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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7645

CHRISTOPHER ODOM,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS; 

CITY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON 

TAXPAYERS; CARTA BUS; COUNTY OF CHARLESTON TAXPAYERS; 

CHARLESTON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE; SHERIFF AL 

CANNON EMPLOYEES; SHERIFF AL CANNON; SHERIFF AL CANNON 

DETENTION CENTER; CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES; SOG, of Sheriff Al Cannon Detention 

Center; GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

MENTAL HEALTH; G. WERBER BRYAN PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSPITAL; DR. 

FERLANTO; DR. GRISWALD; CRAFTS FARROW STATE HOSPITAL; SCDMH 

EMPLOYEES; SCDMH STAFF; SCDMH SECURITY; DHEC; CHAMPUS; 

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JUST CARE; GEO; 

CHARLESTON COUNTY SOLICITORS OFFICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT; FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; UNITED STATES 

SUPREME COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; DR. RUSSELL 

KEITH; J. BENNICE; DEFENDANTS LIABILITY INSURANCE 

POLICYHOLDER; ALAN WILSON; ALBERT PIERCE; SC STATE 

TREASURY; SCDMH HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-02441-RMG)

Submitted: March 23, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015
2

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Odom appeals the district court’s order 

adopting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice Odom’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 

complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). Because Odom may proceed with his claims by 

filing another complaint and providing factual allegations 

specifying how the named defendants violated his constitutional 

rights, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order 

with respect to those claims nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Odom’s 

motion to amend his claim. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### RUTH HIEGEL DANIEL, Appellant, v. PHILOMENA HIEGEL, Executrix of the Estate of John Maurice Hiegel, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 12003

May 22, 1980

611 P.2d 207

*Goodman, Oshins, Brown & Singer,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Jolley, Urga & Wirth,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*457OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On conflicting evidence the district court found that an oral agreement was made between Ruth Hiegel Daniel and her former husband, John Maurice Hiegel, now deceased, pursuant to which Ruth was to convey her interest in Exley House to John for $8600. A promissory note, deed of trust and divorce complaint, apparently executed pursuant to the oral agreement, when considered together constitute a sufficient memorandum of the agreement satisfying the statute of frauds. NRS 111.210(1); Ray Motor Lodge, Inc., v. Shatz, 80 Nev. 114, 390 P.2d 42 (1969); Haspray v. Pasarelli, 79 Nev. 203, 380 P.2d 919 (1963). We do not perceive an appellate issue of merit.

Affirmed.
#### In re: Stephan D. BROOKS, Petitioner.

No. 05-6128.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.

Decided April 12, 2005.

Stephan D. Brooks, Petitioner pro se.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Stephan D. Brooks petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has *514unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant Brooks’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
IN THE COURT OF CRIM INAL AP P EALS OF TEXAS N O . W R - 5 7 , 3 7 2 - 0 3

E X P A R T E R O N N I E A N D E R S O N , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 9 9 - 0 7 - 9 9 4 7 C I N T H E 1 5 5 D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M W A L L E R C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O R D E R A p p l i c a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t a n d s e n t e n c e d t o s i x t y y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t
. T h e F i r s t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n . A n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , N o . 0 1

- 0 0

- 0 1 0 4 9

- C R ( T e x . A p p . — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t
. ] D e c . 6 , 2 0 0 1 )

. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to thi s Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. A f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , w e f i n d t h a t A p p l i c a n t ’ s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e ’ s c h a n g e t o A p p l i c a n t ’ s p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y d a t e a r e w i t h o u t

m e r i t
. T h e r e f

o r e , w e d e n y r e l i e f

.A p p l i c a n t ’ s c l a i m s c h a l l e n g i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n o n t h e g r o u n d s o f a n i l l e g a l d e a d l y

w e a p o n f

i n d i n g a n d a n i m p r o p e r e n h a n c e m e n t a r e d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o T E X . C O D E C R IM . P R O . A r t
. 1 1
. 0 7 § 4
.

