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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5383 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5383

 To match the boundaries of Lewis and Clark National Historic Park and 
   Cape Disappointment and Fort Columbia State Parks in the State of 
                  Washington, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2010

  Mr. Baird introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To match the boundaries of Lewis and Clark National Historic Park and 
   Cape Disappointment and Fort Columbia State Parks in the State of 
                  Washington, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lewis and Clark National and State 
Historical Parks Partnership Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY CORRECTIONS.

    Section 103(b) of the Lewis and Clark National Historical Park 
Designation Act (16 U.S.C. 410kkk note; Public Law 108-387) is amended 
to read as follows:
    ``(b) Boundaries.--The boundaries of the park are those generally 
depicted on the map titled `________', numbered ______, and dated 
______ and includes the following:
            ``(1) Lands located in Clatsop County, Oregon, that are 
        associated with the winter encampment of the Lewis and Clark 
        Expedition, known as Fort Clatsop and designated as the Fort 
        Clatsop National Memorial by Public Law 85-435, including the 
        site of the salt cairn (specifically, lot number 18, block 1, 
        Cartwright Park Addition of Seaside, Oregon) used by that 
        expedition and adjacent portions of the old trail which led 
        overland from the fort to the coast.
            ``(2) Lands identified as `Fort Clatsop 2002 Addition 
        Lands' on the map referred to in this subsection.
            ``(3) Lands located along the lower Columbia River in the 
        State of Washington associated with the arrival of the Lewis 
        and Clark Expedition at the Pacific Ocean in 1805, which are 
        identified as `Station Camp', `Clark's Dismal Nitch', `Cape 
        Disappointment', and `Fort Columbia' on the map referred to in 
        this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007073EN.01000201.xml

| 30.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4573 — Candover/Parques Reunidos)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 73/03)

On 12 March 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4573. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4573. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### TORRENCE M. CLOW, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 12634

July 28, 1980

614 P.2d 535

*Peter L. Flangas,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *Gregory C. Diamond,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant sought a writ of habeas corpus in the district court on the ground of delay in bringing the prosecution. The district court denied relief and the instant appeal was taken. Respondent moves that we dismiss the appeal because we lack jurisdiction to entertain it.

At its last session our legislature amended NRS 34.380 so as to preclude appeals in most habeas matters, 1979 Nev. Stats, ch. 216, § 1, at 312. In Gary v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 78, 605 P.2d 212 (1980) and Konstantinidis v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 285, 607 P.2d 584 (1980), we dismissed appeals on the authority of the amendment where the issues raised were probable cause and sufficiency of the indictment, respectively. While those decisions are not controlling here, as they were limited to their *606facts, we perceive no reason why the reasoning of those opinions is not equally applicable to the case at hand.

Appellant argues, however, that we must entertain the instant appeal because, under prior holdings of this court, *see, e.g.,*Oberle v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 428, 420 P.2d 251 (1966), failure to appeal the issue at this time will constitute a waiver and preclude post-conviction review. We disagree. *Oberle*was decided when pretrial appeal from a denial of a habeas petition was an available remedy, and failure to pursue such a remedy was held to constitute a waiver. However, with the passage of the amendment to NRS 34.380, the logical underpinnings of *Oberle*were removed; clearly, a waiver cannot be inferred from the failure to appeal a non-appealable order. Thus, appellant’s contention is lacking in merit.

Accordingly, we order this appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 24, 2017

t1017 

# Order

Clerk October 24, 2017

155606

THOMAS M. KOHLOFF,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155606

COA: 335124

MCAC: 14

- 000016

CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2017 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

g ranting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BARTOW POST 

OFFICE, Bartow, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0714

Issued: May 17, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 9, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal from a purported adverse 

January 17, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk 

of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0714.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.2 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed her appeal.3

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e), which provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

The Board notes that the January 17, 2020 correspondence notified appellant that it had 

accepted her claim for unspecified sprain of the right hip, initial encounter. As there is no final 

adverse decision issued by OWCP dated January 17, 2020 over which the Board may properly 

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0714 must be 

dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0714 is dismissed.

Issued: May 17, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board
#### VICTOR HAVAS, Appellant, v. DARYL ENGEBREGSON, Respondent.

No. 9007

June 15, 1978

580 P.2d 122

*Thomas F. Kummer,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Donald R. Davidson, III,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*337OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Respondent commenced this action seeking attorney’s fees for legal services rendered on behalf of Joseph Van Eykeren, appellant’s co-defendant below. Havas was joined in the action because he had allegedly promised Van Eykeren to pay his fees.

