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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2672 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2672

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the amount and 
   duration of scholarships under the Department of Veterans Affairs 
                Employee Incentive Scholarship Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2015

 Mr. Moulton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the amount and 
   duration of scholarships under the Department of Veterans Affairs 
                Employee Incentive Scholarship Program.

    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 ``Train Act''.

SEC. 2. DURATION AND AMOUNT OF SCHOLARSHIPS UNDER DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

    (a) Duration of Scholarship.--
            (1) Agreement.--Section 7672(e)(1)(A) of title 38, United 
        States Code, is amended by striking ``three'' and inserting 
        ``four''.
            (2) Period of payment.--Subsection (c)(2) of section 7673 
        of such title is amended by striking ``three'' and inserting 
        ``four''.
    (b) Amount of Scholarship.--Subsection (b)(1) of such section 7673 
is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$25,000''.
    (c) Application.--
            (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
        apply with respect to individuals who first enroll in the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Incentive Scholarship 
        Program under subchapter VI of chapter 76 of title 38, United 
        States Code, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Special rule for current participants.--An individual 
        who is enrolled in such program as of the day before the date 
        of the enactment of this Act may elect to be covered by the 
        amendments made by this section with respect to a quarter, 
        semester, or term, as applicable, commencing on or after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as State v. Sargent , 2020-Ohio-966.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

- vs -

DENNIS C. SARGENT,

Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NOS. CA2019-10-179 CA2019-10-180

D E C I S I O N 3/16/2020

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER C OUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case Nos. CR2018-08-1571 and CR2019-03-0471

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Governme nt Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee

Michele Temmel, 6 South Second Street, Suite 305, Hamilton, Ohi o 45011, for appellant

Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by

appellant, Dennis C. Sargent, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler C ounty Court of Common

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful reviewButler CA2019-10-179 CA2019-10-180

- 2 - of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be

predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal,"

Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free fro m prejudicial error and

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to

withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and

(5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withd raw have been served upon

appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse

having been received, we have accordingly examined the record a nd find no error

prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tri al court. The motion of

counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is gran ted, and this appeal is

dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,936
<SECURITIES>                                     4,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                       447
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,820
<PP&E>                                          13,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,272
<BONDS>                                          3,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              153
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,280
<SALES>                                          6,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,283
<CGS>                                              337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,296)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,296)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)


</TABLE>
#### Buescher, Appellant, *v.*Ellenberger, d. b. a. Portage Transportation Co., Appellee.

(No. 28435

Decided May 7, 1941.)

*Mr. Ellis R. Diehm*and *Mr. Frank P.*Celeste, for appellant.

*Mr. Joseph M. Carmosino,*for appellee.

It appearing that the judges of the court are equally divided in opinion as to the merits of this case (one judge not participating) and are for that reason unable to agree upon a judgment, and the entry of that fact constituting an affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, it is ordered that said judgment be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          40,134
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,767
<INVENTORY>                                    255,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               440,771
<PP&E>                                         126,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 580,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,202
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           545
<OTHER-SE>                                     435,087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   580,767
<SALES>                                      1,372,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,387,471
<CGS>                                          940,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  940,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               250,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,870
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                194,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,884
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            121,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26
#### SANDLIN v. STATE.

No. 16504.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1934.

W. J. Oxford, of Stephenville, and E. T. Adams, of Glen Rose, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder ; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The injured party, Raymond Bunt, was at the time of the assault a single 'man and twenty-seven years of age. He had gone to school with Vivian Sandlin, who was a sister of appellant. About a year before the assault, when Vivian Sandlin was about twenty-one years of age, she and the injured party agreed to go away together. They traveled around for some time, stopping at tourist camps and other places. Finally he returned home. He testified that she had left him while on the trip and gone away with another man. He testified, further, that he had never at any time had improper relations with her. After returning home he met appellant on a road. According to his testimony, appellant exhibited a gun and ran him away. On the occasion of the assault, the injured party had gone with Frances Russell to the home of appellant’s father. While Mr. Russell was talking to appellant’s father, the injured party sat in.the car. Appellant, who was in the yard, went to a tent, secured a pistol, and, ■approaching the car, fired several shots at the injured party, who jumped out of the car and began to run. Appellant fired another shot at him while he was running. Two of the shots took effect, inflicting serious wounds. He (the injured party) was not armed.

■Appellant-testified that his mother called his attention to the fact that Bunt was sitting in the automobile and asked him to make him leave; that he secured a pistol and went to the car for the purpose of ordering him away; that when he told him to leave he stated that he would not leave until he got ready; that when he made this remark he (the injured party) placed his hand behind him as if to draw a weapon, and he (appellant) fired several shots into the car; that he believed Bunt was going to shoot him. Appellant testified, further, that on the occasion he met the injured party in the road pri- or to the assault he had told him (the .injured *408party) not to come upon his premises as he did not want to have anything to do with him. Appellant’s version of the transaction was supported by the testimony of his father, mother, and wife.

