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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1486 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1486

 To amend title 11, United States Code, to include certain pensions as 
     administrative expenses in bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2019

  Mr. Manchin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11, United States Code, to include certain pensions as 
     administrative expenses in bankruptcy, 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 ``Prioritizing Our Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 503(b) of title 11, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (8)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) notwithstanding section 507(a)(5), all unfunded 
        vested benefits in a defined benefit pension plan; and
            ``(11) withdrawal liability determined under part 1 of 
        subtitle E of title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
        Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 507(a)(5) is amended by 
inserting ``except as provided in section 503(b)(10),'' after 
``Fifth,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### THOMAS v. DELOATCH and LONG v. DELOATCH

No. 141 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 322.

Petition by defendant and third party plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 June 1980.
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 60-2 Filed 07/18/2008 Page 1 of 1
69132 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[I.D. 110705B] 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Public Hearings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; additional public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold an additional public hearing in 

Key West, Florida for Amendment 13C 

to the Snapper Grouper Fishery 

Management Plan. The additional 

hearing is being added to accommodate 

those recently impacted by Hurricane 

Wilma. Earlier public hearings have 

been noticed. A total of 11 public 

hearings regarding Amendment 13C will 

be held. Amendment 13C is intended to 

eliminate or phase out overfishing of 

snowy grouper, golden tilefish, 

vermilion snapper, and black sea bass; 

and increase red porgy harvest 

consistent with an updated stock 

assessment. 

DATES: The additional public hearing 

will be held November 28, 2005, 

beginning at 6 p.m. 

Written comments must be received 

in the Council office by close of 

business on November 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at 

the Key West Hilton Resort and Marina, 

245 Front Street, Key West, FL 33040; 

Phone; 305/294–4000. 

Written comments should be sent to 

Bob Mahood, Executive Director, South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, 

Charleston, SC 29407–4699, or via email 

to snappergroupercomments@safmc.net. 

Copies of the public hearing 

document are available from Kim 

Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, One Southpark 

Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407–

4699; telephone: 843–571–4366 or toll 

free at 866/SAFMC–10. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, One Southpark 

Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407–

4699; telephone: 843–571–4366; fax: 

843–769–4520; email address: 

kim.iverson@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to the Council office 

(see ADDRESSES) three days prior to 

the meeting. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22551 Filed 11–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
* Pursuant to5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, thecourt hasdetermined that thisopinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50739 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

versus PEDRO BARRAZA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(3:05-CR-1920-ALL) Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Pedro Barraza-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by reentering the United States after having been deported. The district court sentenced him to 57 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. He contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his long ties to the United States and his alcoholism as factors in mitigation of his sentence. He also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony

### 2

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense. Sentences imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) are reviewed on appeal for reasonableness. U nited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-262 (2005); United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), cert denied , 546 U.S. 828 (2005). As Barraza-Rodriguez concedes, his first contention, which challenges our precedent holding sentences within properly calculated guidelines ranges are presumed to be reasonable, fails in the light of Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). Barraza-Rodriguez does not maintain his guidelines range was improperly calculated. Moreover, a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is entitled to great deference. Mares , 402 F.3d at 520. In reviewing such a sentence, we merely ask whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing it. Rita , 127 S. Ct. at 2465. Barraza-Rodriguez has not shown an abuse of discretion. Barraza-Rodriguez’s second claim challenges , in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Barraza-Rodriguez contends Almendarez-Torres was

### 3

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in the light of A pprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 546 U.S. 919 (2005). Barraza-Rodriguez properly concedes his argument is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but raises it here to preserve it for further possible review. AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cv-03351-RWS Document 19 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Charles TIGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John WHETSEL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-6330.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 20, 2005.

Richard N. Mann, District Attorney’s Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

*972ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Charles Tiger, a state defendant who was being held pending trial, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing both his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and his motions for reduction of state bond during the pendency of his habeas proceedings. Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court denied the petition because the remedy sought by Mr. Tiger in his petition, dismissal of state charges, was unavailable, and denied the motion for a reduction of bond because the federal court lacked the power to review the state court’s bond determination. R. Docs. 15 *&*19. Because we determine that Mr. Tiger has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.

After consideration of the materials submitted by Mr. Tiger, it is apparent that the conclusions of the district court, upon adoption of the reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge, are not reasonably debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Mr. Tiger attempts to raise additional issues in his brief before this court, but such issues are deemed waived in that he did not raise them before the district court. *See Singleton v. Wulff,*428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976).

We DENY Mr. Tiger’s application for a COA, his motion for IFP status, and DISMISS the appeal.
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT 23

                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8, Nos. 33-22545 and 33-88020) pertaining to the Employee Stock
Option Plan of The Ackerley Group, Inc. and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 33-61163) pertaining to the William N. Barkell Stock Purchase
Agreement, Doneld E. Carter Stock Purchase Agreements, and Eric M. Rubin
Stock Purchase Agreement of our report dated February 28, 1997, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of The Ackerley Group, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                             ERNST & YOUNG, L.L.P.

