alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Griffin, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.

*November*17, *1921*

February 7, *1922.*

*Appeal and error: Affirmance by divided court.*

Where the justices of the supreme court are equally divided in opinion on the question involved on an appeal, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Racine county: E. B. Belden, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Alexander & Burke*of Milwaukee, and for the respondent on that of *Simmons & Walker*of Racine.

The following opinion was filed December 13, 1921:

Doerfler, J.

Mr. Chief Justice Siebecker, by reason of illness, was unable to participate in the decision of this case. The other six Justices of this court who participated in the decision on this appeal are ecpially divided in opinion as to the correctness of the judgment entered in the trial court and appealed from to this court. . Three of such Justices are of the opinion that the judgment appealed from is correct and should be affirmed, and three of such Justices are of the opinion that such judgment should be reversed. This, under the rule, requires an affirmance of the judgment awarded by the trial court. *Hagenah v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co.*136 Wis. 300, 116 N. W. 843, and cases there cited.

*By the Court.*— It is so ordered.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on February 7, 1922.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 9, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11343

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 98-00401-CR-SH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ANTOINE DIXSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 9, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Dixson appeals pro se the denial of his motion challenging the
2

enhancement of his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §

924(e)(1). The district court denied Dixson’s motion. We vacate that order and

remand with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

We review de novo the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court. 

United States v. Moore, 443 F.3d 790, 793 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court does

not have authority to modify a sentence, except to the extent provided by the

federal statutory provisions that control sentencing and the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have stated that federal courts have

“an obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed by a pro se inmate and

determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial

statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir.

1990).

The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain

Dixson’s motion. Dixson was sentenced in 2000, filed a collateral challenge to his

sentence in 2002 that was denied on the merits, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and has not

obtained permission from this Court to file a successive motion, id. §

2244(b)(3)(A). Dixson is not entitled to pursue relief under the savings clause

because he did not allege in his motion that a decision of the Supreme Court

applies retroactively to establish that he was convicted for a nonexistent offense. 
3

id. § 2241.

Even if we construe Dixson’s filing as a motion for modification of his

sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, the district court lacked the authority to entertain the

motion. The government did not file a motion to reduce Dixson’s sentence and

Dixson’s motion was filed more than seven days after sentencing. See id. §

3582(b)(2); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), (b); United States v. Morrison, 204 F.3d 1091,

1093 (11th Cir. 2000). Dixson did not identify an amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines that applies retroactively to lower his guideline range, 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2), and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons did not move to reduce

Dixson’s sentence, id. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

The district court technically erred in its disposition of Dixson’s motion. 

Because the district court denied, rather than dismissed, Dixson’s motion, we

vacate its order and remand with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of

jurisdiction.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 38 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.38

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                            Joint Resolution

 
Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known 
                     as the Stream Protection Rule.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement of the Department of the Interior relating to the ``Stream 
Protection Rule'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 93066 (December 20, 
2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**EXHIBIT 21****The Allied Defense Group, Inc.****LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**1. ARC Europe, S.A., a Belgian Corporation     Wholly-owned and majority owned Belgian subsidiaries of ARC Europe S.A. A. MECAR S.A.  B. Sedachim S.I., S.A.  C. VSK Electronics N.V. (1) Belgian Automation Units, N.V  (2) Intelligent Data Capturing Systems, N.V.  (3) VIGITEC, S.A.  (4) Tele Technique Generale, S.A.  (5) CMS Security Systems, Inc. D. Hendrickx N.V.2. Allied Research Corporation Limited, a U.K. Corporation 3. Energa Corporation 4. News/Sports Microwave Rental, Inc. 5. Titan Dynamics Systems, Inc. 6. SeaSpace Corporation 7. MECAR USA, Inc. 8. Allied Technology, LLC 9. Global Microwave Systems, Inc.
E-4
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 585/2006

of 11 April 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 April 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 April 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 11 April 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
Manually Add 300A Summary Data Page 1 of 2 

Manually Add 300A Summary Data Complete the following steps to manually add 300A Summary data to an establishment.

Note: For additional information, place cursor over the icon.

1. Selectthe “16T View Establishment List”16T button in the “For Manual Data Entry” section on

the “16T Injury Tracking Application” 16T screen, OR

2. Select the “16T View Establishment List”16T option fromthe dropdown “16TNavigation Menu”16T . 

Note: The “16T Establishment List”16T lists each establishment connected to your account.

3. Select the establishment name hyperlink in the “Name” column. When the 

Establishment opens, select the “16T Add 300A Data”16T button in the “Summary for Filing 

Year YYYY” section. 

4. Enter data into each field on the “16T Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses” 

screen16T . Note: Each field on the form is required.

5. Select the "16T Save” button 16T . 

6. After saving, you will be taken back to the “16T View Establishment”16T screen, where you 

may review the data entered. 

7. To review the data entered and make any changes to the data, select the “Edit 

Summary” button.

8. Select the “Save” button.

9. If the establishment is required to submit 300 Log and 301 Incident Report data, add 

that data now. If the establishment is not required to submit 300/301 data, once you

have reviewed your data and it is ready to submit, select the “Submit Data” button. See 

the 32T U ITA Coverage ApplicationU 32T to determine if your establishment is required to 

electronically submit 300/301 case data. 

10. Confirm Submission of 300A Data for Establishment(s) and certify submission by 

checking the certification checkbox.