Deliver ed: September 30, 2020 Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22313]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Southeast Alaska Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council 
Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

DATES: December 1, 2005.
    Time And Location: 9 a.m., Alaska Standard Time, by teleconference. 
For how to participate, please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
SUMMARY: This notice informs the public that the Southeast Alaska 
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council will hold a public 
meeting on December 1, 2005. The public is invited to participate and 
to provide oral testimony.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Southeast Regional Advisory Council will 
meet by teleconference on December 1, 2005, for the purpose of 
reviewing and providing recommendations on proposals submitted to the 
Alaska Board of Fisheries, conferring on subsistence wildlife 
proposals, and discussing other matters affecting subsistence users in 
Southeast Alaska. This meeting is open to the public to provide 
testimony. To participate, call toll free, 1-800-369-1643. The 
Teleconference Leader is Mr. Bob Schroeder and the Passcode is 21119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 
Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3601 
C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone (907) 786-
3888. For questions related to subsistence management issues on 
National Forest Service lands, contact Steve Kessler, Subsistence 
Program Leader, 3601 C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; 
telephone (907) 786-3592.

    Dated: October 21, 2005.
Thomas H. Boyd,
Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Steve Kessler,
Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 05-22313 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P 4310-55-P 4310-55-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000053500
<NAME>                        Jetronic Industries Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                       102
<INVENTORY>                                      7,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,267
<PP&E>                                           3,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,585
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,588
<BONDS>                                          3,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         33
<COMMON>                                           370
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,567
<SALES>                                          5,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,035
<CGS>                                            4,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      7
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00




</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         COMPRESSION LABS, INCORPORATED
                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                          NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                          Year Ended December 31, 1996
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
         <S>                                                                        <C>
         Net loss from continuing operations                                        $(13,671)

         Deemed preferred stock dividends related to
           conversion discount                                                        (2,527)
                                                                                    --------
         Adjusted net loss from continuing operations                               $(16,198)
                                                                                    ========

         Weighted average of common stock outstanding                                 15,680
                                                                                    --------

         Shares used in per share computation                                         15,680
                                                                                    --------

         Net loss per share from continuing operations                              $  (1.03)
                                                                                    ========


         Net loss from discontinued operations                                      $ (6,689)

         Weighted average of common stock outstanding                                 15,680
                                                                                    --------

         Shares used in per share computation                                         15,680
                                                                                    --------

         Net loss per share from discontinued operations                            $  (0.43)
                                                                                    ========


         Net loss per share from continuing operations                              $  (1.03)

         Net loss per share from discontinued operations                               (0.43)
                                                                                    --------

         Net loss per share                                                         $  (1.46)
                                                                                    ========
</TABLE>
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
                 SEARS 401(k) PROFIT SHARING TRUST AGREEMENT

	This Third Amendment (the "Amendment") dated as of March 31, 1999 by
and between Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York corporation (the "Company"),
and State Street Bank and Trust Company, a Massachusetts trust company (the
"Trustee"), amends the Sears 401 (k) Profit Sharing Trust Agreement (as
amended and restated as of January 1, 1998) between the Company and the
Trustee (the "Trust Agreement").	WHEREAS, the amendment to the Trust
Agreement dated as of December 1, 1998, a copy of which is attached hereto
(the "December Amendment"), was erroneously identified as the "First
Amendment to the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Trust Agreement" when in fact
the Company and the Trustee had executed a prior First Amendment to the Sears
401 (k) Profit Sharing Plan on June 26, 1998, with an effective date of
January 1, 1998;

	WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee desire to clarify
that the December Amendment is the second amendment to the
Trust Agreement; and
	WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee also desire to
amend subsection 4.5(m) of the Trust Agreement to authorize
the Trustee to sell Common Stock in private sales to the
Company;
	NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee hereby
agree as follows:
1) The December Amendment is hereby renamed "Second
Amendment to the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Trust
Agreement" and the word "First" in the first sentence of
the December Amendment is hereby deleted and replaced
with the word "Second".
2) Subsection 4.5 (m) of the Trust Agreement is hereby
deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:
(m) At the direction of an Investment Manager, and
otherwise to the extent permitted by Section 6.1, to
purchase or sell Common Stock in the open market or
by private purchase from any source, including a
private purchase from the Company of treasury stock
or newly-issued shares, or private sale to the
Company, provided that (i) any such purchase which is
from a party-in-interest (as defined in Section 3(14)
of ERISA) or a disqualified person (as defined in
Section 4975 of the Code) shall be without payment of
any commissions and for an amount which is no greater
than adequate consideration for such Common Stock (as
defined in Section 3(18) of ERISA), and (ii) any such
sale which is to a party-in-interest or disqualified
person shall be without the payment of any
commissions and for an amount which is no less than
adequate consideration for such Common Stock.  The
Company and the Trustee shall establish such rules
and procedures regarding such purchases and sales as
are required to meet applicable laws."
3) In all other respects, the Trust Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect and shall continue unaffected by
this Amendment.
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly
executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.


