alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clements v. The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company.

Evidence : value or nursery stock : price at which contracted. Where the question was as to the value of a lot of fruit trees at the place of their destination on a railroad, *held*that evidence of the price at which the owner had contracted to sell them there was admissible, as affording some evidence of then- value there.

*443*Appeal from, Benton District Court.*— Hon. L. GK Kinne, Judge.

Filed, May 15, 1888.

■ Action against a common carrier for the value of certain property delivered to it for transportation, and which it failed to deliver at its destination. Judgment for plaintiff for the value of the property at the point of destination, as the court found the same to be, less the amount of the freight bill. Defendant appeals.

*8. E.*Tracy, for appellant.

*Traer*<& *Voris,*for appellee.

Reed, J.

Plaintiff bought the property, which was a lot of fruit trees, at the point of shipment, in this state, paying $115.89 for it. He had contracted for the sale of it, for a larger amount, at Savannah, 111.; that being the point of destination. There ■ was no evidence of its value at Savannah, except the agreement of the parties as to the price at which plaintiff had sold it. Defendant did not deny that the measure of plaintiff ’ s damages is the value of the property at the point of destination, less the cost of carriage; but it contended that that value could not be determined from the single transaction in which it was sold. But we think the price at which it was sold affords some evidence of its value at that point. Indeed, in many cases, that would be the only attainable evidence of value. Property of that kind is not'handled upon a general market, and it could hardly be said to have a general market value. It can be handled only at certain seasons of the year, and then in limited amounts. A single consignment will frequently fill the whole demand of a locality for that kind of goods; and if, in such case, its value in such locality may not be determined from a single transaction, it could not be determined at all. We have no occasion to inquire whether the same rule could be *444applicable to the case of property which is handled on the general market; such as grain, cattle and the like. But, as bearing on the question, see *Northern Transp. Co. v. McClary,*66 Ill. 233. The judgment, we think, should be

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 667 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 667

 To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to 
      provide recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding 
               participation in State marijuana programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2015

Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Jones, Mr. Amash, Mr. 
  Reed, Mr. Hanna, Ms. Titus, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Polis) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to 
      provide recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding 
               participation in State marijuana programs.

    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 ``Veterans Equal Access Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE 
              PROVIDERS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS REGARDING 
              VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN STATE MARIJUANA PROGRAMS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs shall authorize physicians and other health care 
providers employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs to--
            (1) provide recommendations and opinions to veterans who 
        are residents of States with State marijuana programs regarding 
        the participation of veterans in such State marijuana programs; 
        and
            (2) complete forms reflecting such recommendations and 
        opinions.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 783

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to set a time limit for labor 
        rulings on discharge complaints, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 9 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to set a time limit for labor 
        rulings on discharge complaints, and for other purposes.
    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 `` National Labor Relations Board 
Ruling Time Limit Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. BOARD RULING.

    Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
160(b)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence the following 
new sentence: ``In the case of an unfair labor charge filed with the 
Board that involves the discharge of an employee, the Board shall rule 
on such charge within 30 days of the receipt of such charge by the 
Board.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelvin Andre SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7045

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

*287Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spotts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James A. Courter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



Date: June 11, 2007



/s/    JAMES A.
COURTERJames A. Courter Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Juan TOMAS-ANTONIO Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of United States Respondent

No. 17-1063

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 18, 2017

Filed: September 29, 2017

Juan Tomas-Antonio, Pro Se Sunah Lee, Carl H. McIntyre, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Juan Tomas-Antonio, a Guatemalan citizen, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order upholding the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying voluntary departure and finding Tomas-Antonio ineligible for cancellation of removal. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction. We cannot consider any challenge to the IJ’s determination that Tomas-Antonio was ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his cocaine-possession *889conviction because he did not challenge this determination before the BIA. See Baltti v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 718, 722-23 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting that this Court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal only if the petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies and has raised all issues before the BIA). As to the denial of voluntary departure, Tomas-Antonio identifies no question of law or constitutional claim. See Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771, 782 (8th Cir. 2010) (“This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of voluntary departure ... unless the denial raises ‘a colorable constitutional claim or question of law.’ ” (citation to quoted case omitted)). Finally, Tomas-Antonio did not complain of ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct administrative appeal to the BIA nor did he file a motion to reopen, so we cannot review his claim. See Lubale v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining that judicial review of an ineffective-assistance claim is precluded if it is not presented to the BIA on direct administrative appeal or in a motion to reopen).

We dismiss Tomas-Antonio’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0724 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0724

**2003/724/EC: Commission Decision of 10 October 2003 granting a temporary derogation from Directive 82/894/EEC as regards the frequency of notification of primary outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 3561) **

*
Official Journal L 260 , 11/10/2003 P. 0036 - 0036 *

Commission Decision

of 10 October 2003

granting a temporary derogation from Directive 82/894/EEC as regards the frequency of notification of primary outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy

(notified under document number C(2003) 3561)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/724/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 82/894/EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003(2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Directive 82/894/EEC lays down rules for the notification of outbreaks of certain animal diseases, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in the Community. That Directive provides that Member States are to notify primary outbreaks of BSE to both the Commission and the other Member States within 24 hours. Directive 82/894/EEC also provides that secondary outbreaks of BSE are to be notified to the Commission every week.

