alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6847

ROGER GENE POWERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-99-3128-3-24BC) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 27, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Gene Powers, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In the absence of a separate motion for certificate of appealability, Powers’ notice of appeal is construed as a motion for a certificate of appealability in this court. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 2 PER CURIAM: Roger Gene Powers 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 denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Powers v. Rushton, No. CA-99- 3128-3-24BC (D.S.C. May 31, 2000). We further deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal * and Powers’ motion to stay pending request for a certificate of appealability. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1002 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1002

Strongly condemning the recent acts of violence, riots, and looting in 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2020

Mr. Guest submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Strongly condemning the recent acts of violence, riots, and looting in 
                           the United States.

Whereas in the wake of the tragic death of George Floyd on Monday, May 25, 2020, 
        peaceful protests began across the United States focused on justice for 
        African-American victims of police misconduct;
Whereas these peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution of the United 
        States through an individual's First Amendment rights of freedom of 
        speech, peaceful assembly, and petitioning the Government concerning 
        grievances;
Whereas what began as peaceful demonstrations, have been exploited by violent 
        extremists who have carried out acts of violence, looting, destruction 
        of business and personal property, and additional loss of life, 
        including the deliberate targeting of law enforcement officers;
Whereas due to the actions of violent extremists, certain government functions 
        have been temporarily closed, businesses have been forced to be 
        shuttered, and livelihoods have been impacted;
Whereas these acts of violence are considered criminal activity; and
Whereas these actions take our focus as a country away from a safe and civil 
        dialogue on issues of importance to our Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) strongly condemns the violence, riots, and looting in 
        the United States;
            (2) recognizes that violent opportunists use the cover of 
        legitimate protests by their fellow citizens to sow chaos;
            (3) recognizes that the actions of those bent on violence 
        does not diminish the rights of other Americans to peacefully 
        protest;
            (4) urges peace and order to be restored; and
            (5) expresses that those responsible for these violent acts 
        be held criminally responsible for their actions.
                                 <all>
```
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 



### Honorable

5. Y. Prestoa County 

### Attorney ChlldraaaCounty Chlidresa,

Tems Attention: **fionoreblo C.**  **C. ~OU&tGll**  **Dear cir:** 

**larese cowltfr**  **la** 8 paid an sxaaloners*Court uthorlzadthe

e order 

### settingthe %mrlfr~a **and** a oopy or the order autholc Lent or a deputy **end** his salary to 

### be paid out of the General Fund, are inolosed herewith. *I hate oheoked the atstutes ooveringthe egpolntoent

## or dimutica, and the 

## recaaOr the 

## Sherirr*s orrios, and 1 oan not find my etstuts authOriZing 

### the comiisslonors~



### court 

## to **pay** 

### a **depnty** 

### 8hdrr out 31 ’ the 

### r,unerzal 2-d...

3onorahle $. i'. ?rsaton, raga 2

*it is ;ay oplnlon that such order is void. I would ap-,raolnte'an oplnlon ZP~E you oh the velfdft: sf t&e lnoloaedorder. *. . . ." The population

### or ChildrsEaCounty,Texas, aooordlag to the 1940 Federaloansus Is 12.147 ihhabftants, and es stetcd In your latter 1ta'oSflcers are oonymsntsd on tka 

## tee bsola. IQttaie 6ai9, V~Pflan',S &Qoti,tedTexas Cl~ll ?tatutes, reeds lu zart a9 

## r0ii0w3:

“

. . . . Provided further,thnt lS fh the c:inlsn OL'

tho CouuiosIoners~ Cmrt Sees of the sherirr’s 

### ofrlceare nat ruSS:cientto :ustiSythe 

### peymmt

of salaries or ruoh deputies,the CommitsIonars*Court shallheve the power to uey sam :ut LX tke ;:enemi Fund of zcld. count7."" ?ection1 oS hrtiole 3902, %rzonqs Amoteted Texas clv3.l Xatutss, which est.6 the caxi~ 

## 3alr;rles CU? deputier-, eaalatenta

and olerks in oouaties'otthe claes oS Childres8 County, rundfi

as follows: ., ,~ ~ *I. In oountles harln;; a pofulatIonOS txenty-ilve thcuaahd (25,000)or :cza iuhabltanta, first assistaht.or&let deput? zizt to exceed Z'f8htesn

Hundred ($l800.00) Oollara gc;r

etiaua; other asa:atahts,deputleeor alerks ri3t to OXoeed Flftcez iiuadred (#l~OO.OC)

Dollars per annos each." -, .

In ymr letter you do not state wcether tke deputy sheririeCpoioteci

sac F? ohlol deputy of an ordlnmy Ceputy. IiY the d0puty ap:3olnted was okief XaLut;. 3LerifS it is cur opinion that the osdor oS ths Oourt alloWihChim A saltmy of GlS0.W per contb (12 months or yearly salary et such sionthly

IRW would 

## be $1800.00)payable out OS the &enerai fund was wild provided t&t OS round in the order that 

## foe3 0r the 

## sbrtlf~s ofrio Were3 insufxioient to pi;r ame.**. ,** 

**3 ’**  

# c-
**”**
**. r.** 

Fodorablo d. X. Peaton, ?alie 3 

# cIt the dey$y sppointed was not B ohief ;:t;rutY kls saiary ooulci

not have kjen legally set at mm than .,:125.oO per month (12 zcontha or yearly selary.would bc$l500.00).
No. 11-11095.

#### Samsoedien *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022340EN.01002001.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Burgas (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 June 2022 — Obshtina Pomorie v ‘Anhialo auto’ OOD

(Case C-390/22)

(2022/C 340/25)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad Burgas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Obshtina Pomorie

Respondent:‘Anhialo auto’ OOD

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) permit a Member State to introduce, by way of national legislation or internal rules, additional requirements and restrictions in relation to the payment of compensation to a transport undertaking for the discharge of a public service obligation which are not provided for in that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) permit a Member State to introduce, by way of national legislation or internal rules, additional requirements and restrictions in relation to the payment of compensation to a transport undertaking for the discharge of a public service obligation which are not provided for in that regulation?

| 2. | Does Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 permit the payment of compensation to the transport undertaking for the discharge of a public service obligation where the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is to be calculated were not established in advance in a public service contract, but in general rules, and the net financial effect or the amount of compensation due was determined in accordance with the mechanism provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 4(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 permit the payment of compensation to the transport undertaking for the discharge of a public service obligation where the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is to be calculated were not established in advance in a public service contract, but in general rules, and the net financial effect or the amount of compensation due was determined in accordance with the mechanism provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

---
# C_2022284EN.01005001.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/50

---

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — PF v Parliament

(Case T-317/22)

