alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MACK PAUL BAUGH.

(Filed 12 October, 1966.)

Criminal Law § 131—

If defendant believes that the sentence imposed upon his plea of guilty, understandingly and voluntarily made, is excessive, his sole recourse is to executive clemency, the sentence being within the statutory maximum.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*at the 7 March 1966 Regular “A” Session of Mecklenburg.

The defendant was indicted for robbery with the use of firearms. He was represented by counsel and entered a plea of guilty as charged. He was sentenced to confinement in the Central Prison for a period of not less than 28 nor more than 30 years.

Prior to the entry of his plea, the defendant was examined by the court under oath. Upon such examination, he stated that he was not under the influence of any alcohol, drug, narcotic, or other pill; that he heard and understood the statements and questions of the court; and that he understood the charge and understood that upon a plea of guilty he could be imprisoned for as much as 30 years. He further stated that neither the solicitor, his counsel, any policeman nor any other person had made any promise to him or subjected him to any threat to influence him to enter a plea of guilty; that he had conferred with his counsel and had instructed his counsel to enter a plea of guilty. Thereupon, the plea was entered, the court finding that it was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without any undue influence, compulsion, duress or promise of leniency.

The defendant having expressed his desire to appeal, and it appearing to the court that the defendant is an indigent person, the court appointed counsel to represent him in perfecting his appeal to this Court, and directed that the county bear the cost of the transcript and of the record and briefs required to be filed.

The appeal was duly filed, no error being assigned.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.*

*E. Clayton Selvey, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

*295Per Curiam.

Notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to assign any ruling or action of the trial court as error, we have carefully examined the entire record and find therein no error of law. There is no suggestion in the record that the defendant, who was represented by counsel, did not understand the charge against him, the nature and effect of his plea of guilty and the maximum sentence which might lawfully be imposed if he entered such plea. It clearly appears from the record that he entered the plea of guilty to the offense charged voluntarily, without threat or inducement, and with full understanding of its effect and possible consequences. The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum authorized by the statute. G.S. 14-87. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, free from error of law. If the defendant believes that the punishment imposed is unduly severe in fact, his recourse is to seek action by the Board of Paroles or other exercise of the power of executive clemency.

No error.
Case 1:07-cv-03319-RPP     Document 5      Filed 06/14/2007     Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5585 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5585

   To provide a statutory waiver of compliance with the Jones Act to 
   foreign-flagged vessels assisting in responding to the Deepwater 
               Horizon oil spill, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2010