                             /s/ Ernst & Young, L.L.P.

Seattle, Washington
March 26, 1997
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

p0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147118

UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147118

COA: 309356

Berrien CC: 2011

- 000342

- CZ

HUGH O. TAPP,

Defendant,

and

KATHERINE M. TAPP,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### ABU-Bakr MOOD, an individual, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. GLOBAL DIAMOND RESOURCES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendant—Appellant, and Johann De Villiers, an individual; et al., Defendants.

No. 03-56244.

D.C. No. CV-99-01565-BTM/NLS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 2005.

Decided Feb. 17, 2005.

Steven H. Haney, Haney, Buchanan & Patterson, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Paul Nyquist, Daniel S. Miller, Voss, Cook & Thel LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Johann De Villiers, La Jolla, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*114Before HUG, FERGUSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant Global Diamond Resources, Inc. (“GDRI”) appeals the District Court’s denial of its motion to set aside an entry of default under Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying GDRI’s Rule 55(c) motion, we affirm.

The District Court properly exercised its discretion by applying the correct “good cause” standard for setting aside an entry of default under Rule 55(c). The District Court considered whether GDRI engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default, and whether reopening the default entry would prejudice the plaintiff. *See TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber,*244 F.3d 691, 696-97 (9th Cir.2001). Although the District Court did not consider whether GDRI had any meritorious defenses, we have held that the “[good cause] factors are disjunctive,” and, therefore, “the district court was free to deny the motion ‘if any of the three factors was true.’ ” *Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Group, Inc.,*375 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted).

The District Court reasonably concluded that GDRI engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default. A defendant’s conduct is culpable when it “has received actual or constructive notice of the filing of the action and *intentionally*failed to answer.” *Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Al-bright,*862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1988); *see also United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc.,*3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that entry of default judgment is “perfectly appropriate” when a corporation fails to retain an attorney for litigation). In fact, despite knowing that Mood filed a motion for entry of default on July 30, 2002, GDRI waited more than six months to file its motion to set aside the entry of default. The District Court correctly concluded that there was no reasonable excuse for GDRI’s inaction.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
OFCCP 保障您免受懷孕歧視

1. 什麼是懷孕歧視?

懷孕歧視通常發生在:僱主因為懷孕、生產或懷孕

或生產相關的醫療狀況,而給予員工或求職者不利

待遇。這類歧視也可能在僱主的政策或實際作法

中,因女性可能懷孕而排除她們從事特定工作時發

生。

2. 我有哪些權利?

OFCCP 施行的法律規定,與聯邦政府有業務往來的

公司在雇用、解雇、給付薪資、福利、指派工作、

晉升、遣散、進行工作培訓、招募和其他人員活動

時,因為您懷孕、生產、相關的醫療狀況或有生育

能力而歧視您屬非法行為。 

若您懷孕、生產或因懷孕或生產而出現相關的醫療

狀況,將享有特定保障。 

• 只要您有能力履行工作職責,就應准許您工作。 

• 如果您因為懷孕暫時無法完成工作,受到的待遇

應該與出現類似醫療狀況的其他員工相同。 

• 您因懷孕相關理由休假期間,有權要求僱主為您

保留工作職缺;保留職缺的時限和條件,必須與

休病假或因其他醫療理由休假的員工相同。

• 您有權享有與其他休假勞工相同的福利。

• 依《家庭與醫療假法案》(Family and Medical 

Leave Act, FMLA),您有權因醫療(包括懷孕和

生產在內)及育兒理由享有每年最多 12 週的

無薪假。雙親均符合 FMLA 的休假資格。若發現

違反 FMLA 的行為,應向勞工部工資及工時處 

http://www.dol.gov/whd 舉報。 

3. 如果我懷孕、生產或出現與懷孕或生產有

關的醫療狀況,有哪些禁止僱主採取特定

作法的具體規範嗎?

有,以下範例為您說明僱主不得採取的一些作法: 

• 因為您懷孕而拒絕為您提供工作機會。

• 用您懷孕作為測試您工作能力的藉口。這包括要

求您滿足特定條件,例如提供您已經可以重新開

始工作的醫生證明,而其他請病假的員工則不必

這樣做。 

• 如果您因懷孕而請假且之後順利復 

原,但僱主仍強迫您繼續休假,直至

小孩出生。

• 因為您家有幼兒而拒絕雇用您,但僱

主對男性員工採取相同政策時除外。 

• 僱主提供員工健康保險福利時,拒絕

與其他醫療狀況一樣,負擔與您懷孕

相關的住院和其他醫療開支。 

• 針對懷孕或休育嬰假的員工,拒絕給

予與病假或其他假別員工相同的年資累

積、休假、加薪和暫時失能福利資格。

• 願意基於其他醫療需求給予彈性,但拒

絕因為您的懷孕相關醫療需求而給予類

似彈性,例如准許您在當班時坐下或吃

點心。

4. OFCCP 保護哪些人?

OFCCP 保障與聯邦政府有業務往來的公司之

員工和求職者的權利,包括銀行、資訊科技公

司、肉品包裝工廠、零售商店、製造廠、會計事

務所和建築公司等機構的員工。 

5. 若我認為僱主因為我懷孕、生產、相關的

醫療狀況或有生育能力而歧視我,我該怎

麼做?