Following a trial before the district court, judgment was entered in favor of respondent against Havas alone, the court specifically finding that Van Eykeren had given Havas the money to pay respondent, but Havas had failed to do so.

Appellant contends the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the judgment. We disagree.

“Where a trial court, sitting without a jury, makes a determination upon conflicting evidence, that determination will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, it is supported by substantial evidence.” J & J Building Contractors, Inc. v. Savage Construction, Inc., 92 Nev. 590, 555 P.2d 488, 489 (1976).

Affirmed.1'2

1

Mr. Justice Mowbray voluntarily disqualified himself from participation in these proceedings and counsel for the parties agreed to have this matter resolved by a four-judge court.

2

The Governor designated the Honorable Peter I. Breen, Judge of the Second Judicial District, to sit in the place of the Honorable Gordon Thompson, Justice, who was disabled. Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the six month period ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         146,747
<SECURITIES>                                   367,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  312,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,447
<PP&E>                                         142,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,394,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,565,106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,976,282
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,332,705)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,300,934
<SALES>                                        443,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               443,289
<CGS>                                          253,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,028,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,248)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (840,873)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (840,873)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (840,873)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007249EN.01000101.xml

| 24.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4737 — Sabic/GE Plastics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 249/01)

On 2 August 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32007M4737. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4737. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515. License No.
Name/Address
Date reissued017466N
Compass Shipping, Inc., 525 Empire Blvd., Brooklyn, NY 11125
September 21, 2005.283F
Saima Avendero USA, Inc., 550 Broad Street, Suite 1001, Newark, NJ 07102
August 4, 2003.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 05-21846 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 208 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 62135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21538]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Interior, Office of the Secretary.

ACTION:  Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Delaware & 
Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice of this meeting is 
required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

Meeting date and time: Thursday, November 10, 2005-1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Lafayette College, 205 Pfenning Center, Easton, PA 18042.
    The agenda for the meeting will focus on implementation of the 
Management Action Plan for the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage 
Corridor and State Heritage Park. The Commission was established to 
assist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its political subdivisions 
in planning and implementing an integrated strategy for protecting and 
promoting cultural, historic and natural resources. The Commission 
reports to the Secretary of the Interior and to Congress.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage 
Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 
1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Allen Sachse, Executive Director, 
Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 1 South Third 
Street, 8th Floor, Easton PA 18042, (610) 923-3548.

    Dated: October 24, 2005.
C. Allen Sachse,
Executive Director, Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-21538 Filed 10-27-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6820-P-EM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KINGDAWUD MUJAHID BURGESS, a/k/a David Clifton Burgess,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:06-cr-00429-GBL-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kingdawud Mujahid Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael 

Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kingdawud Mujahid Burgess appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burgess, 

No. 1:06-cr-00429-GBL-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2010). 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 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5379 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5379

 To delist the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered 
                          Species Act of 1973.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To delist the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered 
                          Species Act of 1973.

    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 ``Polar Bear Delisting Act''.

SEC. 2. DELISTING OF POLAR BEAR AS THREATENED SPECIES.

    The determination by the United States Fish and Wildlife of the 
threatened status for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), published May 
15, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 28211 et seq.), and the listing of such species 
as a threatened species under that Act pursuant to such determination, 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### HUGH BELIN ADAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7495

April 19, 1974

521 P.2d 365

*Rodlin Goff,*State Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*164
      *Ronald T. Banta,*District Attorney, Lyon County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The appellant asks this court to set aside his conviction for possession of marijuana on the ground that the evidence received to prove the offense was the product of an illegal search and seizure. His friend had just been arrested for parole violation and had requested the arresting officers to secure his house trailer. In the process of doing so, the officers confronted the appellant inside the trailer. The appellant was holding a bottle of wine in his hand. One of the officers asked him for the bottle of wine since the appellant’s friend, the owner of the house trailer, was not to have intoxicants in his residence. The appellant was reluctant to give the officer the wine and the officer took it from his hand. The appellant then closed his hand and moved it away as if to conceal something. The officer requested him to open his hand since he believed that the appellant may be holding a weapon or controlled substance. The appellant complied, and the officer observed what appeared to be a hand-rolled marijuana cigarette. The officer then placed the appellant under arrest. The Fourth Amendment was not offended. NRS 171.1232(1); Wright v. State, 88 Nev. 460, 466, 499 P.2d 1216 (1972). Other claimed errors are without merit.

Affirmed.