alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry W. Slaughter, Defendant.

County Court, Erie County,

April 21, 1966.

*Herald P. Fahringer, Jr.,*for defendant. *Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney (Arthur G. Bawneister*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*1015Burke I. Burke, J.

The defendant, charged with homicide, was surrendered by one of his attorneys to the police. The attorney, in the presence of the defendant and police, instructed his client to make no statements and requested the police to conduct no interrogation.

Within a few hours thereafter, police obtained a warrant from a Buffalo City Court Judge to search the defendant’s home for a shotgun allegedly used in the commission of the homicide. The warrant was executed by police over the objection of another defense attorney, on active duty at the defendant’s home, where police seized a shotgun and box of shells.

Defendant moves to suppress these articles and to bar their use at trial upon grounds that they were seized illegally in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.

The defendant argues (1) that the articles are mere evidence, citing several United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the seizure of personal or business papers, and (2) that the search was illegal because it was conducted after the defendant had obtained counsel.

The articles seized are within three of the four subdivisions of section 792 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, describing property subject to seizure under a warrant. Although section 792 specifically includes a provision for the seizure of evidence, the shotgun is more in the nature of an instrumentality of crime, as referred to in subdivision 3 of the section.

The defendant further contends that since the prosecution may not compel an accused to produce evidence against himself, the prosecution may not seize the same evidence from the defendant by use of a search warrant, not dependent on defendant’s speech and/or conduct.

If the home of a prospective defendant were immune to police investigation under these or similar circumstances, as urged here, it could lead to ridiculous ends. For example, a defendant shoots and kills a person in the street, moves the body and weapon into his home, and then surrenders to police and asserts his constitutional rights. According to the theory of the defense, this procedure would prevent police from searching for the body or weapon, even though they acquired knowledge from another source.

The motion to suppress the articles seized is denied. The motion to suppress the statements, if any, of defendant, is deferred until the time of a *Huntley*hearing (15 N Y 2d 72), in accordance with the rules of the court. The motion to dismiss the indictment is denied. The remaining motion, to inspect the shotgun, is granted under conditions to be fixed by the court.
No. 96-7621.

#### Calamia *v.*Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certio-rari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Lynce*v. *Mathis,*519 U. S. 433 (1997).
No. 44332.

#### Protests 933301-G, etc., of John Thallon & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that the merchandise is properly dutiable at 3)4 cents per pound under paragraph 703, Tariff Act of 1930, on the basis of the net weight of the contents of the cans less 10 percent allowance for the gelatinous material.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 171 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 171

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
 Wyden, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 
              SHELF OFF THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND 
              WASHINGTON.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or 
natural gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of 
the State of California, Oregon, or Washington.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Philomenia JOHNSON, et al. v. Hon. Troy A. CARTER, et al.

No. 98-C-0908.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Johnson, Philomenia; Tasker, Johnnie Mae; Long, Dorothy;—Plaintiff(s); applying for -writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, No. 97-8378; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CA-1800.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel; recused.
No. 96-6010.

#### Mack *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1612 

AN ACT 

To provide the Department of Justice with additional tools 

to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity. 

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

†S 1612 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Targeting 

3 Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTION 

5 FOR PURPOSES OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTA6 TIONS. 

7 Section 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import 

8 and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 959) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 

10 subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and 

11 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘It shall’’ and 

12 all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘It shall 

13 be unlawful for any person to manufacture or dis14 tribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II or 

15 flunitrazepam or a listed chemical intending, know16 ing, or having reasonable cause to believe that such 

17 substance or chemical will be unlawfully imported 

18 into the United States or into waters within a dis19 tance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States. 

20 ‘‘(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufac21 ture or distribute a listed chemical— 

22 ‘‘(1) intending or knowing that the listed chem23 ical will be used to manufacture a controlled sub24 stance; and 
3 

†S 1612 ES

1 ‘‘(2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable 

2 cause to believe that the controlled substance will be 

3 unlawfully imported into the United States.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 15, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1612 

AN ACT 

To provide the Department of Justice with addificking activity. tional tools to target extraterritorial drug traf-
No. 55569.

#### Chanticleer Press, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 166984-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11342 Summary Calendar

KIRK DOUGLAS THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; TIM MORGAN, Warden; JAMES DUKE, Assistant Warden; JAMES WAKEFIELD, Warden; S. O. WOODS, Classification Chief; ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-74-BA

-------------------- September 29, 1999 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kirk Douglas Thompson, a Texas prisoner (# 636131), appeals from a judgment, entered by the magistrate judge, which dismissed his civil rights complaint as frivolous. For the reasons assigned, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.No. 98-11342 -2- The statutory authority for a magistrate judge to adjudicate a matter is found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), which provides in pertinent part: (1) Upon the consent of the parties , a . . . magistrate [judge] . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court or courts he serves. . . . (emphasis added). When the magistrate judge enters final judgment in a suit pursuant to § 636(c)(1), lack of consent and defects in the order of reference are jurisdictional errors that cannot be waived. EEOC v. West Louisiana Health Servs., Inc. , 959 F.2d 1277, 1281-82 & nn.3 and 4 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Mendes Jr. Intern. Co. v. M/V Sokai Maru , 978 F.2d 920, 923-24 (5th Cir. 1992). A review of the record reveals that Thompson never provided written consent to the entry of judgment by the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge thus lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment in this case. See West Louisiana Health Servs. , 959 F.2d at 1281-82. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Trufant v. Autocon, Inc. , 729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984).
DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001056562
<NAME> UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,539
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,228
<PP&E>                                          89,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 322,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,436
<BONDS>                                         80,876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   322,445
<SALES>                                        255,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255,112
<CGS>                                          202,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  278,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,413
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,158)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.75)


