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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135641(21) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135641 

 COA: 281536

 Macomb CC: 06-001397-FC 

JAMES CARL SEARIGHT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 24, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
LILLIE v. CARVER

421P10-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Robert Alan Lillie, for Lillie, Robert Alan.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of July 2017 by Petitioner to Supplement:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,022

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER SHAWN KELLY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 980752-A IN THE 184 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty in a single

proceeding to five different charges, each enhanced by prior sequential felony convictions, and was

sentenced to thirty-three years’ imprisonment in each case, to be served concurrently. In this

particular cause, Applicant pleaded guilty to attempting to take a weapon from a police officer,

enhanced by two prior sequential felonies. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his plea was involuntary because his trial counsel failed
2

to investigate the validity of the prior convictions used to enhance each of hisfive charges. Although

this claim is without merit, counsel has provided an affidavit in which he concedes that he advised

Applicant incorrectly as to the applicable punishment range for this charge of attempting to take a

weapon from a police officer. This offense is a state jail felony, enhanced by prior sequential felony

convictions making the applicable punishment range for this offense two to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The other four charges were all felonies, enhanced by prior sequential felony convictions to habitual

felony punishment range of 25 to 99 years’ or life imprisonment. Although counsel negotiated a

“package” plea for all five charges, with the sentences to run concurrently, the thirty-three year

sentence in this cause is unauthorized. Based on counsel’s affidavit, the trial court determined that

Applicant is entitled to relief with respect to this cause only. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 980752-A in the 184 Judicial District Court th

of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Harris

County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: October 15, 2008

Do Not Publish
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3771 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for 

the relief of victims of the Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. SWALWELL of California (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. 

ISSA, Mr. HECK of Nevada, Mr. HONDA, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Ms. 

SPEIER, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. CHU, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. AL

GREEN of Texas, Ms. HANABUSA, and Mr. VARGAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash 

contributions for the relief of victims of the Typhoon 

Haiyan in the Philippines. 

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 ‘‘Philippines Charitable 

5 Giving Assistance Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3771 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR 

2 CHARITABLE CASH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RE3 LIEF OF VICTIMS OF TYPHOON HAIYAN IN 

4 THE PHILIPPINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 170 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any 

7 contribution described in subsection (b) made after Janu8 ary 1, 2014, and before March 1, 2014, as if such con9 tribution was made on December 31, 2013, and not in 

10 2014. 

11 (b) CONTRIBUTION DESCRIBED.—A contribution is 

12 described in this subsection if such contribution is a cash 

13 contribution made for the relief of victims in the Republic 

14 of the Philippines affected by Typhoon Haiyan, for which 

15 a charitable contribution deduction is allowable under sec16 tion 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

17 (c) RECORDKEEPING.—In the case of a contribution 

18 described in subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the 

19 name of the donee organization, the date of the contribu20 tion, and the amount of the contribution shall be treated 

21 as meeting the recordkeeping requirements of section 

22 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

23 (d) PAYGO.—All applicable provisions in this section 

24 are designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as25 you-go principles. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN PAUL SMITH, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00064-JPB-7) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, 

Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

John Paul Smith appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See United States 

v. Smith, No. 3:02-cr-00064-JPB-7 (N.D.W. Va. May 30, 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
# C_2008092EN.01005001.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/50

---

Action brought on 24 December 2007 — Efstathopoulos v Parliament

(Case F-144/07)

(2008/C 92/102)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Spyridon Efstathopoulos (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Michi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 2007, in those parts concerning the taking into account of a ‘productivity allowance’ in the applicant's gross salary; the recovery, already effected, of the sum of EUR 390 from the applicant's retirement pension; the obligation to recover the sum of EUR 10 036,99 for the period from March 2005 to March 2007; and the monthly reduction of the applicant's pension by EUR 600 for the entire period during which he was paid the allowance in issue of EUR 670, namely between March 2005 and September 2007.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 2007, PERS-B-AFF-SOCIAL D(2007) 22300 in those parts which relate to the inclusion of the ‘productivity allowance’ in the applicant's gross salary; the recovery, already effected, of the sum of EUR 390 from the applicant's retirement pension; the obligation to recover the sum of EUR 10 036,99 for the period from March 2005 to March 2007; and the monthly reduction of the applicant's pension by EUR 600 for the entire period during which he was paid the allowance in issue of EUR 670, namely between March 2005 and September 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 2007, PERS-B-AFF-SOCIAL D(2007) 22300 in those parts which relate to the inclusion of the ‘productivity allowance’ in the applicant's gross salary; the recovery, already effected, of the sum of EUR 390 from the applicant's retirement pension; the obligation to recover the sum of EUR 10 036,99 for the period from March 2005 to March 2007; and the monthly reduction of the applicant's pension by EUR 600 for the entire period during which he was paid the allowance in issue of EUR 670, namely between March 2005 and September 2007;

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament of 14 September 2007 rejecting the complaint of 9 May 2007 brought by the applicant against the decision of 18 April 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament of 14 September 2007 rejecting the complaint of 9 May 2007 brought by the applicant against the decision of 18 April 2007;

| — | Annul any other decision connected or subsequent to those decisions or taken in execution of them; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul any other decision connected or subsequent to those decisions or taken in execution of them;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3801 

To repeal the reductions in military retirement benefits made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and to authorize the United States Postal 

Service to implement a modified Saturday delivery schedule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the reductions in military retirement benefits made 

by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and to authorize 

the United States Postal Service to implement a modified 

Saturday delivery schedule. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTIONS IN MILITARY RETIRE4 MENT BENEFITS MADE BY BIPARTISAN 

5 BUDGET ACT OF 2013. 

6 As of the date of the enactment of the Bipartisan 

7 Budget Act of 2013, section 403 of such Act is repealed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3801 IH

1 and title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 

2 such title would read if such section had never been en3 acted. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONWIDE MAIL DELIVERY SCHEDULE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404 of title 39, United 

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (e) 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(f)(1) The Postal Service may establish a general, 

9 nationwide mail delivery schedule of 5 days per week. 

