alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 20 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR HUGO LOPEZ-HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent. No. 00-9501 (Petition for Review) (No. 99-N-2447)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.2--

Petitioner Victor Hugo Lopez-Herrera, a native of E l Salvador, has filed an emergency motion for stay of deportation pendingpetition for review. He concedes that he was deported from the United State s in March 1991 under a valid final order of deportation and reentered th e United States illegally later the same year. He raises various arguments that th e Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) may not reinstate the 1991 order and remove him now without holding another hearing. Petitioner does not suggest a basis for this court’ s jurisdiction and we find none. This court lacks jurisdiction to reviewINS’s removal proceedings generally. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); see also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. , 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 (1999) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars judicial review of removal proceedin gs under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Further, this court is specifically barred from rev iewing the agency’s reinstatement of a prior deportation order. See Mendez-Tapia v. Sonchik , 998 F. Supp. 1105, 1107-09 (D. Ariz. 1998) (discuss ing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5)). The motion for stay of deportation is denied and th e petition for review is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
Design Line 13 - Loss Adjustment Calculations

KVA 1500 1500 1500

Voltage 12470-480Y 25000-480Y 34500-480Y

BIL (kv) 95/10 125/10 150/10

DL DL12 DL13 DL13

Core Const M4 MITER M4 MITER H1/M3 MITER M4 MITER H1/M3 MITER H0-DR

Construction Round (disk) Round (disk) Round (disk)

Efficiency Level EL2

Current DOE Level 99.12% 99.09% 99.09% 99.09% 99.09%

DOE Efficiency 99.30% ? ?

Max DOE watts 5287

Impedance 5.75% 5.75% 5.75%

NL (W) 2709 3853 3211 4546 3788 3476

FL (W) (50%, 75 C) 2540 2329 2329 2272 2272 2272

Total W 5249 6182 5540 6818 6060 5748

Watss Change to EL2 17.77% 5.54% 29.89% 15.46% 9.51%

Calc Efficiency 99.30% 99.18% 99.10% 99.20%

Conductor Weight 1344 1226 1230

Core Weight 6308 8805 10489

Conductor AL AL AL

Primary A/si 600 598 586

Secondary A/si 820 821 784

Flux (KL) 89.1 89.8 89.4

Flux (KG) 13.81395349 13.92248062 13.86046512

0900006481131bfe.xlsx 10/2/2012

Coil Length (in) 54 59 65

Core Height 57 62 68

End Margin 5.5 8 10

Coil OD 22.125 25.75 27.5

Core Height (in) 77 84 92

High Low 1.3125 2.12 2.8

Primary Mean Turn 62.2 71.6 76.9

Summary

According to this data, designs greater than 95 BIL are already equivalent to the agreed upon efficiency of EL2 for DL12 based 

on a worse case scenario of 150 BIL. 

Equivalent current densities, flux densities, core construction and impedances force the losses up 30% from a similar 15 kv 

class 95 BIL design.

The use of high-B core steel (H0-DR) allowed for a more efficient design to achieve an increase in losses of 10% as agreed to by 

the NEMA proposal.

0900006481131bfe.xlsx 10/2/2012
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Carvey, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered May 8, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit in the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon allegations that the jury began deliberating prematurely. In response to concerns expressed by one of the jurors as to a conversation that he had overheard, the trial court promptly questioned each of the jurors, individually and in the presence of counsel, regarding the incident. As a result of this examination, the court ascertained that the incident in question was an isolated one, none of the jurors had reached any conclusions, the jurors could be impartial, and deliberations would not occur until the proper time. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial *(see, People v Pollard,*150 AD2d 397; *People v Castillo,*144 AD2d 376).

The defendant’s contention regarding the propriety of the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Bell,*152 AD2d 700, 701). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### J. C. HOWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27216.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1954.

Kyle Vick, Waco, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The complaint sworn to on May 4, 1954, alleged that appellant transported whisky without a permit on or about May 3, 1954. The information, following the allegations of the complaint, was filed on May 5, 1954, and, on the same day, judgment was entered on a plea of guilty before the court and a fine of $200 assessed by the court.

Appellant’s bill of exception No. 1, as approved by the trial judge, certifies that the offense to which appellant pleaded guilty was committed on the 5th day of May, 1954.

It thus appears that the offense for which appellant was convicted and to which he pleaded guilty was not committed until after the complaint upon which the information was based had been sworn to.

The complaint and information will not support the conviction for an offense committed after the complaint had been sworn to. Bradshaw v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 243 S.W.2d 586; Gaines v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 269 S.W.2d 679; Petty v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 64, 131 S.W. 215; Cowan v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 614, 155 S.W. 214.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### PERKINS et ux. v. FLANAGAN et ux.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 14, 1954.

Ralph Hurt, Columbia, L. C. Lawrence, Jamestown, for appellants.