</TABLE>
# C_2013225EN.01008002.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/80

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo

(Case T-213/12) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - Helicopter support to the EULEX Kosovo mission - Rejection of the bid of a tenderer - No legal capacity to be a defendant - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 225/178

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Elitaliana SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Colagrande, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, Solicitor)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, application for annulment of the decision by Eulex Kosovo to award the contract to a tenderer other than the applicant in tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK’ concerning helicopter support to the EULEX Mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11) and, secondly, a claim for compensation against Eulex Kosovo for the loss purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Elitaliana SpA is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Elitaliana SpA is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001057051
<NAME>                                  Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P.

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                       20,958,126
<SECURITIES>                                                 65,191,552
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 9,633,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             95,783,289
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               95,783,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        21,456,625
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   74,326,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 95,783,289
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             17,009,228
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              1,508,172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              13,669,172
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 13,669,172
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    272.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0


</TABLE>
# C_2012184EN.01002504.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/25

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 April 2012 — Collado v Commission

(Case F-15/12)

2012/C 184/57

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated as of January 18, 2008, by and between
Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices at 1772 Technology Drive, San Jose, California 95110
(hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), and William Hawkins, an individual
residing at 5248 Saint Annes Court, San Jose, California 95138 (hereinafter
referred to as "Employee").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement,
dated April 26, 2005 (the "Original Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to continue to employ the Employee as its Chief
Operating Officer, and the Employee desires to serve the Company in that
capacity, upon the terms and subject to the conditions contained in the Original
Agreement, as amended by this Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Original Agreement.

2. The Employee agrees to continue to execute his duties and responsibilities in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the Original Agreement, subject to
the following terms and conditions as agreed upon:

      (a)   The first sentence of Section 2.a shall be replaced in its entirety
            by: "Subject to Section 9 and Section 10 below, the term of this
            Agreement shall be for a period of forty-two (42) months commencing
            on April 26th, 2005 (the Term)."

      (b)   Effective January 1, 2008, Employee shall be paid a base pay of
            $185,000 per year during the Term.

All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement not affected hereby
shall remain in effect as originally drafted.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.

DOCUMENT CAPTURE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                        EMPLOYEE

By: /S/ DARWIN HU                         /S/ WILLIAM HAWKINS
    -------------                         -------------------
    Darwin Hu                             William Hawkins
    Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Aisia JOHNSON, Appellant. Aisia JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66451, 72574.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 25, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 26, 1998.

Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1998.

*444Dorothy M. Hirzy, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Gregory L. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and CRANDALL and AHRENS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Aisia Johnson appeals from his judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, of three counts of burglary in the second degree, one count of stealing $150 or more, and one count of escape from confinement. Defendant was sentenced as a class X offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty years for each of the three counts of burglary in the second degree, as well as for the felony stealing count, and to a concurrent term of imprisonment of ten years for the escape from custody charge, for a total term of imprisonment of twenty years. Defendant-also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

With regard to defendant’s direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The denial of defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 17, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00389-CV 

IN RE CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CV99-01573-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

Relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The facts and issues are well known to 

the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court does not have jurisdiction over 

relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. While the courts of appeals have concurrent 

mandamus jurisdiction with the court of criminal appeals in some post-conviction proceedings, 

Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (forensic DNA testing), only 

the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction in cases collaterally attacking a final judgment of 

conviction of a felony. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re 

Turk, No. 14-09-00129-CR, 2009 WL 396197, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 

2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Bailey, No. 14-06-00841-CV, 2006 WL 2827249, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 

717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role for 
 –2– 

the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of 

Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718. Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition. 

140389F.P05 /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
cost estimation methods for SCR

Don_Shepherd Shepherd Shepherd to: david.hurlbut, Anita Lee, 

Patricia_F_Brewer 09/29/2011 03:51 PM

1 attachment

updated NPS SCR modified Cost manual approach for NGS #2.xlsx

Folks,

Here is my SCR cost estimation method applied to NGS#2:

(See attached file: updated NPS SCR modified Cost manual approach for NGS

#2.xlsx)

The only difference is that i used CAM data for 2000 - 2009 because the

combustion controls were added in 2010.

Don Shepherd

National Park Service

Air Resources Division

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy.

Lakewood, CO 80228

Phone: 303-969-2075

Fax: 303-969-2822

E-Mail: don_shepherd@nps.gov
No. 96-113.

#### Kansas Public Employees Retirement System *v.*Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc., et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.