from the property.
3

•HR 695 IH

1 (2) The lands conveyed by this section shall be

2 used for educational and recreational purposes. If

3 such lands cease to be used for such purposes, at the

4 option of the United States, such lands will revert

5 to the United States.

6 (d) LAND WITHDRAWALS.—Public Land Order 3443,

7 only insofar as it pertains to lands described in subsections

8 (a) and (b), shall be revoked simultaneous with the convey9 ance of the property under subsection (a).

Æ
#### § 302-6.202 Under what circumstances may we authorize the TQSE allowance?

You may authorize a TQSE allowance on an individual-case basis when use of temporary quarters is justified in connection with an employee's transfer to a new official station, including upon assignment to a temporary official station and permanent assignment to a temporary official station. You may not authorize a TQSE allowance for vacation purposes or other reasons unrelated to the transfer.
404 A.2d 1352

#### Gibbons v. Hostler, Appellant.

Submitted October 26, 1978.

Chester B. Smith, for appellant; Amos Davis, for appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

Order affirmed.

SPAETH, J., concurred in the result.
# Comments on: 17-2193: JENKINS v. MSPB [OPINION], Precedential
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23



              Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Indpendent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Pittsburgh Financial Corp. ("Company") on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-35984
and 333-19805) pertaining to the Company's Stock Option Plans of our report
dated October 31, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Pittsburgh Financial Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended September 30, 2001.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
December 21, 2001
347P15

#### State v. Antone Lamont Bell

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

Denied 10/14/2015
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Marcy Lerch v. Wilmington Trust NA Successor Trustee for

the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investor Trust Series 2006

- HE5

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 505

- C V

Trial court case number: 15

- CCV

- 054652

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Fort Bend County

The panel has voted to deny appellant’s motion for reconsideration , construed as a

motion for rehearing

, of the order, signed on June 11, 2015

.

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley



Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale

Date: August 4, 2015
No. 10-11067.

#### Avila-Aguilar *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
,. 

# +/6..A-20 I()- I

# r 7<Z
Contacts. With whom outside tOOFAA has this proposal 

### been dif.cus:sed?

Organization Person Conta:;led 

# o.te Response Nal/omll Business .'\ir"rafl Assoei1t:fion EliOml 11119110 Rer.ioDlil Airlint' AMociation Dne l.oltrrl'r 1tI19/IO Connie Arnold ,~irt'raCiOWlll'lT & Pitols Auociation Robert H.dman 11119/10 ATA Jot White 11119110
#### § 109-45.902 Findings justifying abandonment or destruction.
§ 301-31.9 What subsistence expense may my agency pay? Only your lodging cost may be paid. However, your agency may pay for meals and laundry/cleaning expenses if: ( a ) Your temporary living accommodations do not have kitchen or laundry facilities; or
( b ) Your agency determines that other extenuating circumstances exist which necessitate payment of these expenses.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 821

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require Medicaid coverage

of disabled children, and individuals who became disabled as children,

without regard to income or assets.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require

Medicaid coverage of disabled children, and individuals

who became disabled as children, without regard to income or assets.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 821 IH

1 SECTION 1. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF DISABLED CHIL2 DREN, AND INDIVIDUALS WHO BECAME DIS3 ABLED AS CHILDREN, WITHOUT REGARD TO

4 INCOME OR ASSETS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)) is

7 amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause

9 (VI);

10 (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of sub11 clause (VII) and inserting ‘‘, or’’; and

12 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub13 clause:

14 ‘‘(VIII) who are disabled (as de15 termined under section 1614 for pur16 poses of the supplemental income se17 curity program) on the basis of an im18 pairment that arose before the indi19 vidual attained 19 years of age and

20 who were so disabled before attaining

21 such age;’’.

22 (b) WAIVER OF INCOME LIMITATION.—Section

23 1903(f)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(f)(4)) is amend24 ed by inserting ‘‘1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII),’’ after

25 ‘‘1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VII),’’.
3

•HR 821 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(1) Except as provided in

2 paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section

3 apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after the date

4 that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this

5 Act, without regard to whether or not final regulations to

6 carry out such amendments have been promulgated by

7 such date.

8 (2) In the case of a State plan for medical assistance

9 under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Sec10 retary of Health and Human Services determines requires

11 State legislation (other than legislation appropriating

12 funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional require13 ment imposed by the amendments made by subsection (a),

14 the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply

15 with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of

16 its failure to meet this additional requirement before the

17 first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the

18 close of the first regular session of the State legislature

19 that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.

20 For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a

21 State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of

22 such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular ses23 sion of the State legislature.

Æ
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

July 12, 2024

CR-2023-0067

Donnie Donell Miles v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Lee Circuit Court: CC-19-

918) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on July 12, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-reference cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
§ 301-74.21 What is the applicable M&IE rate when meals or light refreshments are furnished by the Government or are included in the registration fee? When meals or light refreshments are furnished by the Government or are included in the registration fee the applicable M&IE will be calculated as follows: ( a ) If meals are furnished, the appropriate deduction from the M&IE rate must be made (see § 301-11.18 of this chapter).
( b ) If light refreshments are furnished, no deduction of the M&IE allowance is required.
[FTR Amdt. 89, 65 FR 1327, Jan. 10, 2000, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2005-06, 70 FR 60222, Oct. 17, 2005]
No. 92-7905.

#### Fulford *v.*Whitley, Warden.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,165
<OTHER-SE>                                   (186,697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,623)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-9543.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 105-53.146 [Reserved]