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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4102 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4102

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that the estate of a 
deceased veteran may receive certain accrued benefits upon the death of 
                  the veteran, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2014

 Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself and Mrs. Walorski) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify that the estate of a 
deceased veteran may receive certain accrued benefits upon the death of 
                  the veteran, 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. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS OF CERTAIN ACCRUED 
              BENEFITS UPON DEATH OF BENEFICIARY.

    (a) Eligibility of Estate.--Section 5121(a)(2) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
        ``, or estate,'' after ``person''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) The estate of the veteran (unless the estate 
                will escheat).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to the death of an individual on or after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Relief of Estate of Shelton Hickerson.--Notwithstanding section 
5121 of title 38, United States Code, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
shall pay to the estate of Shelton Hickerson, formerly of Indianapolis, 
Indiana, the sum of $377,342, representing the amount that the 
Secretary awarded to Shelton Hickerson on the date of his death but was 
not payable to any survivor or the estate of Shelton Hickerson.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6560
GEORGE D. FIELDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-96-3869-WMN) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.George D. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fields v. Waters , No. CA-96-3869-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 11, 1997). 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
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10190

Summary Calendar

LYNDA MARQUARDT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:06-CV-893

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lynda Marquardt appeals a summary judgment entered in her title VII

case. She mainly contends the district court should not have dismissed her

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10190

claims of age and sex discrimination for failure to initiate her administrative

remedies within the required period of time. For the most part, however, she

appears to acknowledge that her argument for timeliness is foreclosed by Rowe

v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 186 (5th Cir. 1992), on which the district court properly relied. On her retaliation claim, the district court correctly concluded that Marquardt failed to show a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment action.

The district court issued a comprehensive and persuasive Memorandum

Opinion and Order. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the

reasons given by the district court.
1418.

#### Howell *v.*The State.

Accusation of resisting officer, from city court of Dalton — -Judge Longley. September 5, 1908.

Argued October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

Rehearing denied November 24, 1908.

*1William E. Mann,*for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

There being sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict upon either or both of the two counts of the accusation, the general verdict of guilty is not contrary to law. *Tooke*v. *State,*4 *Ga. App.*495 (61 S. E. 917). *Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18943]



[[Page 55956]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2005-4)]


Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

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

SUMMARY: The Board has approved the fourth quarter 2005 rail cost 
adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of 
American Railroads. The fourth quarter 2005 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.185. 
The fourth quarter 2005 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.572. The fourth quarter 
2005 RCAF-5 is 0.548.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541. [Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-
8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision, which is available on our Web site http://www.stb.dot.gov. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, e-
mail or call the Board's contractor, ASAP Document Solutions; 9332 
Annapolis Rd., Suite 103, Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b4a6b4a5b1b695a3b0a7bcafbabbfbbbb0a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91f0e2f0e1f5f2d1e7f4e3f8ebfeffbffff4e5">[email protected]</span></a>; 
phone (202) 306-4004. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available 
through FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.]
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or energy conservation.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Decided: September 15, 2005.

    By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice Chairman Buttrey, and 
Commissioner Mulvey.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18943 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2009180EN.01000502.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — The Netherlands) — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV

(Case C-429/07) (1)

1

(Competition policy - Articles 81 EC and 82 EC - Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Written observations submitted by the Commission - National dispute concerning the deductibility from tax of a fine imposed by a Commission decision)

2009/C 180/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Applicant:

Defendant: X BV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) — Submission by the Commission of written observations in the course of national proceedings concerning the deductibility for tax purposes of a fine imposed by the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The third sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the Commission of the European Communities to submit on its own initiative written observations to a national court of a Member State in proceedings relating to the deductibility from taxable profits of the amount of a fine or a part thereof imposed by the Commission for infringement of Articles 81 EC or 82 EC.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
# C_2008142EN.01002402.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2008 — Leche Celta v OHIM — Celia (Celia)

(Case T-35/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Application for Community figurative mark Celia - Earlier national word mark CELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 142/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Leche Celta, SL (Puentedeume, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, T. Villate Consonni and M. Tañez Manglano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Celia SA (Craon, France) (represented by: D. Masson and F. de Castelnau, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2006 (Case R 294/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Leche Celta, SL and Celia SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Leche Celta, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Leche Celta, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
1... Sitting by assignment.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00870-CV

