alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY RAY BROWN

No. 7420SC213

(Filed 15 May 1974)

Assault and Battery § 16— assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury

In a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon, since the uncontradicted evidence offered by the State showed a shooting of the prosecuting witness, immediate hospitalization, and treatment for the wounds.

Appeal by defendant from *Copeland, Judge,*20 August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Union County. Argued in the Court of Appeals 18 April 1974.

*553Defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with assault with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.

The State’s evidence tended to show that on 2 June 1973, at an establishment called Sleepy Allen’s in Monroe, North Carolina, defendant was standing outside Sleepy Allen’s with a gun in his hand. Defendant aimed the gun at the building where the prosecuting, witness was standing. John Funderburk, who had been drinking with defendant on the evening in question, grabbed defendant’s arm but, as he did so, the pistol discharged. Ralph Meadows, the prosecuting witness, was standing in the building approximately twelve feet from the defendant when the gun discharged. Meadows was wounded in the groin and the right leg. Meadows was hospitalized and received treatment several times after his release.

The defendant offered no evidence. From a verdict of guilty, and judgment entered thereon, defendant appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Oettinger, for the State.*

*Joe P. McCollvm, Jr., for the defendant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant contends the trial court committed error in charging the jury on assault inflicting serious injury, but not charging on assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant was charged in the bill of indictment with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.

There can be no doubt that if an assault occurred, it was an assault with a deadly weapon which inflicted serious injury. Uncontradicted evidence offered by the State shows a shooting of the prosecuting witness in the groin and right leg, bleeding of the witness, immediate hospitalization, and treatment for the wounds. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon. This assignment of error is overruled.

No error.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ELBERT HICKS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3017

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH3443120485-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Elbert Hicks moves to amend his petition for review

to include review of a decision of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board different than the one identified in the 

above caption. 

It does not appear that there was a final Board decision or order when Hicks filed the motion to amend. 

Case: 14-3017 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2014
2 HICKS v. USPS

However, the Board issued a final order on February 4, 

2013. 

Hicks also submits two motions to stay proceedings in 

the petition before this court and a motion to supplement 

the record. Concerning his motion to supplement, Rule 

16(a) of the Rules Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

provides that the record on appeal is generally limited to 

the original pleadings, evidence, and other parts of the 

proceedings before the agency. See also Cruz v. Department of the Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 

(refusing to consider evidence that was not before the 

Board and not part of the record on appeal). Although the 

Rules of Evidence authorize judicial notice of certain facts 

outside of the record, the court is not persuaded that such 

action is warranted here.

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to supplement the record is denied.

(2) The motion to amend the petition is denied.

(3) The motions to stay are granted to the extent that 

Hicks must formally file a petition for review in PH-3443-

13-0185-I-1 by April 7, 2014. That petition would then be 

consolidated with this petition. 

 (4) Hicks’ brief is due to the court no later than June 

6, 2014. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s26 

Case: 14-3017 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 03/04/2014
1 C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Angeleta Rodriguez v. Roger Janki

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 0 19

- CV

Trial court case number: 1 1 20 842

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

A ppellant, Angeleta Ro driguez

, ha s filed a n otice of a ppeal of the trial court’s
f inal j udgment in a forcible detainer proceeding in which appellee

, Roger Janki

, was awarded possession of the property at issue

. Appellant has filed motions and correspondence in which she requests to be allowed to return to, or reenter, the property

, and has now filed a motion requesting that we rule on the previous motions and “end this
case.”

To present any arguments for reversal of the trial court’s judgment, appellant must file a brief that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. 1. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 ; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2

. None of appellant’s motions or correspondence comply with the requirements for an appellant’s brief. Accordingly, appellant ’ s motion s

are dismissed as moot

. Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on May 6, 2019, and she has not yet filed a
brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). We extend the time for appellant to file a brief in this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this Court within 30 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ May 30, 2019

___
#### STATE v. ARTHUR PRICE.

(Filed 10 July 1968.)

Appeal from *Froneberger, J.,*26 February 1968, Criminal Session of Superior Court, Gastor County.

The defendant was tried under two bills of indictment, each being in proper form. The one in No. 67-929 charged the defendant with the crime of larceny of meat from Winn-Dixie Store, a corporation, on 13 December 1967. The other, in No. 67-930, charged the defendant with the offense of larceny of two knives and blades and a paint brush from S. H. Kress and Company, Inc. on 13 December 1967. In each case the value of the property was less than $200 and, thus, a misdemeanor charge.