10 ‘‘(2) The Postal Service shall ensure that, under any 

11 schedule established under paragraph (1), there shall not 

12 occur more than 2 consecutive days on which mail is not 

13 delivered, including as a result of Federal holidays. 

14 ‘‘(3) For a period not to end before January 1, 2019, 

15 the Postal Service shall provide domestic competitive prod16 uct service 6 days per week to each street address that 

17 was scheduled to receive package service 6 days per week 

18 as of September 30, 2012. 

19 ‘‘(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to au20 thorize a reduction, or to require an increase, in frequency 

21 of mail delivery for any address for which the Postal Serv22 ice provided delivery on fewer than 6 days per week as 

23 of January 1, 2013.’’. 

24 (b) MAILBOX ACCESS.—If the United States Postal 

25 Service establishes a general, nationwide mail delivery 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3801 IH

1 schedule of 5 days per week, the Postal Service shall 

2 amend the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal 

3 Service (as set forth in the Domestic Mail Manual) to en4 sure that the provisions of section 508.3.2.10 of such 

5 Manual, as in effect on September 30, 2012, shall apply 

6 on any day on which the Postal Service does not deliver 

7 mail under the established delivery schedule. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4134 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4134

 To repeal the reduced annual cost-of-living adjustment of the retired 
pay of retired members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 imposed 
                 by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2014

  Mr. Nugent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on the 
Budget and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the reduced annual cost-of-living adjustment of the retired 
pay of retired members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 imposed 
                 by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

    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 ``America First Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REDUCED ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF THE 
              RETIRED PAY OF RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES UNDER 
              THE AGE OF 62.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 
(Public Law 113-67), section 10001 of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76), and sections 1 and 2 of 
Public Law 113-82 are repealed.
    (b) Offsetting Reduction in Foreign Aid.--To offset the costs to be 
incurred by the amendments made by subsection (a), the amounts 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated for foreign aid (including non-
military and military assistance) for each of fiscal years 2015 through 
2024 shall be reduced by $600,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. MISSION BATTLEGROUND PARK, DST, et al.

361PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 10, 2017

Bruce P. Ashley, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Patrick M. Kane, Attorney at Law, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Mission Battleground Park, DST, et al.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General, Phyllis A. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Department Of Transportation.

Garth Dunklin, Attorney at Law, Lorin J. Lapidus, Attorney at Law, G. Gray Wilson, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for James F. Collins.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 8th of March 2017 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of March 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 13th day of April 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jonathan Andre RAMSEY, Defendant.

No. COA17-175

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

Jonathan Ramsey ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of common law robbery and his guilty plea to attaining the status of an habitual felon. On appeal, Defendant asserts that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. We dismiss Defendant's ineffective assistance claims without prejudice to his right to assert them in a motion for appropriate relief.

DISMISSED.
TO: All Court of Appeals Judges, Professor Bacigal, Professor Swisher and John Tucker

FROM: Marty Ring

DATE: June 2, 2015

 

 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

appealed to the Supreme Court:

 

1. Angela C. Bess, M.D.

 v. Valerie A. Mucci and Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation 

 Program

 Record No. 1191-14-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

 March 3, 2015

2. Loudoun Hospital Center, d/b/a Inova Loudoun Hospital, Azam Dabirzadeh, R.N., and 

Alysia Warfield, R.N.

 v. Valerie A. Mucci and Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation 

 Program

 Record No. 1211-14-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

 March 3, 2015

3. Women’s Healthcare Associates, Inc.

 v. Valerie A. Mucci and Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation 

 Program

 Record No. 1180-14-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

 March 3, 2015

4. Andrew Becker, s/k/a Andrew Ira Becker

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1611-13-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty on

 March 24, 2015

5. Alexy J. Abdo, a/k/a Alexi J. Abdo

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0965-14-4

 Opinion rendered by Judge McCullough on

 March 24, 2015

6. Darius Oneil Dalton

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 2385-13-3

 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Huff on

 March 31, 2015
7. James Rush

 v. University of Virginia Health System/Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 1886-14-3

 Opinion rendered by Judge McCullough on

 March 31, 2015

8. Bruce Edison Parham

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0772-14-1

 Opinion rendered by Judge Decker on

 April 7, 2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1607

NORMAN L. NICHOLS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA02-3523-1-JFM) Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman L. Nichols, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Robert Stellman, Steven Bruce Schwartzman, HODES, ULMAN, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Norman L. Nichols, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Caroline County Board of Education on Ni chols’s racial, gender, religion, and speech discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nichols v. Caroline County Bd. of Educ. , No. CA-02-3523-1-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2004). 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
Exhibit 32(a)

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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Windstream Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery R. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeffery R. Gardner               
|Jeffery R. Gardner                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|May 9, 2008                          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Windstream
Corporation and will be retained by Windstream Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2011030EN.01003301.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Frucona Košice v Commission

(Case T-11/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Test of a private creditor in a market economy)

2011/C 30/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, and O.H. Geiss and A. Barger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: St. Nicolaus-trade a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by N. Smaho, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/05 (ex NN 21/05) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s. (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Frucona Košice a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Frucona Košice a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---