   Mr. Carter (for himself, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Olson, Mr. Djou, Mr. 
McCaul, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Rooney, 
   Mr. Fleming, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Harper) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide a statutory waiver of compliance with the Jones Act to 
   foreign-flagged vessels assisting in responding to the Deepwater 
               Horizon oil spill, 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 ``Water Assistance from International 
Vessels for Emergency Response Act'' or the ``WAIVER Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVERS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 12112 and 
chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, shall not apply to any 
vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country while that vessel 
is engaged in containment, remediation, or associated activities in the 
Gulf of Mexico in connection with the mobile offshore drilling unit 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
                                 <all>
```
#### MILLS, INC. v. FOUNDRY, INC.

No. 116 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 521.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 28 August 1970.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1422 

To transfer revenues from the net investment income tax to the Federal 

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2019 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To transfer revenues from the net investment income tax 

to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. 

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 ‘‘ Strengthening the 

5 Medicare Trust Fund Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF NET INVESTMENT INCOME TAX REV7 ENUES TO THE FEDERAL HOSPITAL INSUR8 ANCE TRUST FUND. 

9 Section 1817(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

10 1395i(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1422 IS

1 paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of para2 graph (2) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by inserting after 

3 paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(3) the taxes imposed by section 1411 of the 

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year 

6 beginning after December 31, 2018, as determined 

7 by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary’s 

8 delegate based on tax returns under subtitle F of 

9 such Code.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### ELLEN D. FELTON, Employee, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL GUILD OF THOMASVILLE, INC., EMPLOYER; PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Carrier, Defendants

No. 325A82

(Filed 3 November 1982)

Appeal and Error § 64— equally divided court — opinion of Court of Appeals affirmed — no precedent

Where one member of the Supreme Court did not participate in the consideration or decision of a case and the remaining six Justices are equally divided, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed without precedential value.

Justice Martin took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

APPEAL as of right pursuant to G.S. § 7A-30(2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 57 N.C. App. 33, 291 S.E. 2d 158 (1982), which reversed an Opinion and Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission denying compensation to the claimant, Ellen D. Felton, and remanded the cause for entry of an appropriate award.

*Henson and Henson, by Perry C. Henson and J. Victor Bowman, Attorneys for defendant-appellants.*

*Boyan and Nix, by Robert S. Boyan and Clarence C. Boyan, Attorneys for plaintiff-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

The facts are adequately stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Judge (now Justice) Harry C. Martin having participated in the consideration and decision of this case while a member of the Court of Appeals and therefore not participating in this Court’s consideration and decision of the appeal, and the members *122of this Court being equally divided, with three members voting to affirm, and three members voting to reverse, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed as the law of the case but stands without precedential value. *Greenhill v. Crabtree,*301 N.C. 520, 271 S.E. 2d 908 (1980); *Wayfaring Home Inc. v. Ward,*301 N.C. 518, 272 S.E. 2d 121 (1980); *Shields v. Bobby Murray Chevrolet, Inc.,*300 N.C. 366, 266 S.E. 2d 658 (1980), *reh. den.*301 N.C. 107; *Bank v. Morgan,*299 N.C. 541, 263 S.E. 2d 576 (1980); *Starr v. Clapp,*298 N.C. 275, 258 S.E. 2d 348 (1979); *Mortgage Co. v. Real Estate, Inc.,*297 N.C. 696, 256 S.E. 2d 688 (1979); 1 N.C. Index 3d, Appeal and Error, § 64.

Affirmed.

Justice MARTIN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
# Airman Accounted for from WWII (Porter, R.)

/ Published March 14, 2024
Washington, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that U.S. Army Air Force 2nd Lt. Robert L. E. Porter, 23, of Chicago, Illinois, killed during World War II, was accounted for Dec. 20, 2023.

In early 1944, Porter was assigned to the 703rd Bombardment Squadron, 445th Bombardment Group, 8th Air Force in the European Theater. On Feb 24, 2nd Lt. Porter, the navigator onboard a B-24J “Liberator”, was killed in action when his plane was hit by heavy anti-aircraft fire over Gotha, Germany. One of the surviving crewmembers reported seeing the plane on fire and in a steep dive, before eventually exploding on the ground. While two crewmembers survived, the others, including Porter, were killed in the incident. German forces garrisoned in the area documented the crash site north of Leimbach Bahnhof, near Bad Salzungen, Germany. After the crash, German troops recovered the remains of the ball turret gunner and buried them in a local cemetery. The other six crewmembers, including 2nd Lt. Porter, were unaccounted for following the war.

In March 1952, the American Graves Registration Command (AGRC), the organization that searched for and recovered fallen American personnel in the European Theater, took custody of comingled unidentified remains recovered from Bad Salzungen Cemetery. These remains, X-9093 Griesheim Mausoleum (X-9093), X-9094 Griesheim Mausoleum (X-9094), and X-9095 Griesheim Mausoleum (X-9095), were believed to be those belonging to 2nd Lt. Porter’s downed aircraft. At the time, identification of these remains was not possible, and they were interred in the Ardennes America Cemetery, Belgium.

In June 2021, DPAA historians and American Battle Monuments Commission personnel, exhumed X-9093, X-9094, and X-9095 from Ardennes American Cemetery and transferred them to the DPAA Laboratory for analysis and identification.

To identify Porter’s remains, scientists from DPAA used anthropological analysis. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Porter’s name is recorded on the Tablets of the Missing at Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery, Hombourg, Belgium, along with others still missing from WWII. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

2nd Lt. Porter will be buried in Elmwood, Illinois, on a date to be determined.

For family and funeral information, contact the Army Casualty Office at (800) 892-2490.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil or find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Porter’s personnel profile can be viewed at https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt0000000BTA7EAO.
# C_2007108EN.01000101.xml

| 12.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4624 — EQT/Scandic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 108/01)

