alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 7, 2014 518117 

________________________________

In the Matter of RORY DOLAN,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, as Acting 

Commissioner of Corrections 

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 9, 2014

Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Rory Dolan, Otisville, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a verbal altercation with another inmate in the

laundry area and bathroom of their housing unit, petitioner was

charged in a detailed misbehavior report with creating a

disturbance. That report, as well as the testimony of the

correction officer who authored it, provided substantial evidence

for the determination that petitioner was guilty as charged

(see Matter of Green v Bradt, 91 AD3d 1235, 1237 [2012], lv

denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]; Matter of Hale v Selsky, 57 AD3d 1136,

1137 [2008], appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 776 [2009]). Petitioner's

contrary testimony that he was not arguing with the other inmate
-2- 518117 

and was only speaking loudly because of the nearby washing

machines and dryers presented a credibility issue for the Hearing

Officer to resolve (see Matter of Hale v Selsky, 57 AD3d at

1137). Further, the record does not support petitioner's

assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the

determination flowed from that alleged bias (see Matter of

Ferguson v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1314, 1314 [2014]). Petitioner's

remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lack merit.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
1

The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-3098

___________

Henry J. Maxwell, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Tyson Foods, Inc. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 1, 2002

 Filed: July 5, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Henry J. Maxwell, Jr., appeals from the district court’s1

 judgment, issued

following a bench trial, in favor of Tyson Foods, Inc., in his employmentdiscrimination action brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Mr. Maxwell’s pending motions.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6352

SCOTLAND E. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KAREN GIBSON, Mail Room Supervisor; KIM WILSON,

Captain/Intelligence,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-cv00155-AMD)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scotland E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Scotland E. Williams appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v.

Gibson, No. 1:08-cv-00155-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2008). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 220 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 220

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum age for 
     children eligible for medical care under the CHAMPVA program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2015

 Mr. Fortenberry introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum age for 
     children eligible for medical care under the CHAMPVA program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Dependents' Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE OF MAXIMUM AGE FOR CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAL CARE 
              UNDER CHAMPVA PROGRAM.

    (a) Increase.--Subsection (c) of section 1781 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c)(1) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (iii) of section 101(4)(A) 
of this title, for purposes of this section, a child who is eligible 
for benefits under subsection (a) shall be eligible for benefits under 
this section until the child's 26th birthday, regardless of the marital 
status of the child or whether the child is pursuing a full-time course 
of instruction at an educational institution.
    ``(2) This subsection shall not be construed to limit eligibility 
for coverage of a child described in section 101(4)(A)(ii) of this 
title.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Such subsection, as so amended, shall apply 
with respect to medical care provided on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
| (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13875) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1996 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43992) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-58173) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and 1996 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, as amended, |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-108324) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137203) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan; |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1855 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions and 

credits relating to expenditures in connection with marijuana sales conducted in compliance with State law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. HANNA, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) 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 allow deductions and credits relating to expenditures in connection 

with marijuana sales conducted in compliance with State 

law. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Tax 

5 Equity Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1855 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS RELAT2 ING TO EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION 

3 WITH MARIJUANA SALES CONDUCTED IN 

4 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 280E of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before the pe7 riod at the end the following: ‘‘, unless such trade or busi8 ness consists of marijuana sales conducted in compliance 

9 with State law’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years end12 ing after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021370EN.01000201.xml

| 15.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10261 — USTC/CM Biomass Partners)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 370/02)

On 1 September 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10261. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10261. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 238 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2212 

[Report No. 114–314] 

To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen County, California, into 

trust for the benefit of the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2015 

Mr. LAMALFA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

OCTOBER 27, 2015 

Additional sponsor: Mrs. TORRES

OCTOBER 27, 2015 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 1, 2015] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2212 RH

A BILL 

To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen County, 

California, into trust for the benefit of the Susanville 

Indian Rancheria, and for other purposes. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2212 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SUSANVILLE IN4 DIAN RANCHERIA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection 

6 (b) is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of the Susanville 

7 Indian Rancheria, subject to valid existing rights. 

8 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust 

9 pursuant to subsection (a) is the approximately 301 acres 

10 of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

11 Bureau of Land Management identified as ‘‘Conveyance 

12 Boundary’’ on the map titled ‘‘Susanville Indian 

13 Rancheria Land Conveyance’’ and dated December 31, 

14 2014. 

15 (c) GAMING.—Class II and class III gaming under the 

16 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) 

17 shall not be allowed at any time on the land taken into 

18 trust pursuant to subsection (a). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 238 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2212 

[Report No. 114–314] 

A BILL 

To take certain Federal lands located in Lassen 

purposes. the Susanville Indian Rancheria, and for other County, California, into trust for the benefit of 

OCTOBER 27, 2015 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NMT Medical, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Francis J. Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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



|                     |  |                                                        
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2010 |  | /s/    FRANCIS J.
MARTIN                               
|                     |  | Francis J. Martin President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2345 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2345

 To extend the date after which interest earned on obligations held in 
   the wildlife restoration fund may be available for apportionment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2015

Mr. Wittman (for himself and Mr. Thompson of California) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the date after which interest earned on obligations held in 
   the wildlife restoration fund may be available for apportionment.