In case No. 67-929 the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.

In case No. 67-930 the defendant entered a plea of guilty and the court found that this plea was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made without promise of leniency.

*630The two cases were consolidated for the purposes of judgment and the defendant was ordered confined in the common jail of Gaston County to be assigned to work under the supervision of the State Department of Corrections for a period of six months.

From this judgment, the defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and James F. Bullock, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.*

*Robert H. Forbes, Attorney for defendant.*

Campbell, J.

This case represents another instance where those charged with crime take advantage of society. Without cost or expense to themselves, they enjoy the services of an attorney appointed by the court and compensated by the State out of taxpayers’ money. After a fair and impartial trial in the one case, and after a plea of guilty freely and voluntarily entered in the other, a lenient sentence of six months for both crimes was entered. Under the statute the sentence could have been two years for each offense or a total of four years. Then at further expense to the taxpayers, the law breaker insists upon the case being brought to this Court for review.

After a review of the record in this case, we compliment the attorney for the defendant who frankly stated that he had “carefully scrutinized the record on appeal to determine whether or not any other assignments of error should be made. However, attorney can find no legitimate assignment of error or valid contention whereby defendant would be entitled to a new trial.” We commend this attorney for his frankness and candor and, after a review of the record, we agree with his conclusion.

No error.

Britt and Morris, JJ., concur.
# L_2007018EN.01001102.xml

| 25.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/11

---

Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2006 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the 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

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 15 of 20 January 2007
  )

In the contents and in the title, on page 1:

for:

‘... (EC) No 41/2006 ...’,

read:

‘... (EC) No 41/2007 ...’.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration on Aging


2005 White House Conference on Aging

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of conference call.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given that the 
Policy Committee of the 2005 White House Conference on Aging will vote 
on the Annotated Agenda for the WHCoA and may discuss other items 
related to finalizing the 2005 WHCoA during a conference call. The 
conference call will be open to the public to listen, with call-ins 
limited to the number of telephone lines available. Individuals who 
plan to call in and need special assistance, such as TTY, should inform 
the contact person listed below in advance of the conference call. This 
Notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the conference 
call due to scheduling problems.

DATES: The conference call will be held on Thursday, November 3, 2005, 
at 5 p.m., eastern standard time.

ADDRESSES: The conference call may be accessed by dialing, U.S. toll-
free, 1-800-857-0419, passcode: 6045175, on the date and time indicated 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Butcher, (301) 443-2887, or e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4ffddd99af6c1c0d7dcd1c6f4c3dcd7dbd59ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99d2f0f4b7dbecedfaf1fcebd9eef1faf6f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>. Registration is not required. Call in is on a 
first come, first-served basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Older Americans Act 
Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501, November 2000), the Policy 
Committee will hold a meeting by conference call to vote on the 
Annotated Agenda for the 2005 White House Conference on Aging. The 
public is invited to listen by dialing the telephone number and using 
the passcode listed above under the Address section.

    Dated: October 28, 2005.
Edwin L. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 05-21823 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2007071EN.01003301.xml

| 28.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/33

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4441 — EN+/Glencore/SUAL/UC RUSAL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 71/10)

On 1 February 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 32007M4441. 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 32007M4441. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                             606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                       843
<INVENTORY>                                      4,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,441
<PP&E>                                           8,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,607
<BONDS>                                         10,044
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        325
<COMMON>                                           322
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,130
<SALES>                                         31,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,925
<CGS>                                           22,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   826
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                       703
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,025
<DISCONTINUED>                                     776
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,801
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>(1) Not Applicable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0064

Issued: November 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 17, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an April 5, 2022 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0064.

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 April 5, 2022 decision was October 2, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until October 17, 2022, more than 180 days after the

April 5, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0064 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e).
2

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0064, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0064 is dismissed.

Issued: November 21, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
# C_2007284EN.01000101.xml

| 27.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4870 — EDF EN/Alcofinance/Alcogroup JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 284/01)

On 19 October 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 French 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 32007M4870. 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 32007M4870. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### KANOY v. KANOY

No. 27 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 344.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1973.
# C_2007296EN.01000501.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4929 — FIAT/ERGOM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 296/03)

On 20 November 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 32007M4929. 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 32007M4929. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                         1,094
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  665
<ALLOWANCES>                                   433
<INVENTORY>                                    337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,035
<PP&E>                                         4,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,723
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       25
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,748
<SALES>                                        17,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,501
<CGS>                                          10,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,615
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  4.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  4.65
        


</TABLE>