Hollis Edmonds, Russell Springs, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment determining the boundary line between the farm of plaintiffs, J. M. Flanagan and Meckley Flanagan, his wife, and that of defendants, Richard Perkins and ■Olva Perkins, his wife. The Chancellor established the boundary line in accordance with plaintiffs’ contention and we conclude the evidence fully supports his finding. There is no merit in defendants’ insistence that appellees’ failure to trace their title back to the Commonwealth, or to a common grantor, is fatal to their case because defendants on cross-examination admitted they owned the land on one side of the boundary line in question and appellees owned the tract on the opposite side of this line. There are other alleged errors raised but a careful reading of the record convinces us they are without merit.

The motion is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
|                                                                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                          
|Louisiana - North Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                          
|Louisiana - North Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 36     | 3      | 8      | 8      | 1      | 0      | 4      | 5      | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 51     | 1      | 0      | 2      | 7      | 1      | 0      | 1      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 41     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                                                        
|                                                                                                     
|Louisiana--North Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                     
|Louisiana--North Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (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                                                                                                                            | 4      | 7      | 1      | 2      | 21     | 3      | 1      | 0      | 2      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 9      | 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
#### Margie Lawson, Plaintiff, v Harold Diamond et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, et al., Defendant. City of New York et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Appeal from the order of Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered November 3, 1990, which granted the motion of the municipal third-party defendants and their employees to the extent of (a) striking the medical malpractice claims set forth in the third-party complaint, and (b) precluding the third-party plaintiffs’ participation in proceedings before a medical malpractice panel, although allowing them to appear at those proceedings, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

This is a personal injury action brought against plaintiff’s landlord for negligent maintenance of the premises. Defendants impleaded the medical facility and its staff which treated plaintiff, as well as the municipal patron of that facility, alleging that plaintiff’s injuries were due to, or at least exacerbated by, the negligent treatment she received there, and demanding at the very least some contribution from those third-party defendants to the extent of their responsibility. After plaintiff amended her complaint to assert her own direct claim against the municipal Health and Hospitals Corporation and discovery was completed, the matter was set down for hearing before a medical malpractice panel.

The purpose of the medical malpractice panel is to narrow the issues in order to encourage settlement or facilitate a more expeditious trial *(see, Matter of Colton v Riccobono,*67 NY2d 571, 577). That purpose is defeated if parties are permitted to appeal orders concerning the panel’s authority and jurisdiction *(Conklin v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Center,*74 AD2d 792). Since there is no guarantee as to how a medical malpractice panel’s recommendation may ultimately be accepted at trial, appeals of all rulings in connection with the panel’s authority and jurisdiction should be stayed pending completion of trial.

Even if we were to entertain this appeal, we would affirm, since the only real interest of the third-party plaintiffs is in seeking contribution in connection with the personal injury claim against them; their primary interest has nothing to do with plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim, and there is little that they could offer before that panel. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5142 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5142

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain color video 
                   monitors with flat panel screens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain color video 
                   monitors with flat panel screens.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN COLOR VIDEO MONITORS WITH FLAT PANEL SCREENS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.52 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain color video monitors 
with flat panel screens) is amended by striking ``12/31/2012'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140700 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140700 

 COA: 287383 

Oakland CC: 2007-218017-FC 

CAMERON TERRELL HOLBROOK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Don Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.), rendered July 12, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal mischief in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the police officers’ testimony at trial was "obviously tailored”, and therefore the People did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecu*364tion *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant further contends that the prosecutor’s references during summation to certain "fabricated” testimony deprived him of a fair trial. This contention is without merit, however, since the prosecutor’s remarks "constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s summation during which [defense counsel] continually stressed police officers’ 'embellishment’ of the facts” *(People v Waldron,*154 AD2d 635). Further, the prosecutor "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399).

Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5088 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 4-Bromobenzyl Bromide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on 4-Bromobenzyl 

Bromide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-BROMOBENZYL BROMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 4-Bromobenzyl Bromide 

(CAS No. 589–15–1) (provided for in subheading 

2903.89.20) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5088 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 50 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 50

 To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros 
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, and the Asian Elephant Conservation 
                              Act of 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros 
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, and the Asian Elephant Conservation 
                              Act of 1997.

    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 ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT.

    Section 2306(a) of the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
4245(a)) is amended by striking ``2007 through 2102'' and inserting 
``2012 through 2016''.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF RHINOCEROS AND TIGER CONSERVATION ACT OF 
              1994.

    Section 10(a) of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 
(16 U.S.C. 5306(a)) is amended by striking ``2007 through 2012'' and 
inserting ``2012 through 2016''.

SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF ASIAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1997.

    Section 8(a) of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 
U.S.C. 4266(a)) is amended by striking ``2007 through 2012'' and 
inserting ``2012 through 2016''.
                                 <all>
```