alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41186 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VELMA SEGOVIA-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-98-CR-395-1

-------------------- August 10, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Velma Segovia-Vasquez appeals from her convictions for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine, and possessing in excess of five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Our review of the record and of the arguments and authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The evidence was not insufficient. See United States v. McCarty , 36No. 98-41186 -2- F.3d 1349, 1358 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
#### COM. v. LAMBERT, D.

1835 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/31/2017

CP-36-CR-0000928-2010 (Lancaster)

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1111 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1111

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2011

Mr. Price of Georgia (for himself, Mrs. Black, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Burton 
  of Indiana, Mr. Canseco, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Coble, Mrs. Ellmers, Mr. 
Flores, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Guinta, Mr. Sam Johnson 
of Texas, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Long, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. 
 Rokita, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Westmoreland, 
and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, 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 ``Decrease Spending Now Act''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Of the unobligated balances of discretionary 
appropriations on the date of enactment of this Act, $45,000,000,000 is 
rescinded.
    (b) Implementation.--
            (1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Management 
        and Budget shall determine which appropriation accounts the 
        rescission under subsection (a) shall apply to and the amount 
        that each such account shall be reduced by pursuant to such 
        rescission.
            (2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management 
        and Budget shall submit a report to the Secretary of the 
        Treasury and Congress listing the accounts reduced by the 
        rescission in subsection (a) and the amounts rescinded from 
        each such account.
    (c) Exceptions.--The rescission under subsection (a) shall not 
apply to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
or the Social Security Administration.
                                 <all>
```
No. 12-152.

#### De La Rosa *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### DAWSON F. NECKLES v. HARRIS TEETER, ET AL.

From Wake County

No. 23P17

ORDER

Defendants’ petition for discretionary review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals to reconsider its holding in light of *Wilkes v. City of*Greenville, _ N.C. _, _ S.E.2d _ (2017) (368PA15).

By Order of the Court in Conference, this 8th day of June, 2017.

s/Morgan. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 9th day of June, 2017.

J. BRYAN BOYD Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History: Annual                                    
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|Florida Natural Gas Balancing Item  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        
|                                                        
|Florida Natural Gas Balancing Item  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1 | Year-2  | Year-3 | Year-4  | Year-5 | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |        |         |        |         |        |         | 14,439  | 26,939 | 46,377
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 12,714  | 10,130 | -12,313 | -8,081 | -2,591  | 1,804  | -155    | 592     | 486    | -8,894
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,909   | -5,753 | 33,071  | 16,785 | -19,063 | -9,448 | -15,407 | -14,766 | -9,569 | -5,456
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -16,987 | 11,790 | -10,464 |        |         |        |         |         |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
303P16

#### James K. Sanderford v. Duplin Land Development, Inc.

Def’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA (COA15-1214)

Denied
|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History:                                                    
|                                                                 
|Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 4,844  | 4,379  | 4,198  | 3,944  | 3,378  | 24     | 17    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 109    | 132    | 98     | 106    | 101    | 90     | 75     | 80     | 84     | 83    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 73     | 60     | 66     | 58     | 63     | 56     | 45     | 45     | 48     | 41    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4,559  | 4,917  | 4,896  | 4,917  | 288    | 533    | 582    | 624    | 643    | 646   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,448  | 5,801  | 5,825  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.18 

 
 



 
 24th November 2011 
 Lee Golding 
 EVP and Chief Human Resources Officer 

Langley, England UK 
 Dear Lee, 

This letter confirms the changes to the terms and conditions of your employment with Travelport International Limited (the “Company”), as set
forth below, which take effect 1st January 2012. 
 Base Salary: Your basic annual salary, as set
forth in clause 5.1 of your 2nd October 2009 Contract
of Employment with the Company (“Contract”), will increase to £225,000 gross per annum. As discussed with you, the foregoing increase in your basic annual salary is in lieu of the Company’s March 2012 annual review of your basic
annual salary as set forth in clause 5.2 of your Contract. 
 All other terms and conditions of your employment remain unchanged. Please sign
below and return this letter to Caroline Jowett-Ive in Human Resources in order to take advantage of these benefits. 
 Yours sincerely

 /s/ Gordon Wilson 

Gordon Wilson 
 President and
CEO Travelport 
 Director, Travelport International Limited 
 I, Lee Golding, confirm that I understand and accept the terms contained within this letter. 
  

			
	Signature	 	 /s/ Lee Golding

		
	Date	 	 12-12-2011
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Georgia Natural Gas % of Total Industrial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Georgia Natural Gas % of Total Industrial Delivered for the Account of Others  (Percent)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 63.7  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 62.5   | 63.2   | 65.0   | 67.2   | 62.6   | 64.3   | 67.8   | 73.3   | 74.7   | 76.1  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 79.8   | 80.1   | 80.8   | 84.1   | 83.6   | 82.9   | 83.0   | 82.8   | 83.9   | 82.4  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 81.9   | 81.8   | 80.0   | 81.1   | 80.0   | 79.0   | 78.0   | 74.3   | 74.9   | 74.8  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 77.0   | 78.1   | 76.8   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
IB

Union Calendar No. 463

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1457

[Report No. 103–833]

To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to increase

authorization for appropriation to compensate Aleut villages for church

property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 21, 1993

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 4, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act

to increase authorization for appropriation to compensate

Aleut villages for church property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1457 RH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATIONS.

2 Subsection (d) of section 205 of the Aleutian and

3 Pribilof Islands Restitution Act (Public Law 100–383) is

4 amended by striking ‘‘$1,400,000’’ and inserting in lieu

5 thereof ‘‘$4,700,000’’.

Passed the Senate November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
Union Calendar No. 463

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1457

[Report No. 103–833]

AN ACT

To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands ResWorld War II. property lost, damaged, or destroyed during priation to compensate Aleut villages for church titution Act to increase authorization for approOCTOBER 4, 1994

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
```

