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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 43

To phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley

Authority.

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

3 SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

4 (a) DISCONTINUANCE OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

5 27 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16

6 U.S.C. 831z) is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘for fiscal years ending with

8 (and including) fiscal year 1996’’ before the period;

9 and

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘No ap11 propriations may be made available for the National
2

•S 43 IS

1 Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center for

2 fiscal year 1996.’’.

3 (b) REPORT.—Not later than January 1, 1996, the

4 Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall

5 submit a plan to Congress that—

6 (1) describes the programs that should continue

7 to be operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority

8 after fiscal year 1996 and describes how those pro9 grams should be funded;

10 (2) describes the programs that the Tennessee

11 Valley Authority should discontinue or should trans12 fer to other entities after fiscal year 1996; and

13 (3) recommends any legislation that may be

14 necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes

15 of this Act.

Æ
January 17, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROGER MILLICAN, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00271-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of 

appeal. Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report datedMarch 21, 2007 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the application of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No 123(R) as of December 31, 2006), accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in theRegistration Statements of EP MedSystems, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-346656, effective April 13, 2000, amended June 29, 2000; File No. 333-122081, effective January 14, 2005) and Forms S-3 (FileNo. 333-104231, effective April 21, 2003; File No. 333-110023, effective November 19, 2003, File No. 333-112131, effective February 4, 2004; File No. 333-120263, effective November 26, 2004 and FileNo. 333-122082, effective February 3, 2005; File No. 333-133540 effective June 23, 2006; File No. 333-133558 effective April 26, 2006). 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 21, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, February 8, 2024, 05:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting) which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 7, 2023, FR Doc 2023-24578, 88 FR 76836.                

                    This meeting notice is being amended to change the times for the National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) Subcommittee Meetings, Open Session, and Closed Session on February 8, 2024. The NCAB Subcommittee Meetings will now be held from 10:00 a.m. to 1:10 p.m. instead of from 11:00 a.m. to 1:05 p.m. The NCAB Open Session will now be held from 1:15 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. instead of from 1:15 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The NCAB Closed Session will now be held from 4:25 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. instead of from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The NCAB Subcommittee Meetings and NCAB Open Session can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:                     *https://videocast.nih.gov/​.*                     The meeting is partially Closed to the public.                

Dated: January 31, 2024.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-02222 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Pete KUNZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29502.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 29, 1958.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal March 5, 1958.

Guy Hardin, Shamrock, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.

The appeal bond appearing in the record is fatally defective in that it does not appear to have been approved by either the county judge or the sheriff as required by Art. 830, Vernon’s Ann.Code of Criminal Procedure. Brown v. State, 95 Tex.Cr.R. 568, 255 S.W. 438 and Lee v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 162 S.W.2d 409.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The record has now been perfected, and the case will be considered on its merits.

In view of our disposition hereof, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary.

 The vital issue in the case was whether the appellant knew that the bottle of whiskey which was found by the officers behind the seat in his pickup was in the *584truck or whether it had been placed there by his friend Miller without his knowledge as testified by the appellant and Miller.

The State was permitted on cross-examination to ask the appellant if, while in jail, he had not had a telephone conversation with another friend in which he asked him to take the “stuff” out from behind the seat of his pickup before he brought it to the jail.

It has been the consistent holding of this Court under Article 727, V.A.C.C.P., that statements made while under arrest, not coming under the requirements of an oral confession and not a part of the res gestae, are not admissible. See Womack v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 286 S.W.2d 140, and annotations appearing under Note 7, Article 727, supra.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 11.



                     BANK PLUS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
              (Dollars in thousands, except per common share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                -------------------------------------------
                                                                    1999           1998           1997
                                                                -------------  -------------  -------------
  <S>                                                           <C>            <C>            <C>
  (Loss) earnings available for common stockholders............ $    (24,890)  $    (56,328)  $     12,653
                                                                =============  =============  =============
  Weighted average of common shares outstanding:
      Basic....................................................   19,460,941     19,395,337     18,794,887
      Effect of dilutive securities-- stock options............           --             --        348,152
      Effect of dilutive securities-- deferred stock awards....           --             --            194
                                                                -------------  -------------  -------------

      Diluted..................................................   19,460,941     19,395,337     19,143,233
                                                                =============  =============  =============

  (Loss) earnings per share:
      Basic.................................................... $      (1.28)  $      (2.90)  $       0.67
      Effect of dilutive securities-- stock options............           --             --          (0.01)
      Effect of dilutive securities-- deferred stock awards....           --             --             --
                                                                -------------  -------------  -------------

      Diluted.................................................. $      (1.28)  $      (2.90)  $       0.66
                                                                =============  =============  =============
</TABLE>
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00645

- CV

Bob Bennett a/d/a Robert S. Bennett

v

.

Kelly Coghlan, Coghlan & Associates, Richard and Janice Pullman as Guardians of Michael Pullman, and Winn Beaudry & Winn, LLP

NO. 75959 3 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW N O 2 OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

RPT RECORD
FILING
STATEWIDE EFILING $2,056.00 $175.00 $20.00 10/11/2014
08/08/2014
08/08/2014 PAID
PAID
PAID ANT
ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $2,251.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this February 27 , 2015

.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0040. ROBERT R. JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

In 2002, Robert R. Johnson pled guilty to multiple offenses. In 2011, Johnson

filed a motion to vacate a void sentence, arguing that his indictment was void and

raising a challenge to the grand jury. The trial court dismissed the motion, and

Johnson filed both a direct appeal and discretionary application. Both were dismissed.