(2022/C 284/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PF (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded;
  and consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

and consequently,

| — | annul the decision of 18 February 2022 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the selection board for competition PE/AD/260/2021 of 20 December 2021 not to admit her to the oral tests and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 20 December 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 18 February 2022 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the selection board for competition PE/AD/260/2021 of 20 December 2021 not to admit her to the oral tests and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 20 December 2021;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board and the principles of impartiality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board and the principles of impartiality and non-discrimination.

---
# C_2023112EN.01001301.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — Jean-François Jalkh v European Parliament

(Case C-82/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Third paragraph of Article 9 - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2023/C 112/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-François Jalkh (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: A. Dumbrăvan and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Jean-François Jalkh shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Jean-François Jalkh shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 901 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 901

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reestablish the 15 
                    percent corporate rate bracket.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2019

   Mr. King of Iowa (for himself and Mr. DesJarlais) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reestablish the 15 
                    percent corporate rate bracket.

    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 ``Restoring Economic Opportunities for 
Small Family C-Corporations''.

SEC. 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF 15 PERCENT CORPORATE RATE BRACKET.

    (a) In General.--Section 11(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Amount of Tax.--The amount of tax imposed by subsection (a) 
shall be the sum of--
            ``(1) 15 percent of so much of the taxable income as does 
        not exceed $50,000, and
            ``(2) 21 percent of so much of the taxable income as 
        exceeds $50,000.
In the case of a corporation which has taxable income in excess of 
$100,000 for any taxable year, the amount of tax determined under the 
preceding sentence for such taxable year shall be increased by the 
lesser of (A) 5 percent of such excess, or (B) $3,000.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 11 of such Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Treatment of Certain References.--Any reference in this title 
(or in any other provision of law) to the rate of tax imposed by this 
section shall be treated as a reference to the rate of tax specified in 
subsection (b)(2) unless such reference clearly indicates otherwise.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5758]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-64-002]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

March 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets to be 
effective May 1, 1997.
    Natural states that the purpose of the filing is to: (1) Reflect 
changes in its tariff to conform to the standards adopted by the Gas 
Industry Standards Board and incorporated into the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations by Order Nos. 587 and 
587-B; and (2) comply with the Commission's Order issued December 23, 
1996, in Docket No. RP97-64-000.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
jurisdictional customers, all parties set out on the official service 
list at Docket No. RP97-64-000, and interested state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before March 21, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5758 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-10997.

#### Romo-Villalobos *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10842.

#### Weber *v.*Delaware.

Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5893]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

University of Massachusetts Medical Center; Decision on 
Application for Duty-free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 am and 5 pm in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    DECISION: Denied. Applicant has failed to establish that domestic 
instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument 
for the intended purposes are not available.
    REASONS: Section 301.5(e)(4) of the regulations requires the denial 
of applications that have been denied without prejudice to resubmission 
if they are not resubmitted within the specified time period. This is 
the case for the following docket.
    Docket Number: 96-101. Applicant: University of Massachusetts 
Medical Center, Worcester, MA 01605. Instrument: Spectrophotometer 
System, Model SF-61 DX2/X. Manufacturer: Hi-Tech Scientific, United 
Kingdom. Date of Denial without Prejudice to Resubmission: December 12, 
1996.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 97-5893 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FOUND ON PAGES
3, 4 AND 5 OF THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         260,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,604,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 936,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,342,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,182,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,159,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,342,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               446,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               364,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Order entered November 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00882-CR

CHACEY TYLER POYNTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 32739CR

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Julie Vrooman’s October 30, 2019 third request for 

extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter’s record due on or before December 2, 2019. Ms. Vrooman is cautioned that the failure 

to file the reporter’s record by that day may result in the Court ordering she not sit until the 

reporter’s record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Keli Aiken, 

Presiding Judge, 354th Judicial District Court; Julie Vrooman, court reporter, 354th Judicial 

District Court; and counsel for all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
No. 12-5218.

#### Daza Gutierrez *v.*Harkleroad, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
TS1201UC – Letter of address change –



# SANITIZED
Attachment M

Work Sheets used to Calculate IR

- 4 Labor Costs

NAICS: 541600

IR

- 4 & Consulting

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate 1 = W $65.42 $35.04 $18.00

Benefits Percentage 2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $28.84 $15.45 $7.94

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B =

W(1+Lb) $94.26 $50.49 $25.94

Overhead Percentage 3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $47.13 $25.24 $12.97

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH $141.39 $75.73 $38.90

1. Data Source: BLS ( http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/naics4_541600.htm ) May 2011 data

NAICS 541600

- Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services

Standard Occupational Codes:

Management: 11

- 0000, Management Occupations

Technical: 19

- 0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations

Clerical: 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition

, EPA

- 452

- 02

- 001, January 2002, pg. 2

- 34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20

- 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.