alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3527 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to assign the highest priority status 

for hospital care and medical services provided through the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to veterans who are former prisoners of war. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Mr. GUTHRIE, and Mr. 

RUSH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to assign the highest 

priority status for hospital care and medical services 

provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs 

to veterans who are former prisoners of war. 

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 ‘‘POW Priority Care 

5 Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3527 IH

1 SEC. 2. HIGHEST PRIORITY STATUS FOR ENROLLMENT OF 

2 FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR IN HEALTH 

3 CARE SYSTEM OF DEPARTMENT OF VET4 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

5 (a) ENROLLMENT.—Section 1705(a) of title 38, 

6 United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘and veterans’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘, veterans’’; and 

10 (B) by striking the period at the end and 

11 inserting ‘‘, and veterans who are former pris12 oners of war.’’; and 

13 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘who are 

14 former prisoners of war or’’. 

15 (b) EXTENDED CARE SERVICES.—Section 

16 1710B(c)(2)(D) of such title is amended by inserting ‘‘a 

17 veteran who is a former prisoner of war or’’ before ‘‘a vet18 eran who’’. 

19 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this 

20 section shall apply with respect to veterans who are former 

21 prisoners of war before, on, or after the date of the enact22 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
BRIGADIER GENERAL DENIS L. WALSH

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (RET) 

Is inducted into the Defense Industrial Supply Center Hall of Fame this twentieth day of January 

1999 for his extraordinary leadership and support as DISC’s 18th Commander from August 1989 to 

September 1991. General Walsh’s deep personal commitment to quality was directly responsible 

for rethinking the value and the commitment to Total Quality Management leading to DISC’s 

recognition. His exceptional professionalism, creativity and management vision generated the 

motivation and impetus which resulted in increased productivity, improved quality of life and 

reduced operating costs. 

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/walsh.htm 1/21/2016
No. 11-359.

#### Miracle Star Women’s Recovering Community, Inc., Petitioner v. Katherine Jett, et al.

565 U.S. 1150, 132 S. Ct. 1080,

181 L. Ed. 2d 798,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 485.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 1046, 132 S. Ct. 589, 181 L. Ed. 2d 442, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8103.
No. 11-5427.

#### Jeffrey Mathew Jeanetta, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1151, 132 S. Ct. 1081,

181 L. Ed. 2d 799,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 454.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 906, 132 S. Ct. 310, 181 L. Ed. 2d 190, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6169.
No. 11-5939.

#### Curtis Oneal Rhine, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1116, 132 S. Ct. 1001,

181 L. Ed. 2d 743,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 223.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 637 F.3d 525.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4646 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 7320 Reseda Boulevard in Reseda, California, 

as the ‘‘Coach John Wooden Post Office Building’’. 

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


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HR 4646 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 7320 Reseda Boulevard in Reseda, California, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Coach John Wood5 en Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Coach John Wooden Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 5, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3533 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition of crime 

of violence, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mrs. ROBY (for herself and Mr. COLLINS of Georgia) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the 

definition of crime of violence, 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 ‘‘Combat Violent Crime 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF CRIME OF VI7 OLENCE. 

8 Section 924(c)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3533 IH

1 (a) by striking ‘‘by its nature, involves’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘, based on the facts underlying the offense, involved’’; 

3 and 

4 (b) by striking ‘‘may be used’’ and inserting ‘‘may 

5 have been used’’. 

6 SEC. 3. APPLICATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this 

8 Act shall apply to any offense committed on or after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act. 

10 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The amendments 

11 made by this Act shall not be construed to create any right 

12 to challenge a sentence imposed before the date of the en13 actment of this Act under section 924 of title 18, United 

14 States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 11-7095.

#### Nicholas A. Roberts, Petitioner v. Raymond J. Sobina, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

565 U.S. 1123, 132 S. Ct. 1027,

181 L. Ed. 2d 757,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 101.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3933 STANDARD 34.52 -5.69 9.36

Tolerance

1 3933A ORANGE LIMIT 34.87 -5.02 10.90 0.35 0.67 1.54 1.74

2 3933B THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 36.89 -5.89 10.11 2.37 -0.20 0.75 1.53

3 3933C THIN YELLOWORANGE LIMIT 35.29 -5.47 10.18 0.77 0.22 0.82 0.96

4 3933D EXREME THIN 

LIMIT 38.26 -6.42 9.67 3.74 -0.73 0.31 2.28

5

3933E

(removed 

9/5/18)

BLUE LIMIT 34.27 -5.54 8.46 -0.25 0.15 -0.90 0.81

6 3933F THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 35.78 -5.68 8.59 1.26 0.01 -0.77 1.01

7 3933G THIN VIOLET 

LIMIT 36.62 -5.61 8.90 2.10 0.08 -0.46 1.28

8 3933H METAMERISM

TOLERANCE

9 3933I METAMERISM

TOLERANCE

10 3933J BLUE-GREEN 

LIMIT 33.95 -6.07 8.40 -0.57 -0.38 -0.96 1.09

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

DLA/ARMY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT September 20, 2018

Fabric Nomenclature

Shade Number CAMOUFLAGE GREEN 483 Piece/Roll Number 3933

CLOTH, NYLON DUCK GL/PD-11-04
ITEM: Pasta with Tomato Sauce (PTS) MONOGRAPH NO.: KBS5
VENDOR: .Wornick

APPROXIMATE CALORIC VALUE: 465 Kilocalories.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM:

APPEARANCE: Thick, congealed orangish-brown sauce with a few small, flat pieces of
noodles and small, brownish-red beans.