On 25 April 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 32007M4624. 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 32007M4624. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Kenneth N. Wolf (KW 0598) 

Edward M. Joffe (Fla Bar No. 3 14242)* 

SANDLER, TRAVIS & ROSENBERG, P.A. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

55 1 Fifth Ave., Suite 1 100 

New York, NY 10 176 

(212) 883-1300 

kwolf@strtrade. corn 

* Not admitted in New York 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

......................................... X 

FLORENTINE FASHIONS, LTD., 

Case Management Plan 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Civil Action No: 

07-CV-33 15 (RNIB) 

VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT NEW YORK, LLC 

Defendant. 

The following Case Management Plan is entered after consultation with the parties. This 

Plan is also Rule 16 and Rule 26(f) scheduling order as required by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

(i) Joinder of Additional parties by September 30,2007. 

(ii) Amend the pleading by September 30, 2007. 

(iii) All discovery to be expeditiously completed by 6c+t,sor7 

(iv) Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge - No. 

(v) Status of Settlement discussions - Premature. 0 c 0, 2@6 70 9:a 1% pwcrp 

Section vi through xi will be set at conference with the Court 

(vi) Motions v 

USDC SDNY 

ELEm~~

Case 1:07-cv-03315-RMB Document 9 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
Civil Action No. 07-CV-33 15 (RMB) 

(vii) Oral Argument 

(viii) Joint Pre-Trial Order to be submitted by 

(ix) Final Pre-Trial Conference 

(x) Trial 

(xi) Other 

SO ORDERED: New York, New York 

Honorable Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J. 

S:\LITIGTN\Florentine Fashion-Victoria's Secret - 0 18746.10003\PIeading\Case Management Plan-05-22-07.doc 

Case 1:07-cv-03315-RMB Document 9 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Yeny Isabel Romero v. Dinesh Deepak Batra

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00487

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 76675

Trial court: 312th District Court of Harris County



### On December 27, 2018, appellant Yeny Isabel Romero filed a motion to dismiss

this appeal. The Court cannot consider the motion.

The Court’s opinion and judgment in this appeal issued on October 25, 2018.

Because no party filed a motion for rehear ing or en banc reconsideration, the Court’s

plenary power to set its judgment aside expired on December 27, 2018. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 4.1, 19.1(a), 19.3; see also Kacal v. Cohen , 13 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. App.

— Waco

2000, no pet.) (explaining that plenary po wer rule regulates orderly and timely process of

moving case from trial to finality and prohibits appellate court from modifying or vacating

its judgment after expiration of plenary period if no timely rehearing motion is pending).

The Court therefore lack s jurisdiction to consider appellant’s motion. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P.

19.3.

Accordingly, appellant’s motion is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sarah Beth Landau

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 24 , 2019
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-05-039]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

United States International Trade Commission.

# DATE AND TIME: 

November 15, 2005 at 11 a.m.

# PLACE: 

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS: 

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agenda for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. No. 731-TA-669 (Second Review) (Cased Pencils From China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before November 30, 2005.)

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 8, 2005.

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-22561 Filed 11-8-05; 2:56 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

EMPLOYMlU1,"l' STA.i.."l'.>.A.J£.DS ADMINISTRATION 

Office oi Workmen's Compensation Programs Wa..hin!{ton, DC 20211 

No. 7 

January 29, 1973 

TO: INSURANCE CARRIERS AND SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS UNDER THE 

LONGSHOREMEN 1S AND HARBOR WORKERS 1 COMPENSATION ACT, AS 

EXTENDED· 

SUBJECT: Regu1at1ons for administering the Longshoremen 1 s and 

related acts, as amended by P.L. 92-576 

In view of the extensive changes made by the 1972 amendments to the 

Longshoremen 1 s Act, the regulations for administering that Act and 

related acts have been revised. Attached is a copy of the revised 

regulations as published in the Federai Register on January 26, 1973. 

They.became effective upon publication. Conments, arguments, and 

suggestions from interested persons wHl be received by the Employment Standards Administrat'lonlj, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, 0. C. 20210, until March 5, 1973. lhe attached regulations will 

remain in full force and effect, however:, until amended. 

Your attention is invited to §702.145{a)~ of the regulations regard- ing adjustment of benefits in permanent total disability and death 

cases under the amended Sec. lO(h)(l) of the Act. The regulation pennits the Director of the Office of Workmen 1 s Compensation Programs 

to require insurance carriers and self-insured employers already making 

payments to such beneficiaries to pay such additional benefits as the 

amended Act requires, subject to being reimbursed by the Department of Labor for additional amounts paid. You will soon receive further 

information on this subject., and you1· district offices wil 1 receive 

instructions for making such payments from the OWCP district offices. 

Please note that §702.101, establishing compensation districts under 

the Longshoremen 1 s Act, makes changes in the boundaries of the fonner 

compensation districts. These changes are effective immediately, and 

this Office will in the near future issue a notice further implementing the changes and providing instructions for the transfer of present 

cases affected by the changes. The territorial boundaries defined 

under the Defense Base Act (§704.301), and the Nonappropriated Fund 

Instrumentalities Act (§704.401), should also be reviewed. 

~A~~. HERBERT A. DOYLE. JR. 

Acting Director, Office of 

Workmen 1 s Compensation Programs 

Attachment 

Incl11J, JONr addret J, ZIP cod,. 1mtl ftlr •mlm- on 11ll corr,r,ofJMlfCI 

-
#### STATE v. POWELL

No. 41 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 726.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 12 May 1971.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Dewey Miller, Appellant, *v.*John B. Fiske, as Sheriff of the County of Clinton, Respondent.

*People ex rel. Miller*v. *Fiske,*181 App. Div. 916, affirmed.

(Argued November 11, 1918;

decided November 26, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 26, 1918, which affirmed an order of Special Term dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the relator to custody. Relator was charged with being the owner of certain devices or apparatus for gambling in the town of Plattsburg. An examination of witnesses for the People was had in the City Court of Plattsburg and at the close of the examination relator moved for his discharge on the ground that-the' People had-failed *706to establish the necessary facts to justify holding him to answer for the crime charged. The motion being denied application was made for a writ of habeas corpus.

*John E. Judge*for appellant.

*P. W. Looby, District Attorney,*for respondent.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Dissenting: McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.