alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BLACK MOUNTAIN CORP. v. TIPTON et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 9, 1953.

James Sampson, Edward G. Hill, Harlan, for appellant.

J. Leonard Davis, Harlan, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in May, 1952, affirming an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to Clyde Tipton for an injury resulting in permanent total disability. We are asked to reverse the judgment on the grounds that (1) the doctors who testified for Tipton should not have been permitted to give their opinions as to the disability based on the history of the case or the subjective symptoms related to them by Tipton; and (2) the award is not supported by the evidence.

The two doctors who testified for Tipton described the extent of his injuries from their examinations and from the X-rays taken of him. They testified also as to the history of the case and symptoms given them by Tipton. Exceptions to the depositions of the doctors were not filed until after the Referee’s opinion and award had been made. The full Board ruled that the exceptions were filed too late and therefore did not consider them.. In support of this position the Board cited the case of Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation v. Cook, 304 Ky. 63, 199 S.W.2d.983. . In that case it was pointed out that the provisions of the Civil Code of Practice applied in workmen’s compensation cases. Section 585 provided that no deposition should be read on a trial unless it was filed with the papers in the case before the commencement thereof. Section 587 provided that exceptions to depositions, except in certain particulars, should be filed before the. commencement of the trial. We believe The Board properly ruled that the exceptions . were ■, filed too late. The Cook case dealt with a question *444of a hearing before a Referee. We recognized in that case that, while workmen’s compensation proceedings do not constitute trials in the strict sense, there must be some established method of procedure in them. Furthermore, Rule 19 of the Board provided that proof could be taken orally, or by depositions, when authorized by the Civil Code of Practice.

We find no basis for the contention that the Board’s award is not supported by the evidence. As pointed out by the Board, .such incompetent statements as Tipton’s doctors may have made were waived because exceptions to their depositions were not filed in time.

Judgment affirmed.
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      | -2     | 2      | 1      | 3      | -2     | -1     | 16     | -13   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -2     | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARK ANTHONY REYNOLDS, a/k/a Mark Anthony Fain, a/k/a Mark Anthony Wilson, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-27, CA-00-65-1) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 18, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Anthony Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Melvin W. Kahle, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mark Anthony Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse the district court judge, his motion for bail, and his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking relief from the court’s judgment denying his motion filedunder 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Reynolds , Nos. CR-98-27; CA-00-65-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2001). We deny Reynolds’ motion for bail and 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.

DISMISSED
|                                                                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                          
|New Mexico Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                          
|New Mexico Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 216    | 164    | 880    | 1,132 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 121    | 873    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Adjustments (Million Barrels)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 46    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 188    | 207    | 137    | -595   | 440    | 1,115  | 206    | 752    | 764    | -630  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,244  | -1,159 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2015

No. 04-14-00783-CR

Joseph Thomas GABAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5442

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Without abating this appeal, we direct the trial court to prepare and file findings of fact 

and conclusions of law that state its conclusions and the specific findings of fact upon which the 

conclusions are based with respect to the following issues: (1) whether Mr. Gabay was in 

custody at the time his videotaped statement, State’s Exhibit 4, was taken; (2) whether he 

unequivocally invoked a right to counsel; (3) whether Mr. Gabay voluntarily signed the waiver 

of his rights; and (4) whether the statement was voluntarily made. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 38.22 §6 (West Supp. 2015); TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(2); see also, Andrus v. State, No. 

AP-76,936, 2015 WL 831664, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 25, 2015)(per curiam, not designated 

for publication); State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

The trial court clerk must then prepare, certify, and file in this court a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The findings and conclusions must be 

made and filed within thirty days of the date of this order.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6851

JOHN BEAMON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE; F. G. SETTLE; C. D.

LARSEN; Y. SCOTT; L. M. SAUNDERS; J. LEE; F.

S. TAYLOR; M. NEELEY; J. CARUSO; V. V. GRANT;

JOHN B. METZGER, III; SANDRA COMBS; WINNIE R.

DIXON; JOSEPH F. LEWIS; LINDA R. PITMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1024-R)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Beamon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 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 record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Beamon

v. Angelone, No. CA-95-1024-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 22, 1996). 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
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                    
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Lower 48 Federal Offshore Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
----

Removal from the register of Case C-67/04 (1)

(2006/C 36/55)

Language of the case: Greek

By order of 10 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-67/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

----

(1)OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4486 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4486

To suspend temporarily the duty on polypropylene fiber with tow bundles 
         comprised of 300,000 to 400,000 individual filaments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

 Mr. Manzullo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on polypropylene fiber with tow bundles 
         comprised of 300,000 to 400,000 individual filaments.

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

SECTION 1. POLYPROPYLENE FIBER WITH TOW BUNDLES COMPRISED OF 300,000 TO 
              400,000 INDIVIDUAL FILAMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Polypropylene       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          fiber with tow                                                     31/2015.......
                          bundles comprised
                          of 300,000 to
                          400,000
                          individual
                          filaments
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5501.40.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### POWELL v. STATE.

No. 24502.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1950.

Irwin & Irwin, Robert C. Benavides, Dallas, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing, having been timely mailed but delayed in reaching this court through no fault of his attorney, is ordered filed, and will be considered.

In his motion, appellant re-urges the matters claimed by him to constitute error, and contends that this court erred in affirming the judgment.

We remain convinced that the complaint and information alleging that the meat in question “contained sulfite” is sufficient under the statute, Art. 709, P.C., Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art, 709, making it an offense to manufacture, sell or expose for sale an article of food “to which has been added * * * sulphites”.

Necessarily if meat “contains”' sulphite then sulphite “has been added,” and if sul-*179phite “has been added” to meat, then the meat “contains” sulphite. As used, the terms mean the same.

Under the express provisions of Art. 717, P.C., it was not necessary for the State to prove that the act of selling food to which sulphite has been added was knowingly done.

But lack of such knowledge is a defense and, being relied upon by appellant, was properly submitted as such in the court’s charge, but rejected' by the jury. See Neill v. State, 225 S.W.2d 829 not yet reported [in State Report].

We remain convinced that appellant’s bill of exception No. 2 regarding the proffered testimony of Dr. Bass shows no error, and that the judgment was properly affirmed.

Therefore appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion- approved by the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2183 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2183

To increase the portion of community development block grants that may 
      be used to provide public services, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2011

 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Mr. Rivera, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. 
    Diaz-Balart, Ms. Wilson of Florida, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the portion of community development block grants that may 
      be used to provide public services, and for other purposes.

    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 ``CDBG Public Services Flexibility Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PUBLIC SERVICES CAP.

    Section 105(a)(8) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``15 per centum'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``25 percent''; and
            (2) by striking ``amount, except'' and all that follows 
        through the semicolon at the end and inserting ``amount;''.
                                 <all>
```