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

SECTION 1. INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS HELD IN THE WILDLIFE RESTORATION 
              FUND.

    Section 3(b)(2)(C) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(b)(2)(C)) is amended by striking ``2016'' and 
inserting ``2026''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6840

LARRY WOOLFORK, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CHESAPEAKE MAIL CLERK, Mail Clerk; JOHN NEWHART, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00198-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 15, 2009

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Woolfork, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Woolfork appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action as frivolous. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Woolfork v. Chesapeake Mail Clerk , No. 1:09-cv-00198- AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 15, 2009, entered Apr. 16, 2009). 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
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

**Updated Scheduled Matters**

Beginning Tuesday, February 20, 2024, the court's daily schedule will be available through an automated link.

**Law Day 2024**

Law Day 2024 will be on Wednesday, May 15 at 12:00 p.m. at The Willard. The theme is "Voices of Democracy" and our speaker will be Paul M. Smith. Mr. Smith is a Professor of Law at Georgetown and the Senior Vice President of the non partisan Campaign Legal Center.

Registration information will follow.

**Updated Fee Schedule**

The Fee Schedule for the United States Court of Federal Claims has been updated effective 12/1/2023.

For more information, please see the Announcement.

**Message From the Chief Special Master**

On behalf of the seven other special masters and staff attorneys, law clerks, and administrative staff who make up the Office of Special Masters, welcome! The Vaccine Program, as it is colloquially known, came into existence more than 30 years ago after an Act of Congress, and seeks to provide an expedited and fair means of adjudicating claims that a vaccine has caused an injury. Like the Court of Federal Claims itself, we at “OSM” are always mindful of our role as a tribunal that exists to permit citizens to bring claims against the United States. In the effort to ensure that all Vaccine Act claims receive fair consideration, we ultimately seek to serve the petitioners who bring these claims. Read more. For Chief Special Master Corcoran’s biography, please click here.

                  - 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

                    Updated Scheduled Matters
Rails to Trails Program Livestream | 2/23 at 9:30 a.m. 
FRAUD and SCAM INFORMATION
Updated Fee Schedule

Announcements Archives

Operating Status: Open

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building717 Madison Place, NWWashington, DC 20439202-357-6400

----

                        - USCFC Bar Association
                        - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
                        - USCourts.gov
                        - JPORT / Webmail
                        - Judicial Conduct Opinions
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2348 

To amend titles XI and XIX of the Social Security Act to promote program 

integrity with respect to the enrollment of certain immigrants in State 

plans under Medicaid, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. FLORES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend titles XI and XIX of the Social Security Act 

to promote program integrity with respect to the enrollment of certain immigrants in State plans under Medicaid, 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. PROMOTING PROGRAM INTEGRITY IN ENROLL4 ING CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS UNDER MED5 ICAID. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1137(f) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–7(f)) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2348 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Subsections (a)(1) and (d)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘(1) Subsections (a)(1) and (d)’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(2) Subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of sub6 section (d)(4) shall not apply in the case of an initial 

7 determination made on or after the date that is 6 

8 months after the date of the enactment of this para9 graph with respect to the eligibility of an individual 

10 declaring to be a citizen or national of the United 

11 States with respect to whom a State requires, pursu12 ant to 1902(ee) the submission of a social security 

13 number or pursuant to 1903(x) the presentation of 

14 satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or 

15 nationality, under section 1902(a)(46)(B) for bene16 fits under the program listed in subsection (b)(2).’’. 

17 (b) NO PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PRO18 VIDED BEFORE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.—Section 

19 1903(i)(22) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

20 1396b(i)(22)) is amended— 

21 (1) by striking ‘‘with respect to amounts ex22 pended’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) with respect to amounts 

23 expended’’; 

24 (2) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2348 IH

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(B) in the case of a State that elects to pro4 vide a reasonable period to present satisfactory doc5 umentary evidence of such citizenship or nationality 

6 pursuant to paragraph (2)(C) of section 1902(ee) or 

7 paragraph (4) of subsection (x) of this section, for 

8 amounts expended for medical assistance for such an 

9 individual (other than an individual described in 

10 paragraph (2) of such subsection (x)) during such 

11 period;’’. 

12 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

13 1137(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b– 

14 7(d)(4)) is amended— 

15 (1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter pre16 ceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘subject to subsection 

17 (f)(2)’’ before ‘‘the State’’; and 

18 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ‘‘sub19 ject to subsection (f)(2)’’ before ‘‘pending such 

20 verification’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2020

No. 04-19-00339-CR

Lucio HERNANDEZ Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR3904W

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 5, 2019, the clerk of this court sent a letter to the court reporter, Monica 

Crawford, notifying her that the reporter’s record was overdue. On December 17, 2019, Ms. 

Crawford filed a notification of late record stating the reason she had not filed the reporter’s 

record in this appeal was because she had not been contacted by appellant’s counsel to produce 

the record. On December 23, 2019, we ordered appellant’s counsel to request the preparation of 

the reporter’s record from the court reporter on or before December 31, 2019. On December 29, 

2019, appellant’s counsel filed a written request for the preparation of the reporter’s record.

We ORDER Ms. Crawford to file the reporter’s record on or before February 10, 2020.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court