alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-9889.

#### Franklin Delano Floyd, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 830, 132 S. Ct. 126,

181 L. Ed. 2d 48,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5682.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

*49Same case below, 50 So. 3d 1137.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         203,872
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,011
<PP&E>                                         8,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (638)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,246
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,142
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   267,955
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (167,664)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (167,664)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.033)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.033)



</TABLE>
No. 11-5812.

#### Marco Antonio Romero-Acosta, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 922, 132 S. Ct. 349,

181 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6907.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 310.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2805 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit uniformed law enforcement 

officers to carry agency-issued firearms in certain Federal facilities, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2019 

Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH (for himself, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. BUDD, Mr. 

RUTHERFORD, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. PALAZZO, and Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit uniformed 

law enforcement officers to carry agency-issued firearms 

in certain Federal facilities, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Officers of 

5 the Law In Civilian Establishments Act of 2019’’ or as 

6 the ‘‘POLICE Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2805 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT OF2 FICERS TO CARRY AGENCY-ISSUED FIRE3 ARMS. 

4 Section 930 of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (d)— 

7 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the pe10 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

11 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(4) the lawful carrying of agency-issued fire13 arms and other dangerous weapons in Facility Secu14 rity Level I and II Federal civilian public access fa15 cilities by a uniformed officer, agent, or employee of 

16 the United States, a State, or a political subdivision 

17 thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or su18 pervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or 

19 prosecution of any violation of law.’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

21 following: 

22 ‘‘(4) The term ‘Facility Security Level’ means 

23 a security risk assessment level assigned to a Fed24 eral facility by the facility’s security agency in ac25 cordance with the biannually issued Interagency Se26 curity Committee Standard. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2805 IH

1 ‘‘(5) The term ‘civilian public access facility’ 

2 means a facility open to the general public. 

3 ‘‘(6) The term ‘uniformed officer, agent, or em4 ployee’ means an officer, agent, or employee wearing 

5 a clearly identifiable agency standard-issued uniform 

6 with a clearly identifiable agency-issued identifica7 tion badge.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 11-5555.

#### In re Joseph G. Dunbar, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 813, 132 S. Ct. 392,

181 L. Ed. 2d 246,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6367,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-11197.

#### Joyce Simmons, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 872, 132 S. Ct. 227,

181 L. Ed. 2d 126,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6949.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 414.
No. 10-10716.

#### Mary McBride, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 846, 132 S. Ct. 163,

181 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6597.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 402 Fed. Appx. 909.
*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3. APPENDIX 3**

**FORMATS INDEX**

## 

AP3-i

APPENDIX 3
No. 11-5515.

#### Roger Palmer, Petitioner v. Rita Buge, et al.

565 U.S. 912, 132 S. Ct. 322,

181 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5946,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
DATE DUNNAGE AND FABRICATION WORK ORDER

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

MATERIALS USED

COST ACCOUNTING DATA

TOTAL NUMBER OF MANHOURS

TOTAL COST

REMARKS (Use reverse, if necessary)

DLA FORM 161, MAY 86 (EG) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE. PDF (DLA)

WORK ORDER NUMBER AGENCY REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE EXTENSION

ACCOUNT NUMBER REQUIRED DATE DELIVER TO PRODUCTION DATE

ITEM REQUIRED QUANTITY STYLE CONTROLLED BID NUMBER

LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH CONTROLLED COST

DATE INITIALS HOURS

ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PER UNIT TOTAL QUANTITY COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST

LUMBER (MBF)

BARRIER (Sq. Yd.)

FIBERBOARD (Sq. Ft.)

PLYWOOD (Sq. Ft.)

FIBERBOARD BOX FLATS

NAILS (Lbs.)

NAILS (Lbs.)

STAPLES (Lbs.)

BOLTS OR LAG SCREWS

STRAPPING

STITCHING WIRE OR TAPE

ADHESIVE (Pts.)

ROOFING PAPER (Sq. Yd.)

TOPCOATING (Qts.)

TOTAL COST OF SUPPLIES

TOTAL OVERHEAD COSTS

SHOP COSTS

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
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

April 23, 2012 

t0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

143982 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143982 

 COA: 304811 

Berrien CC: 2006-400100-FC 

GERMAINE SHONTE RAINES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 13, 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).
No. 11-5675.

#### Jason Hawkins, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 918, 132 S. Ct. 339,

181 L. Ed. 2d 212,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7028.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 844.
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                   |                                                                              |                                                  |
|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |                                                                              |
|                              |                                                                         |                                             |
| Date: March              27, 2006 |                                                                         | /s/ Barry              B.              Goldstein |
|                                   | Barry              B. Goldstein                                                   |
|                                   | Chief                Executive Officer and Chief                Financial Officer |
No. 10-11249.