ODOR: Slight tomato, herb and beans.

FLAVOR Slightly sweet, mildly spicy canned tomato; bland beans and starchy
pasta.

TEXTURE: Smooth sauce with firm beans and pasta.

DEFECTS LIKELY TO OCCUR:

APPEARANCE: | Darkening of sauce; increased gumminess.

ODOR: Increased sourness.
FLAVOR Increased sourness; salty.
TEXTURE:

Excessive thickness or thinness of sauce; excessively firm and/or mushy
pasta or beans.

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: Heating of the entree will aid in

determination of the true consistency of the sauce, its oiliness, and enhancement of flavors and
odors.

SPECIAL NOTES: Tomato acid may penetrate inner package at a colder storage temperature

more than at a higher storage temperature. The skin of the bean may be separate from the bean,
but should not be considered a defect.
No. 11-6485.

#### Jose Del Valle, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 990, 132 S. Ct. 527,

181 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7635.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 11-586.

#### Lennon Anderson, Petitioner v. Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc.

565 U.S. 1114, 132 S. Ct. 1037,

181 L. Ed. 2d 740,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 122,

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 427 Fed. Appx. 861.
Motion for En Banc Reconsideration Denied and Dissenting Opinion s on Order

filed September 14

, 2021.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 01066

- CR

NO. 14

- 18

- 01067

- CR

ELONDA CALHOUN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1545108 & 1545140

DISSENTING OPINION FROM ORDER

DENYING EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

I join J ustice Spain ’ s opinion to the extent there could be a separate

designation for an o rder following a tie vote; as he states, “ the motion failed for want

of a majority. ” The court’s o rder accurately reflects each J ustice ’ s vote; ther e is

simply no ambiguity or uncertainty about who is voting or how. Perhaps the Texas

Appellate Bar Section or the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee will take2 this issue up in their next set of changes.

/s/ Jerry Zimmerer

Justice

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Christopher, Wise, Jewell, Zimmerer, Spain,

Hassan, Poissant and Wilson . (Justice Bourliot not participating).

Justices Zimmerer, Spain, Hassan and Poissant voted to grant en banc

reconsideration.

Justice Zimmerer filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice Spain filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Zimmerer joined.

Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

RAKHMATULLA ASATOV, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2013-3028 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. PH3330120120-I-1 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Rakhmatulla Asatov moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

 Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

Case: 13-3028 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2013
RAKHMATULLA ASATOV v. AIR FORCE 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s24 

Case: 13-3028 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2013
No. 11-7156.

#### Carlos Garza, Petitioner v. T. Scott Hudson, et al.

565 U.S. 1098, 132 S. Ct. 857,

181 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8983.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 924.
p.1 

OAR Box 1394 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

16) ll-B-11 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/3/2008 7:22:10 AM Sheet 16 of 57 
P.2 

A-94-52 

II-B-11 

10/15/96 

Docket No. A-94-52 

Category II-B 

The following information is located in the confidential files ofthe Director, Emission 

Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. This information is 

confidential pending final determination by the Administrator and is not available for public 

inspection. 

10/15/96 K. Meardon, PES, to M. Strum, EPA:OAQPS:CCPG, Site Visit report for 7/9/96 visit 

to Ft. Worth, TX 

Enduro Plastics, Ft. Worth, TX 1 diskette, 1 Site Visit Report; 16 pp. 

CN-N404-8 

•sf^^l
No. 11-5298.

#### Clarence Callies, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 900, 132 S. Ct. 294,

181 L. Ed. 2d 178,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5688.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 266.
29 November 2 

NSN: 8925-00-205-3144 Monograph No: M9G

Item: Sugar, White (Refined), Granulated (fine or extra fine) (Type I, Style A) (SUG) 

Document: CID A-A-20135 Sugar, Refined, White and Sugar, Brown and PKG & QAP 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 24 Component Classification: Ancillary 

Estimated Shelf Life: Indefinite at 40o, 70o and 90oF 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: White, free flowing, fine or extra fine granules. 

Odor: Sweet white cane or beet sugar. 

Flavor: Sweet white cane or beet sugar. 

Texture: Free-flowing granules. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Not white or free-flowing. 

Odor: Any objectionable/non-typical odor (e.g., musty). 

Flavor: Any objectionable flavor (e.g., musty). 