November 12, 2001

To MAXXAM Inc.:

We are aware that MAXXAM Inc. has incorporated by reference in its Registration
Statement No. 33-54479 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2001,
which includes our report dated November 12, 2001 covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part of the registration
statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by
our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. It should be noted
that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to November 12, 2001.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
```
Opinion issued June 25, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00086-CR

———————————

IN RE WESLEY LEE BOWERS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator John Wesley Bowers, who is on probation from a conviction for 

driving while intoxicated, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the 

trial court’s order denying Bowers’ petition for an occupational driver’s license 
2

while his license is suspended.1 The State filed a response and Bowers filed a 

reply.

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is In re Wesley Lee Bowers, cause number 2447624-R, 

pending in the County Criminal Court at Law No, 7 of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Andrew A. Wright presiding.
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Washington Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Washington Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 77,721  | 80,959 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 83,157  | 84,592  | 85,245  | 87,031  | 93,512  | 92,373  | 93,584  |         |         |        
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 99,166  | 99,584  | 99,930  | 100,819 | 101,606 | 102,129 | 103,220 | 104,420 | 105,401 | 106,632
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 107,013 | 107,699 | 108,235 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4950
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ELSON PRESSLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00041-D) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: May 2, 2008 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Elson Pressley pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). He received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Pressley timely appealed. Pressley asserts that the ACCA enhancement violated his Sixth Amendment rights because his prior convictions, upon which the court based the enhancement, were not submitted to a jury, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted by him. However, as Pressley recognizes, this court rejected the same argument in United States v. Cheek , 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005); see alsoUnited States v. Thompson , 421 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). A panel of this court may not overrule a prior published decision of the court. United States v. Ruhe , 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm Pressley’s sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1457

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 21, 1993

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act

to increase authorization for appropriation to compensate

Aleut villages for church property lost, damaged, or destroyed during World War II.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATIONS.

4 Subsection (d) of section 205 of the Aleutian and

5 Pribilof Islands Restitution Act (Public Law 100–383) is

6 amended by striking ‘‘$1,400,000’’ and inserting in lieu

7 thereof ‘‘$4,700,000’’.

Passed the Senate November 20 (legislative day, November 2), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.