11. Select the “Submit Data” button.

12. You will receive a confirmation message both on-screen and in your email. The 300A 

Status will change to Submitted.
Manually Add 300A Summary Data Page 2 of 2

Note: You should receive this email confirmation shortly after submission. If you do not 

receive it after several minutes, check the Junk/Spam folder for the email account you 

used to register for ITA. If you do not receive an email, check the “Establishment List” 

screen, and ensure the establishment’s 300A Status was changed to Submitted (with a 

link to view the submission). If not, try submitting the 300A data again.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   SENATE RESOLUTION 11--TO AUTHORIZE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE 
                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL

  Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                               S. Res. 11

       Whereas, last Congress the Committee on Armed Services 
     conducted a staff inquiry into allegations regarding 
     irregularities in the administration of a contract for 
     logistical support in Iraq by the Department of the Army;
       Whereas, upon the completion of the Committee's staff 
     inquiry, the Chairman and Ranking Member referred to the 
     Acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense for 
     review allegations regarding the Administration of this 
     LOGCAP contract;
       Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United 
     States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no 
     evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate 
     may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from 
     such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
       Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 
     in the possession of the Senate may promote the 
     administration of justice, the Senate will take such action 
     as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
     privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed 
     Services Committee, acting jointly, are authorized to produce 
     to the Department of Defense Inspector General records of the 
     Committee's staff inquiry into allegations relating to the 
     administration of the Army's LOGCAP contract.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H94-H95]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT AND THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

  (Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for two 
important bills that we will consider later today. The Lilly Ledbetter 
Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act both advance the fight to 
ensure equal pay for women in the workforce
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women make 78 cents for every 
dollar earned for similar work by their male counterparts. This form of 
discrimination is unacceptable, and it not just a women's issue, it is 
a family issue. The Institute of Women's Policy Research found that 
this wage disparity will cost an individual woman anywhere from 
$400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in

[[Page H95]]

lost wages. We can easily imagine the impact on a woman's life, as well 
as her children's.
  I am proud to support these important measures which make the 
American promise of opportunity more accessible to women and to their 
families.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2021255EN.01000101.xml

| 29.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2019-2020 SESSION

Sitting of 11 December 2019

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 213, 4.6.2021.

Sittings of 16 to 19 December 2019

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 224, 11.6.2021.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Commission Monthly Case Activity for November 2016

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month 28

2. Cases Added to Docket 

Gate Precast Company

No. 15-1347

Direction for Review on November 10, 2016

1

3. Cases Subtracted From Docket

Jim Boyd Construction Inc.

No. 11-2559

Decision on November 16, 2016

-1

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month 28
I

J ' I

In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: November 13, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

l j

DocketNo. FAA-2014-0412 WILLIAM LEVERANCE ) ) ) ) ) CaseNo. 2013S0150060 Respondent ORDER CONTINUING RULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE On September 9, 2014, an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission was filed. Among other things, this Order setthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference for November 13, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Easterntime. OnNovember 6, 2014, the FAA filed a Rule 26(f) Report. This Report stated that the parties "reached a settlement ofthis matter onNovember 6, 2014, and are working [sic] memorializing settlementterms with a signed settlement agreement." The Report went onto provide litigation dates "ifthe parties are unable to finalize the settlement inthis matter." OnNovember 12, 2014, the Office ofHearings attorney contactedthe parties via telephone conference call to inquire whether a settlementhad been finalized, or whetherthe Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference should be continued to provide additional time to finalize the agreement. The parties agreed to continue the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference to provide sufficienttime for the FAAto receive the signed settlement agreement, and file a withdrawal ofthe Complaint. Having reviewedthe case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised;It

### Is Hereby Ordered: 1. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.205(a), the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, setfor November 13,2014, at 1:30 p.m. Easterntime is continued to Wednesday, December 17,2014, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. The parties shall access the Conference by dialing 202-493-2343. 2. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, ifthe parties finalize a settlement agreementpriorto December 17, 2014, the FAA shall file a withdrawal ofthe Complaint.

Attachment: Service List

Page 2 of2I

! '



### DocketNo. FAA-2014-0412 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1

ONE COPY 

### Rashawn Rich George Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 William LorenLeverence 3000 Clarcona Road Apopka, FL 32703 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 William Loren Leverence 1031 Saddle back Ridge Rd. Apopka, FL 32703 E-mail: bill@leverence.com

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000,Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. Page 3 of2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00125-CR

Juan MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 5481

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellant Juan Martinez was convicted by a jury of one count of continuous sexual abuse 

and assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court appointed appellate counsel, and counsel 

timely filed a notice of appeal. 

Martinez’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional 

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel 

also filed a motion to withdraw. In his brief, Martinez’s counsel states that he has reviewed the 
04-14-00125-CR

- 2 -

entire record and found no reversible error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2. The brief meets the Anders

requirements. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided 

Martinez with a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Martinez of his

right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–

86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Martinez did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the entire record, we agree with counsel’s Anders brief that the record 

contains no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, see id., and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, see Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Martinez wish to seek further review of 

this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a 

petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from (1) the date of this opinion 

or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration is overruled by this 

court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk 

of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review 

must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

id. R. 68.4.

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,288
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,205
<PP&E>                                         916,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 910,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          473,937
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,201
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   910,815
<SALES>                                        259,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               259,756
<CGS>                                          223,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (130,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (130,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (130,418)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>