alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COALITION ON POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Appellee.

No. 00-5162.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 25, 2001.

Before HENDERSON, TATEL, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

This case was heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments by counsel. The court has accorded the arguments full consideration and has determined the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. *See*D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b).

The district court correctly held that the Department of Defense (DOD) satisfied its obligation under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to search for records responsive to the appellant’s request for “[a]ny and all records related to any surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during March or April 1968.” The DOD’s affidavits establish that it searched its record indices for documents relevant both to the appellant’s initial request and to specific code words the appellant later supplied. Further, the appellant *14has not offered any evidence rebutting the adequacy of the search. That responsive documents may have once existed does not establish that they remain in the DOD’s custody today. The DOD demonstrated below that its repository was purged of surveillance records during the mid-1970s and that documents such as those sought were at that time either destroyed or forwarded to the National Archives and Records Administration. Nor should a search based on the appellant’s limited request have produced, as the appellant claims, daily personnel assignment records with no apparent connection to the alleged surveillance or to the code words. In sum, the DOD met its burden on summary judgment to “demonstrate beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” *Nation Magazine v. United States Customs Serv.,*71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C.Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. *See*D.C.Cir. Rule 41(a)(1).
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2020 ReportingSection VII  &"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2021-07	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2020
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00549-CR

IN RE Jonathan MIMS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 11, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 27, 2010, relator Jonathan Mims filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining

of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial. However, counsel has been

appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is

currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v.

State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on a pro se motion filed with regard to a

criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d

at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro

1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CR-7180, styled State of Texas v. Jonathan Mims, pending

in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori Valenzuela presiding.
04-10-00549-CR

se motion filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition is

denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-
|   | (1) | 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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |                                                                                                   |                                    |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| June                  26, 2006 |                                                                                              | /s/ Timothy                  Neher |
|                           | Timothy                  Neher, Chief Executive Officer (Principal                  Executive Officer) |

----
No. 49108.

#### Protests 961366-G, etc., of H. C. Donaldson & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the coke in question is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Donaldson*v. *United States*(30 C. C. P. A. 223, C. A. D. 236), which record was incorporated herein, it was held that’the said tax is not applicable.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES REEVES, III : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE :

DEPARTMENT, et al. : NO. 02-4428

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2002, counsel for

defendant Vanessa Carter-Moragne having informed the Court that

the Commonwealth has closed its criminal investigation without

filing any charges against her, it is hereby ORDERED that the

Clerk of Court shall REMOVE this case from the civil suspense

docket and RESTORE it to the Court's active docket.

BY THE COURT:

 ______________________________

 Stewart Dalzell, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04428-SD Document 10 Filed 12/06/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 47822.

#### Protests 939073-G, etc., of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel fur dogs similar to those the subject of Abstract 41823 were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e), and whistling balloons, rubber balloons, and noisemakers, composed in part of bamboo, similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493, were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409 as claimed. It was further stipulated that the jump sticks or trick paddles in question are in chief value of wood, similar to those the subject of Abstract 44028, and the claim at 33)4 percent under paragraph' 412 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
       Exhibit 11 - Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings



                                                       1998                             1997                         1996         
                                           --------------------------------   -------------------------   --------------------------
                                                 Basic         Diluted          Basic         Diluted         Basic         Diluted
<S>                                             <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>      

Weighted average common
    shares outstanding                          1,391,940      1,391,940      1,370,017      1,370,017      1,369,555      1,369,555

Weighted average common shares
    issuable upon exercise of
    stock options under the
    treasury stock method                            --           61,532           --           98,235           --             --

Weighted average common
    shares issuable upon
    exercise of warrants under
    the treasury stock method                        --             --             --             --             --             --

Weighted average common
    shares and common share
    equivalents utilized for
    earnings per share
    computation                                 1,391,940      1,453,472      1,370,017      1,468,252      1,369,555      1,369,555

</TABLE>
No. 50422.

#### Protests 36954-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence disclosed that the horns are similar to those the subject of Abstracts 48585, 48907, 49320, and 49673, which records were incorporated herein. The protests were therefore sustained as claimed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL L. SMITH, No. 2:04-cv-0702-MCE-PAN-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

C. KING,

Defendant.

 /

DARREL L. SMITH, No. 2:04-cv-0703-MCE-KJM-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

SGT. J. SWANEY and LT. GOLD,

Defendants.

 /

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The Court has received the Notice of Related Cases

concerning the above-captioned cases filed August 11, 2005. See

Local Rule 83-123, E.D. Cal. (1997). The Court has, however,

determined that it is inappropriate to relate and reassign Civil

No. 2:04-cv-0702-MCE-PAN-P to Civil No. 2:04-cv-0703-MCE-KJM-P,

and it therefore declines to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 80 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2
# sec5_custodialact_2019

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-14	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SCA - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10August 2019
JOHN MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

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. 1D15-0349

Opinion filed May 8, 2015.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

John Moore, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the order dismissing defendant’s motion to 

correct sentence rendered on July 26, 2013, in Okaloosa County Circuit Court case 

number 1997-CF-1491, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion 

shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal.

