alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vorclone Corporation, Appellant, vs. Larson and others, Respondents.

*November 9, 1934*

February *5, 1935.*

*215For the appellant there was a brief by *Dougherty & Dougherty*of Wisconsin Dells, and oral argument by *Robert Dougherty.*

For the respondent Wright there was a brief by *Rogers & Ozvens*of Portage, and oral argument by *H. B. Rogers.*

The following opinion was filed December 4, 1934:

Wickhem, J.

The conditional sale by the Vorclone Corporation, plaintiff herein, to the defendants Larson was executed on December 21, 1927. It was filed with the city clerk, but there was the same failure to satisfy the terms of sec, 122.07 as existed in the case of *American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Larson, ante,*p. 208, 257 N. W. 608. It will not be necessary to restate the transactions between the Lar-sons and defendant Wright, since they have been covered in detail in the preceding case. Plaintiff’s conditional sales contract was executed after Wright’s second mortgage. Hence, Wright lias no §t§nding as a subsequent purchaser, and all *216of the considerations that apply to the conditional sale of June 3, 1927, by the American Laundry Machinery Company in the preceding case, apply to the plaintiff in this case. It follows that plaintiff’s conditional sales contract is valid as against the. defendant Wright, and that the judgment was erroneous.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff. Costs to be taxed and apportioned as directed in the case of *American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Larson, ante,*p. 208, 257 N. W. 608.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on February 5, 1935.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41660 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WALTER YOVANY GUTIERREZ-PANDY, also known as Marvin Cayatano, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-428-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Walter Yovany Gutierrez-Pandy appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gutierrez-Pandy contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 02-41660 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Gutierrez-Pandy maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Gutierrez-Pandy acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E17-E18]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    TRIBUTE TO MURRELL MITCHELL, SR.

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HAROLD ROGERS

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 6, 2009

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to 
Murrell Mitchell, Sr., a pillar of the community in Corbin, Kentucky, 
who sadly passed away on November 18, 2008 at the age of 91.
  Murrell's life was a testament to his love for his community, the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky, his country, and the Lord. A hard worker and 
small business owner, Murrell was a fixture of southeastern Kentucky. 
In addition to his entrepreneurial efforts, Murrell also served as a 
member of the Knox County Kentucky School Board, as well as three terms 
as a Knox County Magistrate.
  Murrell was also devoted to serving the Lord and working in his 
church, the Grace Baptist Church in Corbin Kentucky, where he was a 
deacon for many years. As a faithful member of the congregation for 
most of his life, Murrell also served as Sunday school director as well 
as church treasurer.
  Through all of his successes, Murrell had a deep abiding love for his 
family. He was married to his wife, Opal, for over 70 years. Together 
they have been the loving parents of 7 children, 15 grandchildren and 
32 great-grandchildren. Murrell's presence as father, grandfather, 
deacon, and rock of the community will be sorely missed.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the 
memory of Murrell Mitchell. Although he has departed from us in body, 
his memory will live on in each of us

[[Page E18]]

who were honored to know him. While we will miss him in this life, we 
know that his residence today is far better than ours is here. And we 
will be satisfied in that knowledge until we meet again.

                          ____________________
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

June 25, 2012

h0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144407

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144407

COA: 303720

Wayne CC: 92-003204-FC

MARIO LEE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### STATE *v.*WILLIAM ALLEN.

An indictment, charging that A, “one cow oí the value of ten dollars of th'e goods,” &c., “then and there being found, maliciously did pursue, with the intent, unlawfully and wickedly to wound and kill, and did kill her,” only charges an injury to personal property, and cannot be maintained.

Indictment, for pursuing and killing live stock, tried before *Buxton, J.,*at the Fall Term, 1874, of Anson Superior Court.

In the bill, upon which the defendant was tried, it was-charged that he, *“*one cow of the value of ten dollars, of the-goods and chattels of one Thomas Cassel, then and there being found, maliciously did pursue, with the intent, unlawfully and) wickedly to wound and kill said cow, and did kill her, contrary,” &c.

The jury returned a verdict of “guilty”; whereupon the-defendant moved to arrest the judgment, upon the ground that the indictment was fatally defective.

His Honor upon consideration, being of opinion that the indictment was insufficient, allowed the motion and arrested the-judgment. From this judgment, the State appealed.

*Attorney General*Hargrove, with whom was *Pemberton,.*for the State.

No counsel in this Court, for defendant.

PeaRson, C. J.

The indictment charges, “ the defendant did maliciously pursue a cow, the property of one Thomas Cassel,. with the intent, unlawfully and wickedly to kill said cow, and did kill her.”

There are no sufficient averments, to make this act amount to malicious mischief, or to bring it within the operation of' any statute. So it is merely an injury to personal property, to be redressed by a civil action for damages. The judgment of the Court below is affirmed. It may be that the effect of the *115homestead and personal property exemption, will make it necessary to enlarge the list of misdemeanors, in order to give protection to the rights of persons and the rights of things, which have heretofore been sufficiently guarded by civil action for damages. This is matter for the consideration of the legislative branch of the government: it is ours to declare the laws, not to make them.

Pee Cubiam. Judgment affirmed.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0184 SAT Date: 12/31/2013 Print Date: 1/31/2014

Related cases : Health related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR/CORROSION, LUNG, AQUATOX-A,C Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0184-85 FATE: Solid (E) S = Disp. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P1B1*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the skin, moderate through the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. There is concern for irritation and p ossible corrosion based on the and concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on surfactant properties of the PMN material.