#### Richard Davis, Petitioner v. Arkansas.

565 U.S. 875, 132 S. Ct. 233,

181 L. Ed. 2d 131,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6739.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2011 Ark. 6.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2457 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2457

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 1994

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., 
of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily performed emergency work after 
the Northridge earthquake, but has not been reimbursed as a result of a 
technicality under California State law.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to fairly compensate 
Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for which, except for the 
technicality under California State law, it would otherwise have been 
paid under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall pay to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an 
amount equal to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of California to 
compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the emergency work and 
services performed at the request of the Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority, to the extent that such work and services are otherwise 
eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and 
Emergency Assistance Act. The payment shall be made from funds 
appropriated to implement such Act.
    (b) Deobligation of Funds.--The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall deobligate an equal amount to that obligated previously for 
payment to the State of California to cover the costs of work performed 
for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by Benchmark Rail 
Group, Inc., after the Northridge earthquake which would have been 
eligible for reimbursement under such Act.

            Passed the Senate October 4 (legislative day, September 
      12), 1994.

            Attest:

                                                MARTHA S. POPE,

                                                             Secretary.
```
No. 11-5587.

#### Brandon B. Drewry, Petitioner v. Maine.

565 U.S. 915, 132 S. Ct. 331,

181 L. Ed. 2d 206,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5889,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine denied.
No. 11-5522.

#### Teddy Shawn Stokes, Petitioner v. Florida.

565 U.S. 912, 132 S. Ct. 324,

181 L. Ed. 2d 200,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5947.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 77 So. 3d 1262.
*August 3, 1999 DRAFT*

DoD 4000.25-7-M

DLM 4000.25-2, June 13, 2012

**AP1. APPENDIX AP1**

**FORMS INDEX**

## 

**AP**

AP1-i 

APPENDIX 1
* 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. 02-51401 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE JUAREZ-OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-02-CR-305-ALL-OG

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Juarez-Orozco 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. Juarez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. 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 have been alleged in his indictment. Juarez maintains that he pleaded guilty to anNo. 02-51401 -2- 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 and one-year maximum term of supervised release 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. Juarez acknowledges that his argument is 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 argument 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. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
# C_2016007EN.01002001.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)

(Case T-449/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark WISENT - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 007/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARION AIKEN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (5:97-cr-01058-MBS)

Submitted: March 13, 2009 Decided: March 26, 2009

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Marion Aiken seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment or the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); see United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000)(holding that a § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies and collecting cases adopting rule). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion on September 3, 2008. The ten-day appeal period expired on September 17, 2008. Aiken filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on December 4, 2008, outside of both the ten-day appeal period and the thirty-day excusable neglect period, which expired on October 17, 2008. ∗ Because Aiken failed

∗ For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

23 to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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
DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California

Col. Kevin Chunn

United States Marine Corps

Commander

Marine Corps Col. Kevin Chunn became the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution 

San Joaquin, California, commander June 17, 2022. He enlisted in the Marine Corps 

in 1991 and was commissioned through the Meritorious Commissioning Program 

in 1999.  Following his initial training as a Ground Supply Officer, he held a variety 

of billets in the Fleet Marine Force, supporting establishment and the joint community.

Chunn’s Fleet Marine Force assignments include Supply Officer and Headquarters 

Company Commander for the 4th Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, the 

Supply Operations Officer for 3rd Materiel Readiness Battalion, 3rd Force Services 

Support Group, the Logistics Officer for the Combined Medical Relief Team-3, 

Combined Disaster Assistance Center-Pakistan, the Executive Officer for Combat Logistics Regiment-1, 1st Marine Logistics Group, the Operations Officer and later the Executive Officer for Combat 

Logistics Battalion-13, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the G-3 Logistics Readiness Center, 1st Marine Logistics Group 

(Forward), the Executive Officer for Combat Logistics Battalion-6, 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward), the Future Operations Officer for Combat Logistics Regiment-15, 1st Marine Logistics Group, the Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff G-4, 1st 

Marine Aircraft Wing, the Commanding Officer for 3rd Supply Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, and the Assistant 

Chief of Staff G-3, 1st Marine Logistics Group.

His supporting establishment and joint duty assignments include Branch Chief for Joint Enabling Capabilities and Wargames, J-5 Strategy and Governance Division, U.S. Transportation Command, the Chief of Plans for U.S. Central Command 

Deployment Distribution Operations Center, and the Director of Plans Division for the Marine Corps Logistics Command.

His professional military education includes Expeditionary Warfare School in Quantico, Virginia, the Army Command 

and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, as the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps International Security Studies Fellow.
No. 10-10437.

#### Hazhar A. Sayed, Petitioner v. Darryl R. Profitt.

565 U.S. 837, 132 S. Ct. 142,

181 L. Ed. 2d 61,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6109.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 946.