Texture: Caked or lumped (see Special Notes). 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Initially examine in dry state for appearance and texture; then examine in instant coffee. If product is 

caked or lumped in dry state, examine the package closely for cuts, tears, holes or open seals. Inserting 

a pocket flashlight inside the package while in a dark room often aids in identifying package integrity 

defects. Also shake package vigorously ten times and observe for minute quantities of product that may 

sift out of package especially at the juncture of the seams and the folded edge of the package. The 

defect is appropriately called a sifter. 
29 November 2 

NSN: 8925-00-205-3144 Monograph No: M9G

Special Notes

Lumps that break apart under light pressure are of no concern.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6674

TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

No. 17
- 7227

TURUK SAUNDERS, a/k/a Turick Frazier , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER PRISON , Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:16

- cv
- 01724

- RMG )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: December 6, 20172 Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Turuk Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases , Turuk Saunders seeks to appe al the district court’s
order s accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 (2000); see Miller

- El v.
Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that th e petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appea lability and dismiss the appeal s . 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 25, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00748

- CR

IN RE David Gene BECKA

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On November 4, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition complaining about a Bexar County residency requirement imposed as a bond condition in the trial court’s order titled “Special Conditions of Release on Bond.” Relator also filed an emergency motion for stay, which we granted in part on November 4, 2022. We requested responses from t he trial court and real party in interest.

On December 13, 2022, the trial court filed a response revealing it signed an order on November 17, 2022, which allows relator to reside in Austin, Texas while out on bond

— the relief he seeks through his petition . Accordingly, an order from this court will have no practical effect because there is nothing to mandamus. See In re Bonilla

, 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (dismissing petition because relief sought had become moot). Becaus e relator has received the relief requested in his petition, we DISMISS the petition as moot. The stay imposed on November 4, 2022 is LIFTED

.

It is so ORDERED on January 25, 2023

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of January, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019

- CR

- 1257 , styled The State of Texas vs. David Becka , pending in the

144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Andrew Wyatt Carruthers presiding.
# Active Vendors

# Canceled Vendors

# Sheet3
Opinion issued March 10 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00771
- CR

——————————— DASHONN LEONARDO DAV IS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1431248

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to an agreement with the State, appellant, Dashonn Leonardo Davis , pleaded guilty to the offense of violation of a protective order

. 1 The trial

1 See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 25 .0 7(a) (West Supp. 2014 ).2

court accepted the plea agreement, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for three years, and certified that this is a plea

- bargained case and he has no right of appeal. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We di smiss the appeal. In a plea

- bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after obtaining the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . a rt

. 44.02 (West 2006);
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2) ; see also Griffin v. State , 145 S.W.3d 645, 645

– 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (concluding neither article 44.02 n or rule 25(a)(2) expressly or impliedly ma ke exception for appeals of jurisdictional issues ) ; Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 77

– 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding voluntariness of guilty plea may not be contested on direct appeal following plea bargain agreement ) . An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record and states that this is a plea

- bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record suppor ts the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2),3

must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
#### Darlington *v.*Reilly (et al., Appellant)

No. 2.

*584Argued November 18, 1953.

Before Stern, O. J., Stearns, Jones, Bell, Ohidsey, Mtjsmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*William J.*Woolston, for appellants.

*William D.*Harkins, with him *T. Ewing Mont*gomery, for appellees.

*J. Wesley*McWilliams, for substituted Trustee-receiver.

January 4, 1954:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

These appeals are from the same decree which we this day affirmed on appeals by others: see p. 578 ante. The present appeals must be quashed because of the appellants’ flagrant violation of our rules. No printed record has been 'furnished,' notwithstanding the appellants failed to obtain leave to proceed' in forma pauperis. They have failed even to print the relevant docket entries so that, while' there appear to be three appeals, it is not possible to determine from the papers *585furnished us who are the appellants in the particular appeal or in what capacities they have appealed.

Fortunately for the appellants, no harm is done them by quashing their appeals. Their complaints are utterly without merit. The mismanagement and manipulation of the trust res over a period of years by the appellants, Calebaugh and Stratton, has been judicially recognized and adjudicated on several occasions during the pendency of this litigation with the end result that each of them now stands surcharged in the sum of $204,148.34 by the final decree of the court below, a matter which they do not attempt to assign for error here. In the thorough and unanswerable opinion for the court en banc, Judge Alessandroni aptly characterized the situation when he said, — “Calebaugh’s and Stratton’s claim for compensation was categorically denied in the opinion of this court which dismissed exceptions to the [earlier] adjudication, December 22,1948. That claim has been fully adjudicated and Calebaugh and Stratton cannot again present a claim for compensation. In that opinion, we said, ‘The attempt to justify compensation to the defendants [Calebaugh and Stratton] for their activity after the creation of the trust approaches impertinence.’ ”

As to the remaining putative appellants, Howell’s privity was with Commemoration Associates, Inc., a veritable *alter ego*of the Stratton and Calebaugh partnership, while Strieker claimed for accounting services allegedly rendered the Stratton and Calebaugh firm. Like Alleman and Farquharson in the case at p. 578 ante, neither Howell nor Strickler possesses any valid claim against the trust estate or against the substituted trustee-receiver.

The question raised by the appellants in their joint and cryptic paper book as to whether the court below *586erred in appointing an auditor, we have already fully considered and disposed of in the appeals at p. 578 ante.

Appeals quashed.