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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5426 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5426

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 finalize a proposed rule to amend the spill prevention, control, and 
 countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline the requirements for the 
                dairy industry, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 2010

   Mrs. Miller of Michigan (for herself, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Graves, Mr. 
    Conaway, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Ms. 
Jenkins, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Luetkemeyer, and Mr. Neugebauer) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 finalize a proposed rule to amend the spill prevention, control, and 
 countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline the requirements for the 
                dairy industry, 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. REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
shall finalize the proposed rule as published in the Federal Register 
on January 15, 2009, beginning on page 2461 of volume 74, entitled 
``Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and 
Countermeasure Rule Requirements--Amendments'' to exempt certain milk 
containers and associated piping and appurtenance from the Spill 
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure program.
    (b) Forbearance.--Until the effective date of the rule finalized 
under subsection (a), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency may not take regulatory action against dairy and dairy product 
producers, processors, handlers, and distributors under the oil 
pollution prevention regulation in part 112 of title 40, Code of 
Federal Regulations, related to the exemptions in such proposed rule.
                                 <all>
```
#### PHILLIP H. SHEDD, Appellant, v. DONALD ADAMSON, Respondent.

No. 7535

May 30, 1975

535 P.2d 799

*Stewart & Horton, Ltd,.,*and *Raymond B. Little,*Reno, for Appellant.

*T. David Horton,*Battle Mountain, for Respondent.

*358OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Phillip H. Shedd, the plaintiff-appellant, sued Donald Adam-son, the defendant-respondent, in California for attorney’s fees that Shedd claimed were due him for legal services rendered to Donald and his grandmother, Frances Adamson. Shedd served Donald, a Nevada resident, by mail, as provided in Section 415.40 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,1 and obtained a default judgment against him in the sum of $3,484.39.

Shedd then sued in Nevada on the California judgment, obtaining personal service over Donald. At the trial, the Nevada court refused to give full faith and credit to the California judgment, on the ground that the California court did not have *in personam*jurisdiction over Donald when it entered its default judgment.

The judge determined in his written decision that there were no sufficient contacts with the State of California to establish such jurisdiction. In the absence of a transcript of the testimony taken during the trial below, which would enable this court to review the evidence presented, we must accept the findings of the court and thereby assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s determinations. See Meakin v. Meakin, 88 Nev. 25, 492 P.2d 1304 (1972); City of Henderson v. Bentonite, Inc., 87 Nev. 188, 483 P.2d 1299 (1971).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

Cal. Ann. Code Civ. P. § 415.40 (West 1973):

> “A summons may be served on a person outside this state in any manner provided by this article or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by any form of airmail requiring a return receipt. Service of summons by this form of mail is deemed complete on the 10th day after such mailing.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                  674,925
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          911,612
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            447,377
<PP&E>                                          14,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,088,889
<SHORT-TERM>                                   241,725
<PAYABLES>                                      69,249
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            962,588
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             352,112
<LONG-TERM>                                     21,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,088,889
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               73,748
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            91,214
<COMMISSIONS>                                  168,789
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   25,420
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   50,486
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,528
<COMPENSATION>                                 230,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,127
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,024
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30


</TABLE>
#### MICHAEL PAUL PERRY, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7989

June 20, 1975

537 P.2d 319

*408
      *Horace R. Goff,*Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In 1972, appellant pleaded guilty to grand larceny and was sentenced to six years in the Nevada State Prison. In June, 1973, appellant petitioned for post-conviction relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied relief, and this appeal followed.

Appellant contends his plea was involuntary because of coercive threats to prosecute his girlfriend and a failure by the prosecutor to keep a plea bargain concerning the severity of the sentence to be imposed. However, we think the record justified the district court’s rejection of such contentions.

The transcript of appellant’s entry of plea reflects an adequate canvass prior to acceptance of a guilty plea, cf. Heffley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 573, 516 P.2d 1403 (1973), and affirmatively shows the nonexistence of promises or coercive threats. Although appellant, his girlfriend, and another female acquaintance testified in support of appellant’s allegations at the evi-dentiary hearing, their claims were refuted by testimony of appellant’s defense counsel.

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00907-CV

IN RE SEGREST SALTWATER RESOURCES, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 7, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 29, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the 

trial court’s order granting a motion to transfer venue of the underlying litigation to Midland 

County, Texas. The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 14-06-0426-CVA, styled Segrest Saltwater Resources, LLC v. Pyote Water 

Systems, LLC; Pyote Water Systems II, LLC; Pyote Water Systems III, LLC; Pyote Water Solutions, LLC; Pyote Well 

Service, LLC; H.H. “Trip” Wommack III; George J. Wommack; Petro Waste Environmental, LLC; Petro Waste 

Environmental LP; and Josh Haislip, pending in the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas, the 

Honorable Stella Saxon presiding.