您可向 OFCCP 提出投訴。就算不確定僱主是否為

聯邦承包商或分包商,亦可提出投訴。

6. 如何向 OFCCP 提出投訴?

您可透過以下方式提出歧視投訴:

• 透過 OFCCP 網站填寫並提交線上表格; 

• 親自到 OFCCP 辦公室填寫表格;或 

• 將填妥的表格郵寄、傳送電子郵件或傳真至負

責據稱存在的歧視發生地點的 OFCCP 辦公室。

您可造訪網站 http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/

compliance/pdf/pdfstart.htm 存取線上表格,

或前往任何 OFCCP 辦公室,索取紙本格式的

表格。欲搜尋您所在地附近的辦公室,請造訪

網站:http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/contacts/

ofnation2.htm。 

填妥投訴表後請別忘了簽名。如果忘記簽

名,OFCCP 仍會受理您的投訴,但 OFCCP 調查人

員會在後續訪談時要求您補簽。欲投訴因種族、膚

色、宗教、性別、性取向、性別認同或原國籍而遭

瞭解您的權利

懷孕與生育

歧視

200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW | WASHINGTON, DC 20210 | 電話:1-800-397-6251 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | www.dol.gov/ofccp
遇的歧視,必須在據稱存在的歧視發生日起 180 天

內提出,除非因充足理由延長提起投訴的期限。相

同的 180 天期限規定也適用於聲稱因討論、揭露或

詢問薪資而遭遇的歧視。

7. 僱主可否因為我提出投訴而解僱我、降我的

職,或不合理地對待我?

不可以。僱主若因您提出投訴或參與調查而報復

您,即屬違法行為。OFCCP 法規保障您不因主張自

身權利而受到騷擾、恐嚇、威脅、強迫或報復。 

8. 我可以同時向 OFCCP 和平等就業機會委員

會 / Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) 提出投訴嗎?

可以。如果您同時向 OFCCP 和 EEOC 提出投訴,將

由適當的機構進行調查。在某些情況下,OFCCP 和 

EEOC 可能會決定合作調查您的投訴。 

OFCCP 通常會將因懷孕歧視所提起的個別投訴轉

給 EEOC 處理。但是,OFCCP 一般會自行處理聲稱

因看似已形成影響某個員工或求職者群體的歧視模

式,而對聯邦承包商提出的投訴。OFCCP 一般也會

自行處理聲稱因個人性取向、性別認同、身障或受

保護退伍軍人身份受歧視,而對聯邦承包商提出的

投訴。OFCCP 一般會自行處理聲稱因討論、透露或

詢問薪酬受歧視,而對聯邦承包商提出的投訴。 

9. 如果發現我是就業歧視的受害者,會怎麼

樣?

您有權獲得補償,獲得未發生歧視時您本可獲得的職

位。您有權受雇、獲得晉升、復職或重新派任。您也

有權獲得欠發的薪資、未來的薪資賠償、加薪或綜合

上述各項的補償。此外,若 OFCCP 發現聯邦承包商

或分包商歧視員工或求職者,OFCCP 未來可將其列

入聯邦合約禁止或拒絕往來戶、要求取消公司目前合

約,或取消合約之修改作業。

如需更多資訊,請洽:

the u.s. department of labor

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20210

1-800-397-6251

TTY: 1-877-889-5627

www.dol.gov/ofccp

請注意:本資訊表提供的是一般資訊,無法取代文中所述計劃的實際相

關法律與法規。

200 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW | WASHINGTON, DC 20210 | 電話:1-800-397-6251 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | www.dol.gov/ofccp 2016 年 9 月修訂
#### STATE v. DANCY & MOORE

No. 667P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 362.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 11 January 1983. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 11 January 1983.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER<F1>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-04-1998
<CASH>                                         80,380
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,867
<INVENTORY>                                    22,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,695
<PP&E>                                         181,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                 250,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 576,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,617
<BONDS>                                        2,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        552,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               552,127
<CGS>                                          303,027
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  481,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                74,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                   30,863
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            43,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   43,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  3.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  3.11
<FN>
<F1>  10 ACCOUNTING PERIODS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.14 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### BROWN v. POWER CO.

No. 112 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 384.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
#### POSTON v. MORGAN-SCHULTHEISS, INC.

No. 281 PC

Case below: 46 NC App 321

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 15 August 1980.