LEWIS, C.J., WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6688** 

JEFFREY WESTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee , and
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION , R espondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cv - 00107

- JMC )

Submitted : November 10, 2011 Decided: January 12, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN , and W YNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jeffrey Weston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Weston seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Th e order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wron g. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, a nd that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Weston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate o f appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1541 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1541

            To modify the definition of an antique firearm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2017

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To modify the definition of an antique firearm.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.

    Section 921(a)(16)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``1898'' and inserting ``the calendar year that is 100 
years before the calendar year in which the determination as to whether 
the firearm meets the requirement of this subparagraph is being made''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

    Subsection (g) of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1898'' the first place it appears and 
        inserting ``the calendar year that is 100 years before the 
        calendar year in which the determination as to whether the 
        firearm meets the requirement of this subsection is being 
        made'';
            (2) by striking ``the year 1898'' and inserting ``the 
        calendar year that is 100 years before the calendar year in 
        which such determination is being made''; and
            (3) by striking ``1898,'' and inserting ``the calendar year 
        that is 100 years before the calendar year in which such 
        determination is being made,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12

INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (dollars in thousands)

|                                                        |  | Fiscal Year Ended |       
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- | ------
|
|Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes |  | $                 | 24,798
|Plus:    Fixed charges(1)                               |  |                   | 24,631
|Less:    Capitalized interest                           |  |                   | (306  
|                                                        |  |                   |       
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges               |  | $                 | 49,123
|                                                        |  |                   |       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      |  |                   | 1.99  
|                                                        |  |                   |       

---

|                          |                     | Fiscal Year Ended
|------------------------- | ------------------- | -----------------
|
|Interest expense, gross   |                     | $                
|Rentals (interest factor) |                     |                  
|                          |                     |                  
|                          | Total fixed charges |                  
|                          |                     |                  

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2322

REGINA WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William G. Connelly, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-2455-AMD) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: January 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Regina Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas James Cohen, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994). 2 Although the district court's order is dated August 18, 1999, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 19, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Regina Washington appeals from the magistrate judge’s order1 granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security onher claim for disability benefits. Having reviewed the administrative record, we find that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying benefits. See Hays v. Sullivan , 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Washington v. Apfel , No. CA-98-2455-AMD (D. Md. Aug. 19, 1999). 2 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
No. 63618.

protests 324264-K, etc. (New York).

#### Kaiser-Reismann Corporation *v.*United States,

*437Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/6/2023 1

A Defective Absentee-Ballot Application 

by a Hospitalized Voter 

Ramsden v. Husted 

(Benita Y. Pearson, N.D. Ohio 4:16-cv-641) 

After the polls closed, a hospitalized voter filed a federal complaint 

alleging that election authorities improperly refused to provide the 

voter with an absentee ballot on election day. The judge determined 

that the voter’s application was defective and denied the voter relief. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

primary election; provisional ballots. 

A voter hospitalized for a psychiatric condition on March 12, 2016, filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Ohio’s Youngstown courthouse at 

11:48 p.m. on March 15 alleging that county election officials refused to provide him with an absentee ballot so that he could vote in a March 15 primary 

election.1 Named as defendants were Ohio’s secretary of state and the director 

of Columbiana County’s board of elections, serving the county just south of 

the county that includes Youngstown.2 With his complaint, the voter filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order.3

On March 16, Judge Benita Y. Pearson set the case for a telephonic hearing 

at noon that day and ordered the defendants to file a brief before the hearing.4

The hearing established that the voter’s application for an absentee ballot did 

not provide either a fax number or contact information for a family member 

to facilitate delivery of the ballot.5 At the ninety-minute hearing, Judge Pearson announced that she would rule on the following day.6

 On March 17, she 

denied immediate relief, concluding that “[a]ll evidence before the Court at 

this time indicates that a lack of compliance, rather than disability, precluded 

Plaintiff from submitting a ballot.”7 Judge Pearson ordered the defendants to 

permit the plaintiff to cast a provisional absentee ballot, and she set the case 

for further hearing on April 1.8 The voter dismissed the action on March 24.9

1. Complaint, Ramsden v. Husted, No. 4:16-cv-641 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2016), D.E. 1; 

Opinion at 2, id. (Mar. 16, 2016), D.E. 11. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Ramsden, No. 4:16-cv-641 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 

2016), D.E. 2; see Opinion, supra note 1, at 3 (“No request for a hearing was made.”). 

4. Order, Ramsden, No. 4:16-cv-641 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2016), D.E. 6. 

5. Opinion, supra note 1, at 2 & n.2. 

6. Docket Sheet, Ramsden, No. 4:16-cv-641 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2016) (Mar. 16, 2016, 

minutes). 

7. Opinion, supra note 1, at 4. 

8. Id. at 9. 

9. Notice, Ramsden, No. 4:16-cv-641 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2016), D.E. 12.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2022 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-10	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"March 2022
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2020 ReportingSection VII  

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-21	&"Arial,Bold"VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"August 2020
Before the Third Division,

February 6, 1952

No. 56363.

protest 172694-K (New York).

#### Joseph H. Reinfeld, Inc. *v.*United States,

*393Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155). For the reasons stated in the cited authority, the first claim of the plaintiff was sustained. It was also stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited authority it was held that an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes should be made as to 'the merchandise respecting the quantities reported by the discharging inspector as not landed, not found. The protest was sustained to the extent indicated.