alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte NUNN.

No. 15791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1933.

Chas. Owen and W. Joe Bryan, both of El Paso, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

The appeal is from an order of the district court of El Paso county refusing the appellant’s application, by way of habeas corpus, for bail.

The appellant is under indictment for the murder of James Hoover. It is understood from the evidence that the appellant Nunn and James Hoover and several other persons were in a place where cotton was stored. Hoover was using a knife adapted to sampling cotton. While other witnesses were about their affairs, one of them heard a noise and observed Hoover lying on the ground and the appellant standing over or near him with an iron bar in his hand. Hoover was taken to town, ’ where he subsequently died. The wounds on Hoover were described by a doctor. There were four lacerated wounds on the scalp, and other lacerated wounds upon the other parts of the body. The opinion was expressed that the wounds produced the death of the deceased. An iron pipe was presented at the trial and examined by a physician. The pipe was shown to have had blood upon it. The iron pipe was not described either by its weight or dimensions. No witness observed the beginning of the difficulty. There is testimony of a difficulty some months previous between the parties. There was testimony that the blade of the knife used by Hoover was five inches long and was very sharp. The knife was picked up near the place where the iron pipe was found after the injury was inflicted. There was also a rock near the knife mentioned.

The appellant introduced evidence to the effect that he was a resident in the community and had a family of several children; that he was a farmer and lived on a mortgaged farm; that he had friends who would probably make bail in any reasonable sum. He *457bore the reputation of a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. He had never been in any previous trouble.

The state’s attorney before this court intimates in his brief that he does not regard the “proof evident” within the meaning of the Constitution such as would warrant the refusal of bail. See Ex parte Peddy, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 175, 42 S.W.(2d) 605; Ex parte Adams, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 135, 44 S.W.(2d) 713. It is thought that hail should be granted.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment denying bail be reversed and appellant released pending trial upon the execution of a good and sufficient bond, meeting the requirements of the law, in the sum of $7,500.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21318]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 308 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-637, CP2024-646.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21318 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A180
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7446

JACKIE BROOKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON, South

Carolina Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-00-2494-2-17)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Brooks v. South Carolina, No.

CA-00-2494-2-17 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21299]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 286 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-604, CP2024-612.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21299 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Ex parte WAIR.

No. 18413.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1936.

Shead & Smith, of Longview, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Relator was indicted by the grand jury of Gregg county, Tex., for the offense of rape. He made application for writ of habeas corpus, which was granted, and upon a hearing thereon he was remanded without bail, from which order he appeals to this court.

It appears from the record that by agreement the evidence introduced in the trial court. consisted of the transcribed notes in question and answer form taken by a stenographer upon the grand jury investigation. The evidence in that form is brought forward for review. It consists of more than sixty pages in questions and answers, apparently making public the 'entire proceedings before the grand jury.

We have many times held that a statement of facts in question and answer form would not be considered. Article 760, subd. 1 C.C.P., as amended by the 42d Legislature, 1st Called Session, p. 75, c. 34 (Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 760, subd. 1), and note 23 under said article, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C.C.P. vol. 3.

There being no statement of facts before us which may be considered, we will presume that judgment remanding relator was supported by the evidence and in accordance with the law. Ex parte Adams (Tex.Cr.App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 842; Ex parte Welburn, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 464, 157 S.W. 154.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41531

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO RINCON-GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-504-ALL

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo RinconGarza raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2022228EN.01000201.xml

| 13.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10700 – HY24 / ENAGAS / ENAGAS RENOVABLE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 228/02)

On 7 June 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10700. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10700. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### CLEM v. STATE.

No. 18487.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Oct. 14, 1936.

Currie McCutcheon, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; punishment, imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days and a fine of $100.

We find accompanying the record in this case an affidavit in due form bringing before us the fact of the death of this appellant. In such case the appeal should be abated and dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
PRESENTED IN THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         322,785
<SECURITIES>                                 1,704,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                  443,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,584,192
<PP&E>                                          71,317
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,447,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,601,639
<BONDS>                                        747,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           665
<OTHER-SE>                                     811,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,447,883
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,013,727
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,159,062
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                260,566
<INCOME-TAX>                                   105,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   154,986
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.33
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2553 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2553

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit Medicare 
  part D plans from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals 
         regarding the prices for certain drugs and biologicals.

    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 ``Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION ON DRUG PRICES.
    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-4 of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-104) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(m) Prohibition on Limiting Certain Information on Drug Prices.--
A PDP sponsor and a Medicare Advantage organization shall ensure that 
each prescription drug plan or MA-PD plan offered by the sponsor or 
organization does not restrict a pharmacy that dispenses a prescription 
drug or biological from informing, nor penalize such pharmacy for 
informing, an enrollee in such plan of any differential between the 
negotiated price of, or copayment or coinsurance for, the drug or 
biological to the enrollee under the plan and a lower price the 
individual would pay for the drug or biological if the enrollee 
obtained the drug without using any health insurance coverage.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
[No. 18326-2-III.

Division Three.

December 19, 2000.]

#### Billy E. Phelps, et al., *Appellants,*v. Franklin County, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 95-2-50421-6, Philip M Raekes, J., entered March 23, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### JO ANNE COOKE VS. LIBRARY COMMISSION

(CC-09-0141)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant seeks to recover $895.63 from respondent for an error in the calculation of her increment ($22.87) and annual leave pay ($872.76). Claimant discovered the miscalculation when she reviewed the Post Audit Report of the Library Commission.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in that appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $895.63.

Award of $895.63.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2628 

To reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2018 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mashpee Wampanoag 

5 Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF INDIAN TRUST LAND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The taking of land into trust by 

8 the United States for the benefit of the Mashpee 

9 Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts as described in the 

10 final Notice of Reservation Proclamation published at 81 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2628 IS

1 Federal Register 948 (January 8, 2016) is reaffirmed as 

2 trust land, and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior 

3 in taking that land into trust are ratified and confirmed. 

4 (b) APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, an action (including an action pending in a 

6 Federal court as of the date of enactment of this Act) re7 lating to the land described in subsection (a) shall not be 

8 filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be 

9 promptly dismissed. 

10 (c) APPLICABILITY OF LAWS.—All laws (including 

11 regulations) of the United States of general applicability 

12 to Indians or nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians 

13 (including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 5101 et 

14 seq.)), shall be applicable to the Mashpee Wampanoag 

15 Tribe of Massachusetts and tribal members. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2022126EN.01000701.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10153 – ORANGE / TELEKOM ROMANIA COMMUNICATIONS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 126/04)

On 28 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10153. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10153. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2022199EN.01000101.xml

| 17.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10661 – BAIN CAPITAL / INETUM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 199/01)

On 11 May 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10661. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10661. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD J. ERDLEN, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

LINCOLN INTERMEDIATE UNIT NO. 12,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 540 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.