We find in the record several exceptions to the charge of the court. They do not appear to have been in any mariner authenticated by the trial judge, but merely bear the signature of appellant’s counsel. Hence they cannot be considered.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

Believing the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2097

OMBA ARSENE ONEMA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for 

Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Gerald 

M. Alexander, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Omba Arsene Onema, a native and citizen of the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”), petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) 

denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have 

reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of 

discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2012). Accordingly, 

we deny the petition for review substantially* for the reasons 

stated by the Board. In re: Onema (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2012). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 * Although the Board erroneously relied on our decision in 

Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008), vacated, 130 S. 

Ct. 350 (2009), we nonetheless find no abuse of discretion in 

its alternate finding that Onema was not entitled to equitable 

tolling on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that he 

acted with due diligence.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022197EN.01000501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/5 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10743 – TOWERBROOK / GSF)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 197/05)

1.

On 4 May 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022197EN.01000501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. (‘TowerBrook’, United States), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Groupe Services France SAS and all its subsidiaries (‘GSF Group’, France). |

TowerBrook will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of GSF Group.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | TowerBrook: investment firm based in Europe and the United States that focuses on making investments in large and middle market European and North American companies, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | GSF Group: French-based provider of cleaning services as well as some associated facility management services for office environments, industrial production premises, public-facing sites or medical establishments. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022197EN.01000501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10743 – TOWERBROOK / GSF

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022197EN.01000501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022197EN.01000501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
14910-B-PI

o

I'L Ill)

"',"11'1<0. sy",llOI.

CTlIfGSV"!lQl

, 10

~"

'l-u--

IlOUTUOGn •• 1lOI..

-1

""CC~

1/1'>--(/0

It has been reported that some elevators may have been moved

from the aeroplane on which they were originally fitted to another

aeroplane, * * "'.Consequently, those elevators might not have

been inspected within the applicable required time frame as per

ALl task 552007 requirements.

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl dJscribes the unsafe condition as:

A special detailed inspection of A31!S/ A319/ A320/ A321 elevators

pre-modification 35515 was introduted under ALl (Airworthiness

Limitations Items) task 552007 in th!eALS (Airworthiness

Limitations Section) part 2 * * * This ALl task has been

introduced with an applicability defined at aeroplane modification

level.

(DOT).

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airpla

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing auworthiness infonnation (MeAl)

000tf

(Docket No. FAA-2010-*****; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-163-AD;

\(p '-\"2.()

Amendment 39-'*****; AD 2010-**-**1

IC/,-Cn

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products lis

14 eFR Part 39

RIN 2120-AA64

* * * * * * *

The unsafe condition is failure of the elevators, rhiCb could result in reduced structural

FAA Form 1360·14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY t< u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 769·211
Debra

Re: Grid Review for IAR 2010-NM-163-AD 0

Tom Newcombe ~: Debra Wilson

ANM-8EA.-AEG-15, Seattle, WA

Cc: Keeton Zachary

08/13/2010 11 :38 AM

We have reviewed the A.Dand concur with il. As I was nol able'to gel the grid from the hide localion,

please use this e-mail as concurrence.

Thomas Newcombe

Asst MGRAinrorthiness SEA-AEG

Phone: 425-917-6602

Fax: 425-917.fi638
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

       
<CAPTION>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
<S>                             <C>        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         733,986
<SECURITIES>                                   994,735
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,811,543
<PP&E>                                         171,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (56,985)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,284,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           295
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,124,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,284,623
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               321,270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (321,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (321,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (321,270)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        


</TABLE>
J-S43018-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JEFFREY AMSLER, KAREN AMSLER, AND 

KATHRYN CORRIGAN

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v.

ORCHARD HOUSE PROPERTIES LLC, 

FRED R. AMSLER JR., FRED R. AMSLER 

JR. LIVING TRUST, DONNA J. AMER, AND 

CAMBRIDGE TRAINING PARTNERS L.P.

Appellees No. 1893 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order September 25, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County

Civil Division at No(s): 2013-CV-253

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 21, 2016

Appellants, Jeffrey Amsler, Karen Amsler, and Kathryn Corrigan, 

appeal from the order entered September 25, 2015, in the court of Common 

Pleas of Sullivan County. After careful review, we dismiss Appellants’ appeal 

as moot.

Appellants appeal from the September 25, 2015 order granting 

Appellees’ motion for reconsideration of the lower court’s May 14, 2015 

order overruling Appellees’ preliminary objection to compel arbitration. Prior 

to the instant appeal, Appellees filed a timely appeal from the court’s May 

14, 2015 order at docket number 1029 MDA 2015. By memorandum opinion 

filed February 17, 2016, a panel of this Court vacated the trial court’s May 
J-S43018-16

- 2 -

14, 2015 order overruling Appellees’ preliminary objection to enforce the 

arbitration agreement and remanded the case for further proceedings. See 

Amsler v. Orchard House Properties LLC, 1029 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super., 

filed Feb. 17, 2016) (mem. op.) (Panella, J.). The resolution of those 

proceedings is still pending in the court below. 

As this Court has vacated the trial court’s May 14, 2015 order, it 

necessarily follows that the court’s September 25, 2015 order granting 

Appellees’ motion for reconsideration of that order, from which this appeal is 

taken, is a legal nullity. Accordingly, Appellants’ appeal from the September 

25, 2015 order is rendered moot.

Appellant’s appeal is dismissed as moot. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2016