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements ofConexant Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-68755, 333-69385, 333-84187,333-91347, 333-92437, 333-32448, 333-37918, 333-39184, 333-42498, 333-42772,333-42728, 333-48224, 333-48262, 333-44094, 333-54646, 333-54672, 333-68724,333-70420, 333-73142, 333-73858, 333-86838, 333-86868, 333-97539, 333-111211,333-113395, 333-113399, 333-113595, 333-113596 and 333-115983) and in theRegistration Statements of Conexant Systems, Inc. on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-70085,333-88038, 333-115990 and 333-118559) of our report dated November 2, 2004,except for Note 18 as to which the date is December 8, 2004 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referringto a restatement to report the June 27, 2003 spin-off of the MindspeedTechnologies business as discontinued operations and a change in method ofaccounting for goodwill and intangible assets in fiscal 2003), appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conexant Systems, Inc.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
* Judge Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. 10-3910-cr United States v. Williams 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 20 thday of March, two thousand twelve. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, MARK R. KRAVITZ, * District Judge.

__________________________________________ United States of America, Appellee , v. 10-3910-cr Gary Williams (Federal Prisoner: 47382-053), Defendant-Appellant

.

__________________________________________ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Gary Williams, pro se , Folkston, Ga. FOR APPELLEE: Richard M. Tucker, Susan Corkery, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

### 2 Appeal from an order of the United States Di strict Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Gary Williams, proceeding pro se , appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 484 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Williams has abandoned his claim based on Amendment 439. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown , 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1995) (claim not raised in appellate brief is deemed abandoned). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. This Court reviews de novo a district court’s determination as to whether the defendant’s sentence was based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Williams , 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2009). Section 3582 provides that a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Upon review, we conclude that Williams’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its order. See United States v. Williams , No. 96-cr938, Docket Entry No. 128 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2010). Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-89139) pertaining to the 1999 Amended and Restated Equity
Incentive Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, and 1999
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the registration statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-36412) pertaining to the 1999 Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan,
the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-42812) pertaining to the 1999
Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan and 1999 Non-Employee Directors'
Stock Option Plan, the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-44466)
pertaining to ACT Networks, Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan, ACT Networks, Inc. 1993
Stock Option Plan, ACT Networks, Inc. 1995 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, ACT
Networks, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, ACT Networks, Inc. 1997 Non-Executive
Officer Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan and forms of Stock Option Agreement,
written Compensation Agreement and Addendum to Stock Option Agreement for
certain non-plan stock option grants by ACT Networks Inc. to Messrs. Sade and
Weisman of Clarent Corporation of our report dated January 18, 2001 (except Note
15, as to which the date is February 15, 2001 and Note 1, under the caption
Restatement of Financial Statements, Note 7, under the caption Transactions
Related to Asia-Pacific Region, and Note 16, as to which the date is April 26,
2002) with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Clarent Corporation included in the amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the
year ended December 31, 2000.


                                          /s/  Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
May 7, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Restated for impact of acquisition of CBFA in February 2000, accounted for as a
pooling of interests.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                              30
<SECURITIES>                                         4
<RECEIVABLES>                                      798
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                        575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,470
<PP&E>                                           2,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                     904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,314
<BONDS>                                            784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                6
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,838
<SALES>                                          6,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,827
<CGS>                                            6,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    202
<INCOME-TAX>                                        78
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                124
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       124
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16


</TABLE>
Order entered January 9 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 01056
- CV
NATHANIEL TIMOTHY PHILLIPS , Appellant

V. MARC S. MALOUF , Appellee On Appeal from the Co unty Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 22
- 04163
- B

O RDER The reporter’s reco rd in this case has not been filed. By letter dated December 12 , 2022, we i nformed appellan t the court rep orter notified us that the reporter’s rec ord ha d not been filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid f

o r or made arrangeme nts to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requeste d an d that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been f oun d entitled to proce ed without payment of costs.We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within

ten days might result in the appe al b eing o rdered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant h as not p rovide d verification that the reporter’s record has been requested nor otherwise corresponded with th e Court regarding the sta tus of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellant ’ s brief is due THIRT Y DAYS from the dat e of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Bellmawr, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0424

Issued: February 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 January 30, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a July 30, 2020 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0424.

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.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the July 30, 2020 decision was January 26, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until January 30, 2021, more than 180 days after the July 30, 

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0424 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0424 is dismissed.

Issued: February 26, 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

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 19, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-17218

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 96-00002-CR-5-RS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

PHILLIP POTTER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

 (July 19, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Spivey, appointed counsel for Phillip Potter in this direct
2

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the revocation of Potter’s

supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Aaron R. BURDGE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 04-3393.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 15, 2005.

*ORDER*

MAYER, Circuit Judge.

Aaron R. Burdge moves for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing his petition for review for failure to file his brief. The Department of the Navy opposes.

Counsel for Burdge states that he did not file a brief because he was “awaiting to receive a scheduling order from the Court/ Clerk’s Office.” The Navy contends that Burdge’s motion for reconsideration was filed untimely because it was not filed within 14 days of the date of dismissal as required by Fed. Cir. R. 45(a)(1).

We note that Burdge has now filed his brief and counsel states that he has reacquainted himself with the court’s rules. Based on these circumstances, the court, with some reluctance, grants the motion to reinstate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for reconsideration is granted.

*999(2) The November 23, 2004 dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(3) The Air Force’s brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.