By: /S/John T. Sloan
	__________________________
	John T. Sloan
	Senior Vice President,
	Human Resources


STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY


By:	/S/John Scott Feely
Name:  	John Scott Feely
Title:	Vice President
#### JOSEPH INTROCASSO, PLAINTIFF, v. FLORENCE JASPER, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HARRY JASPER, DECEASED, DEFENDANT.

Decided April 7, 1932.

*495For the plaintiff, *Gross & Gross.*

For the defendant, *Ueyman & Heyman.*

Bkown, S. C. C.

There were no affidavits furnished by either party concerning the motion to strike. The motion is directed to the entire complaint and is therefore in the nature of a general demurrer and not a special demurrer addressed to each count of the complaint. If the complaint discloses a cause of action in any count the motion should be denied.

For the purpose of this motion the court considers that the condition of selling the Bayonne property and realizing cash is a part of and should be read with the foregoing part of schedule A, as conditions upon which Jasper acquired the plaintiff’s interest in the Jersey City property and admitting, though not deciding, that the conditions of the sale of the Bayonne property and realizing cash therefrom are conditions precedent to liability attaching; nevertheless, the motion cannot prevail for the reason that the first count states an absolute refusal to sell on the part of Jasper or his successor in interest. There being no proof to the contrary on the motion this allegation of the pleading presents a situation where the plaintiff, in substance, charges the defendant prevented the fulfillment of the conditions by refusing to sell. If the proof at the trial discloses that the defendant refused to sell the Bayonne property then a question for the jury to determine the liability of the defendant would arise. The second count charges that the defendant agreed to repay the money within a reasonable time and has failed to do so.

In the brief for the defendant the court is requested to determine that the second count is based upon the allegations in the first count. If the defendant wanted to make the request in his brief effective he should have furnished proof on this motion that such was the case. While the court might be strongly drawn to the conclusion that both counts are based upon the same set of facts in the absence of proof as to this similarity the court is bound, on this motion, to draw *496all reasonable inference in favor of the allegations as they appear in the second count and they do set forth a cause of action.

The complaint stricken by Judge Oliphant was entirely different from the complaint now under discussion. For the foregoing reasons the motion will be denied, without costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5513 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require payment of 

royalty on all oil and gas saved, removed, sold, or discharged under 

a lease under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require 

payment of royalty on all oil and gas saved, removed, 

sold, or discharged under a lease under that Act, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Spilled Oil Royalty 

5 Collection Act’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5513 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ROYALTY TO OIL THAT IS SAVED, 

2 REMOVED, SOLD, OR DISCHARGED UNDER 

3 OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8(a) of the Outer Conti5 nental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)) is amended 

6 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(9)(A) Notwithstanding the terms of any bidding 

8 otherwise authorized by paragraph (1) and the authority 

9 of the Secretary to reduce or eliminate royalty or net prof10 it share under paragraph (3), any royalty under a lease 

11 under this section, other than a deepwater lease, shall 

12 apply to all oil that is saved, removed, sold, or discharged, 

13 without regard to whether any of the oil is unavoidably 

14 lost or used on, or for the benefit of, the lease. 

15 ‘‘(B) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (3)— 

16 ‘‘(i) royalty shall apply to all oil that is dis17 charged under a deepwater lease, at a rate of not 

less than 121 18 ⁄2 percent fixed by the Secretary in 

19 amount or value of any oil that is discharged; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) such royalty shall apply without regard to 

21 whether any of the oil is thereafter unavoidably lost. 

22 ‘‘(C) In this paragraph— 

23 ‘‘(i) the term ‘deepwater lease’ means a lease 

24 for a tract in water depths of 200 meters or greater; 

25 and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5513 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) the term ‘discharged’ means any emission 

2 (other than natural seepage), intentional or uninten3 tional, and includes, but is not limited to, spilling, 

4 leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or 

5 dumping.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

7 April 15, 2010. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of Y.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1200

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,263.00.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$1,263.00. 

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulation (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal.

2

Id. at § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id.
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds it is in compliance with the Board ’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe fee petition is granted in the amount of $1,263.00.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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

5

Id.