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.26 amide SAR daphnid 48-h LC50 0.050 green algal 96-h EC50 0.018 fish

_ chronic value 0.004 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.006
algal

_ chronic value 0.008
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for amides ; SAR chemical class = amide, ; MW 368; log Kow 5.67 (EPI); liquid with mp unknown (P); S = 3.1 mg/L or dispersible (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 1

SARs amides SAR Class amide, Ecotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
## Integra Health Management

Secretary of Labor v. Integra Health Management, Inc.

OSHRC Docket 13-1124

Oral Argument before Review Commission

Recording of June 07, 2018 argument before the Review Commission

 

Last Updated: June 7, 2018
# REGISTRATION 400-583 Vol. 1 1234567891011121314151617181920212223*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*24252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*52535455*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*5657585960616263*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104Page 105 - Confidential Statement of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180Pages 181-188 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*189Pages 190-213 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*214215216217Pages 218-220 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4-S5]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              QUORUM CALL

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S5]]

  The VICE PRESIDENT. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                          [Quorum No. 1 Leg.]

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson, Nebraska
     Nelson, Florida
     Pryor
     Reed, Rhode Island
     Reid, Nevada
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall, Colorado
     Udall, New Mexico
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). A quorum is present.

                          ____________________
```
Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan

Munich New York Orange County Paris Rome Seoul Silicon Valley Washington, D.C.

Strategic alliance with MWE China Law Offices (Shanghai)

U.S. practice conducted through McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Arthur G. Sapper

Attorney at Law

asapper@mwe.com

202.756.8246

500 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20001-1531

Facsimile: 202.756.8087

www.mwe.com

October 2, 2014 

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL (washoshrccommission@oshrc.gov) 

The Honorable John X. Cerveny, Executive Secretary

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Re: Kiewit Power Constructors Co., OSHRC Docket No. 11-2395 

Dear Mr. Cerveny: 

By analogy to FED.R.APP.P. 28(j), KPCC respectfully cites these supplemental authorities:

• Sorenson Comm. Inc. v. FCC, 755 F.3d 702, 706 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (review by D.C. Circuit 

of APA “good cause” claim is de novo), re KPCC Br. 33 & n. 17.

• Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 98-1379 (D.C. Cir., June 27, 2014) (slip op. at 16-18)

(barring legal theory not in original rationale for rule), reh'g and reh'g en banc on another

grnd. denied (Sept. 22, 2014), re KPCC Br. 29, 30, 34-35; KPCC Rep. Br. 5.

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439, 1444-45 & n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (no

deference to agency; ambiguities to be resolved for Indian tribe), re KPCC Br. 17; KPCC

Rep. Br. 2-3; Sec. Br. 16; and Sec. Rep. Br. 2-4.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Arthur G. Sapper 

cc: Messrs. Glabman and Joseph (electronic service certified this date)
# Official Journal C 251/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 251 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6226 July 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 251

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6226 July 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 251/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 251/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 251/02 | Call for applications 2019 for the ‘Altiero Spinelli Prize for Outreach’ | 2 |
| 2019/C 251/03 | Results of the call for proposals — EIB Institute’s EIBURS sponsorship | 3 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 251/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9367 — Mirova/Predica/Indigo) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2019/C 251/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9330 — Denso/Hirose) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 251/06 | Publication of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 7 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2019/C 251/02

Call for applications 2019 for the ‘Altiero Spinelli Prize for Outreach’

2

2019/C 251/03

Results of the call for proposals — EIB Institute’s EIBURS sponsorship

3

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 251/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9367 — Mirova/Predica/Indigo) (
  1
  )

1

4

2019/C 251/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9330 — Denso/Hirose) (
  1
  )

1

6

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2019/C 251/06

Publication of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

7

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2019/C 251/07 | Corrigendum to Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ C 132, 13.4.2018 ) | 14 |

Corrigenda

2019/C 251/07

Corrigendum to Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ C 132, 13.4.2018 )

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 18 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 18

Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2017

    Mr. Meehan (for himself and Mr. Deutch) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 
   of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 
                               Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY.

    The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 25, 
2017, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of 
remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the 
ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26328]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

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: November 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean 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 
October 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
417 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-211, K2025-209.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26328 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
1The HONORABLE ORTRIE D. SMITH, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the

HONORABLE ROBERT E. LARSEN, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2756

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Anthony D. Rose, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 3, 2001

 Filed: October 5, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Rose pleaded guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of a

firearm, after officers responding to a report of a disturbance found a handgun on his

person. The district court1 denied Rose’s motion to suppress the handgun underlying

the charge, and he appeals. Having reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de
-2-

novo, and its findings of historical fact for clear error, see United States v. Davis, 202

F.3d 1060, 1061 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 883 (2000), we affirm.

Police officers stopped and frisked Rose while responding to a report of a

disturbance involving an individual who they believed was armed--based on

information they had received from the complainant and the police dispatcher--and who

matched Rose’s description. The stop occurred in an area known for drug activity and

previous calls involving armed individuals. Under the totality of these circumstances,

the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and reasonable cause to believe

Rose was armed and could pose a danger to them. See United States v. Johnson, 64

F.3d 1120, 1124 (8th Cir. 1995) (reasonable suspicion for stop where defendants

matched anonymous caller’s description and behaved suspiciously), cert. denied, 516

U.S. 1139 (1996); Davis, 202 F.3d at 1063 (pat-down search upheld where officer

reasonably believed suspect might be armed).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.