(2) Various Commission decisions, the last one being Decision 98/12/EC(3), granted temporary derogations to the Member States from the requirements under Directive 82/894/EEC to notify primary outbreaks of BSE within 24 hours. The temporary derogation granted in Decision 98/12/EC provides that all outbreaks of BSE are to be notified to the Commission every week.

(3) Outbreaks of BSE continue to occur in the Community. In the light of experience gained, the weekly reporting of outbreaks of BSE required for secondary outbreaks appears to be sufficient. Accordingly, it is appropriate to maintain a temporary derogation to Member States permitting primary outbreaks of BSE to be notified to the Commission on a weekly basis.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

By way of a derogation from Article 3(1) of Directive 82/894/EEC, all outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy shall be notified until 31 December 2007 in accordance with Article 4 of that Directive.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 October 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 58.

(2) OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 4, 8.1.1998, p. 63.
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2023 IL App (3d) 200054-U

Order filed September 29, 2023 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2023 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

JERMAINE LAWSON, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 10th Judicial Circuit, 

Peoria County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-20-0054 

Circuit No. 19-CF-209 

Honorable 

Katherine S. Gorman, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Brennan concurred in the judgment.1

 

Justice McDade dissented.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) Defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of being an armed 

habitual criminal. (2) The State did not violate defendant’s due process rights. 

¶ 2 Defendant, Jermaine Lawson, appeals his conviction for being an armed habitual criminal, 

arguing (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and

1 Justices Albrecht and Brennan were administratively reassigned to this case on September 12, 2023, due 

to the retirement of previously assigned panel members.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 998 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 998

   To require the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate the Far West 
           spearmint marketing order, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate the Far West 
           spearmint marketing order, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF FAR WEST SPEARMINT MARKETING ORDER.

    The Secretary of Agriculture shall terminate the marketing order 
regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (7 
C.F.R. part 985) issued under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Vaccines Federal Implementation Plan, Request for Comments; 
Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the 
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health published a 
document in the Federal Register of March 2, 2022, announcing the 
request for comments for the Vaccines Federal Implementation Plan. The 
document includes a weblink where the Vaccines Federal Implementation 
Plan can be found: https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/vaccines-national-
strategic-plan/vaccines-federal-implementation-plan/
index.html#:~:text=The%20Vaccines%20Federal%20Implementation%20Plan%20ou
tlines%20specific%20actions%20that%20federal,National%20Strategic%20Plan
%202021%2D2025.&text=The%20public%20comment%20period%20for,2%2C%202022%2
0at%209%20a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Kim, Director, Division of 
Vaccines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Health, Room L616, Switzer Building, 330 C St. 
SW, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: 202-795-7697; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#147a62643a66727d547c7c673a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="305e46401e425659705858431e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 2, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-04327, on 
page 11724, in the second column, correct the subject line Meeting of 
the Vaccines Federal Implementation Plan to read, ``Vaccines Federal 
Implementation Plan, Request for Comments''. We also inadvertently 
omitted the weblink where the implementation plan is located and can be 
found at https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/vaccines-national-strategic-plan/
vaccines-federal-implementation-plan/
index.html#:~:text=The%20Vaccines%20Federal%20Implementation%20Plan%20ou
tlines%20specific%20actions%20that%20federal,National%20Strategic%20Plan
%202021%2D2025.&text=The%20public%20comment%20period%20for,2%2C%202022%2
0at%209%20a.m.

    Dated: March 2, 2022.
David Kim,
Director, Division of Vaccines, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-04937 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-44-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Byron Tyrome TODD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick RAEMISCH, Executive Director of D.O.C.; Cynthia Coffman, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-1079

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 20, 2017

(D.C. No. l:16-CV-02363-LTB), (D. Colorado)

Byron Tyrome Todd, Pro Se

*691Christine Cates Brady, Esq., Office of the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Respondents-Appel-lees

Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

Byron Todd, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion. We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

I

On September 2, 2016, Todd was sentenced in Colorado state court, following his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. On October 11, 2016, he filed a direct appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals. While his direct appeal remained pending, Todd filed the present federal habeas petition challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice as premature. Todd now seeks a COA from this court to appeal that decision.

We may issue a COA only if Todd can show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether ... the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Because Todd’s direct appeal remains pending, no reasonable juror could debate the district court’s conclusion. See Carbajal v. Lynn, 640 Fed.Appx. 811, 813 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (“[I]t would be premature to address Carbajal’s ... challenge to his Denver County convictions while his direct appeal remains pending.”); Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (“When ... an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted.... ”).

II

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Todd’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.