EX PARTE Ernesto R. HINOJOSA, Sr.,

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-08-43651-CV

Honorable Ricardo H. Garcia, Judge Presiding1

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008

AFFIRMED

Ernesto Hinojosa was arrested on August 19, 1982 for the offense of murder. Hinojosa made

bail after his arrest and was released from custody. Hinojosa was never indicted or tried for the

offense in the 23 years that followed his arrest, prompting him to file a petition to expunge his arrest

from public records. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice filed an opposition to Hinojosa’s

petition, asserting that Hinojosa failed to prove the facts required to justify an expunction. The trial

court rendered an order denying Hinojosa’s petition to expunge, and this appeal followed. On

appeal, Hinojosa contends the trial court erred in denying his petition to expunge because he

qualified for an expunction under the applicable provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN art. 55.01 (Vernon 2006). We affirm.
04-07-00870-CV

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition to expunge under an abuse of discretion

standard. Heine v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet.

denied). An expunction proceeding is a civil proceeding, in which the petitioner bears the burden

of proof in meeting the statutory requirements for an expunction. Harris v. State, 733 S.W.2d 710,

711 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ). One of the statutory conditions that Hinojosa was

required to establish for an expunction included that “the limitations period expired before the date

on which [the] petition for expunction was filed.” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN art. 55.01

(a)(2)(A)(i). The offense for which Hinojosa was arrested, however, has no statute of limitations.

See id. art. 12.01(1)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2008) (providing murder and manslaughter have no

limitations period). Because there is no limitations period applicable to the offense for which

Hinojosa was arrested, Hinojosa cannot satisfy at least one of the statutory requirements for

obtaining an expunction. See id. art. 55.01 (a)(2)(A)(i). Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court

abused its discretion in denying Hinojosa’s petition to expunge.

The trial court’s order denying Hinojosa’s petition to expunge is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice
STATE v. Napoleon Junior RANKIN.

No. 40P15-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Napoleon J. Rankin, Lumberton, for Rankins, Napoleon Junior.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of September 2015 by Defendant for Production and Disclosure:

> *271"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
AZIGE, et al. v. HOLY TRINITY ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHDO CHURCH, et al.

368P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Sinead Noelle O'Doherty, Attorney at Law.

Matthew F. Tilley, Attorney at Law, Julian H. Wright, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Kassahun, Tassew.

Forrest A. Norman, Attorney at Law.

John T. Holden, Attorney at Law, Joseph L. Nelson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Christopher M. Vann, Attorney at Law, Matthews, for Azige, Animaw, et al.

Earl N. 'Trey' Mayfield, III, Attorney at Law, F. Hill Allen, IV, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Gashareba, Tesfa.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of November 2016 by Defendant (Kassahun) to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Against Defendant Kassahun Without Prejudice:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KIRBY STEWART, A/K/A KEVIN 

WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 76 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of November, 2022, the “Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel” is DENIED.
# C_2008183EN.01002001.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/20

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2008 — WWF-UK v Council

(Case T-91/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 - Recovery of cod stocks - Setting of the TACs for 2007 - Measure of general application - Not affected individually - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 183/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WWF-UK (Godalming, Surrey, United Kingdom) (represented by: M.R. Stein, Solicitor, P. Sands and J. Simor, Barristers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino and M. Moore, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Partial annulment of Council Regulation No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1), in so far as it fixes the total allowable catches (‘TAC’) for 2007 in respect of the fishing of cod in the areas covered by Council Regulation No 423/2004 of 26 February 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (OJ 2004 L 70, p. 8)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | WWF-UK Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

WWF-UK Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

| 3. | The Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Timothy Dale Hendricks, Defendant.

No. COA16-367

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

DISMISSED.
* 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. 07-40426 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JONATA RIVERA SAENZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-141-1 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jonata Rivera Saenz has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a briefin accordancewith Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rivera Saenz has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Timothy Scruggs, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 21, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 8, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Perry H. Gravely be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Gravely shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Gravely shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8 (Registration No.
333-07295) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and 1998 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, Form S-3 (No. 333-58303) and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 3
on Form S-3 to Form SB-2 (Form SB-2 No. 333-476-LA) for the registration of
4,724,302 shares of common stock of our report dated March 25, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of SuperGen, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Palo Alto, California
March 25, 1999