See Case Nos. A12D0234 (Feb. 13, 2012) & A12A0946 (Mar. 7, 2012). In April

2021, Johnson again filed a pro se motion challenging the indictment and the grand

jury. The trial court denied the motion, and Johnson filed this appeal. We lack

jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, “a petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an

appropriate remedy in a criminal case.” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686

SE2d 786) (2009). Any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a motion

must be dismissed. See id. at 218 (2); Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150)

(2010). Second, “[i]t is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad

infinitum.” Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000)

(punctuation omitted). Our prior dismissal ordersin this case constitute the law of the

case, and we are precluded from revisiting the issues previously litigated. See Ross

v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011). 

August 23, 2021
For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/23/2021
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
CITY OF FARMINGTON , 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 34,959 4 BERNADETTE FONTENELLE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge 8 City of Farmington 9 Jennifer Breakell 10 Farmington, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Harry Kassakhian 13 Irvine, CA 14 L. Helen Bennett 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 KENNEDY, Judge. 192 {1} Appellant Bernadette Fontenelle (Defendant) appeals her conviction for first 1 aggravated DWI (refusal). [RP 132] Our notice proposed to affirm, and in response 2 Defendant filed a “notice of intent not to file a memorandum in opposition to 3 proposed summary affirmance.” Accordingly, for the reasons extensively detailed in 4 our notice, we affirm. 5 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

_______________________________ 7 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 8
WE CONCUR: 9

___________________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 11

_________________________________ 12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           15517
<SECURITIES>                                      8788
<RECEIVABLES>                                      261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25495
<PP&E>                                            4417
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9496
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         54976
<OTHER-SE>                                       (490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30294
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3685
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 19464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (234)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14684)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)
[LEGEND]
 EPS PRIMARY REPRESENTS BASIC NET LOSS PER SHARE
[/LEGEND]
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

GEORGE GILMORE,

Petitioner

v.

LAWRENCE P. MAHALLY, 

SUPERINTENDENT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 195 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the 

Application for Appointment of Counsel are DENIED.
<PAGE>

              Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors
              --------------------------------------------------




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-3 of IntelCom Group Nos. 33-96660 and 333-08729; Forms S-3 of ICG
Communications, Inc. Nos. 333-18839, 333-38823, 333-40495, 333-40495-01 and 333-
74167; and Forms S-8 of ICG Communications, Inc. Nos. 33-14127, 333-25957, 333-
39737, 333-45213 and 333-56835) of our report dated February 13, 1998 with
respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
cash flows of NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1997 (not presented separately herein), included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of ICG Communications, Inc., ICG Holdings (Canada) Co. and
ICG Holdings, Inc.



                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
March 28, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN A. SILVERS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-87-144-Y) Submitted: January 2, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven A. Silvers, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See United States v. Ursery , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4565, 4566, 4572 (U.S. June 24, 1996) (Nos. 95-345; 95-346). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-60620

No. 94-60651

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES M. BOWNDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:94 CR 50 3 BN)

April 29, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thisis a consolidated appeal. Charles M. Bownds was charged in three counts of a five-count

indictment for conspiring to possess and transfer two machine gunsin violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371,

922(o)(1), and 924(a)(2) (Count 1); aiding and abetting the possession of two machine guns in
 2

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(o)(1), and 924(a)(2) (Count 2); and aiding and abetting the transfer

of two machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(o)(1), and 924(a)(2) (Count 3).

Bownds filed two pretrial motions. First, he moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground

that § 922(o) violated theTenthAmendment as an unconstitutional exercise ofCongress’sCommerce

Clause power. Second, Bownds moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his rights to

a speedy trial were violated. The district court denied Bownds’s second motion, but granted his first

motion, declaring § 922(o) unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds.

The Government appealed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment (case number 94-

60620) and Bownds appealed the district court’s denial of his speedy trial motion (case number 94-

60651). We consolidated the two cases because they presented issues that are intertwined.

DISPOSITION

As to case number 94-60620, we REVERSE the district court’s conclusion that § 922(o) is

unconstitutional, reinstate the indictment, and REMAND for further proceedings. United States v.

Kirk, 105 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (affirming, by en equally divided en banc court, the

three-judge panel opinion upholding the constitutionality of § 922(o)).

As to case number 94-60651, we DISMISS the appeal because the denial of a motion to

dismiss an indictment on speedy trial grounds is not an appealable order. See United States v.

MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 856-57 (1978); United States v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc., 754 F.2d

1272, 1273 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Bailey, 512 F.2d 833, 837-38 (5thCir.), cert. dismissed,

423 U.S. 1039 (1975).
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 212

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel SHAMROCK V.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

SHAMROCK V.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the
2

S 212 IS

1 coastwise trade for the vessel SHAMROCK V (United

2 States official number 900936).

Æ
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOHN JOSEPH SPRAIN ,

Appellant , v. Case No. 5D 21
- 2974 LT Case No. 2021
- CF
- 000701
- A STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed June 7, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge. Matthew J. Metz , Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for A ppellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

COHEN, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.