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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 14 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 14

  To authorize additional district court judgeships for the northern, 
               middle, and southern districts of Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2019

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize additional district court judgeships for the northern, 
               middle, and southern districts of Florida.

    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 ``Florida Federal Judicial Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) Additional Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate--
            (1) 6 additional district judges for the middle district of 
        Florida;
            (2) 1 additional district judge for the northern district 
        of Florida; and
            (3) 3 additional district judges for the southern district 
        of Florida.
    (b) Conversion of Temporary Judgeships.--The existing judgeship for 
the southern district of Florida authorized by section 312(c) of the 
21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act 
(Public Law 107-273; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), as of the date of enactment 
of this Act, shall be authorized under section 133 of title 28, United 
States Code, and the incumbent in that office shall hold the office 
under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this 
Act.
    (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table contained in 
section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
the items relating to Florida and inserting the following:

``Florida:
  Northern.......................................................      5
  Middle.........................................................     21
  Southern.......................................................  21''.
 

                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE STROUTH

No. 166PC

Case below: 49 N.C. App.698

Petitions by Dept, of Social Services and Alpha Mae Strouth for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
#### DIANA FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11096

November 9, 1978

585 P.2d 1336

*677
      *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Victor Austin,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Stanley W. Parry,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

An indictment charged that Diana Franklin committed a robbery (NRS 200.380) with the use of a deadly weapon (NRS 193.165). A pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and in this appeal Franklin contends that the district judge should have granted habeas because the evidence before the grand jury is insufficient to support the charges. We agree.

The victim testified that she had been robbed in the parking lot of a savings and loan association office and that the person who committed the robbery made a hasty departure in an automobile occupied by an undetermined number of people, none of whom were identified by race or gender.

The automobile was subsequently located and identified at a trailer park. The victim testified that about an hour and a half after the robbery, the police drove her to the trailer park where she saw and identified the person who allegedly perpetrated the robbery. That person was then in the company of appellant and another woman. The three people were arrested and indicted.

The victim did not identify Ms. Franklin as having been at the scene of the alleged crime. Neither was there any other evidence to connect Ms. Franklin with the charged crime.

The fact that Ms. Franklin was physically present with the person who allegedly committed the robbery — at a different time and place — may subject her to some criminal charge; however, we deem such presence, without more, insufficient to establish probable cause that she participated in the robbery. *See*Palombo v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 492, 568 P.2d 580 (1977), and cases cited therein. *See also*United States v. Martinez, 555 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir. 1977); and, United States v. Bartemio, 547 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1974).

*678Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this case with instructions to grant appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. *Cf.*Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969); State v. Jackson, 443 P.2d 279 (Kan. 1968).
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

Subsidiaries of the Registrant (a)

 

Supreme Corporation, aTexas corporation

 

Supreme IndianaOperations, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme IndianaManagement, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme Corporation ofTexas, a Texas corporation

 

Supreme Truck Bodies ofCalifornia, Inc., a California corporation

 

Supreme STB, LLC, aCalifornia limited liability company

 

Supreme Mid-AtlanticCorporation, a Texas corporation

 

Supreme Northwest,L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company

 

Silver Crown, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company

 

SC Tower StructuralLaminating, Inc., a Texas corporation

 

Supreme Insurance Company, Inc.,a Nevada corporation

 

Supreme Properties North, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme Properties South, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme Properties East, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme Properties West, Inc.,a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme/Murphy TruckBodies, Inc., a North Carolina corporation

 

----

(a)           All subsidiaries are 100% owned by theRegistrant.

 

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,889
<INVENTORY>                                     33,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,663
<PP&E>                                          29,884
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 169,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,015
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,586
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   169,369
<SALES>                                         91,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,030
<CGS>                                           66,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    32
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (816)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (609)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,324
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,324
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                               OF
                  CERTIFICATE OF RESTATEMENT OF
                    ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                               OF
                        K N ENERGY, INC.


     The undersigned, K N Energy, Inc., a Kansas corporation (the
"Corporation"), for the purpose of amending the Certificate of
Restatement of Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation, in
accordance with the Kansas General Corporation Code, does hereby
make and execute this Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate
of Restatement of Articles of Incorporation and does hereby
certify that:

     1.   The amendment of the Certificate of Restatement of Articles
of Incorporation proposed by the directors and adopted by the
stockholders of the Corporation is as follows:

     RESOLVED, that Article First of the Restated
          Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation
          be, and it hereby is, superseded and replaced
          in its entirety with the following:

                              FIRST

     The name of the Corporation shall be Kinder Morgan, Inc.


     2.   Such amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17-6602 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment has been
executed by the Corporation by its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer and attested by its Assistant Secretary on the 7th day of
October, 1999.

                              K N ENERGY, INC.


                              By: /s/  Stewart  A.  Bliss
                              ------------------------------------
                                 Stewart A. Bliss
                                 Chairman   and  Chief  Executive
                                 Officer

ATTEST:

     /s/ Michael S. Richards
------------------------------
Michael S. Richards, Assistant Secretary







STATE OF COLORADO   )
                    )ss
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

     BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 7TH day of October, 1999,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
County and State, personally appeared Stewart A. Bliss and
Michael S. Richards, who declared that they are the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer and Assistant Secretary, respectively, of
the corporation named in the foregoing certificate, and
acknowledged that they executed the foregoing certificate on
behalf of the corporation.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal the day and year last above written.

                                   /s/ Marcia L. Keppy
                              -----------------------------------
                              Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

     4/21/99
---------------
[SEAL]







13792 / 33919
JEPIE   704984
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 51 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 51 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 51 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 15112 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:17

- cv
- 00025

- RWS

BRADLEY CHRISTOPHER STARK , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (June 14, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT , NEWSOM , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-15112 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 1 of 32 Bradley Stark appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for sovereign immunity. We review the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for sovereign immunity de novo

. King v. United States , 878 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2018); Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc. , 572 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009). “In the face of a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that jurisdiction ex ists.” OSI, Inc. v. United States , 285 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity. King , 878 F.3d at 1267. Stark has not carried his burden here. He has not pointed to a statute that either conveys subject matter jurisdiction or unequivocally waives sovereign immunity 1 . Stark argues that the Administrative Procedure Act (“ APA ”) constitutes such a waiver; however, he points to no “agency action” that he is challenging, and so the provision does not apply in this case 2 . 5 U.S.C. § 702.

1 To the extent that Stark argues that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) either conveys subject matter jurisdiction or waives sovereign immunity, we note that the FAA cannot provide subject matter jurisdiction, and it does not contain an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 103 S.Ct. 927, 942 n.32 (1983)

.
2 The most that Stark can allege is the Attorney General ’s inaction in response to his “offer” to arbitrate; however, “the only agency action that can be compelled under t he APA is action legally required.” Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2379 (2004)

. Because the Attorney General was not legally required to respond to Stark’s offer to arbitrate , Stark does not allege agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702.

Case: 17-15112 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 2 of 33 Additionally, Stark argues that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the APA. However, Stark has not identified a viable
federal claim arising unde r the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.
T he APA fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction for the same reason it fails to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the district court is
AFFIRMED. Case: 17-15112 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 3 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 41 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 41 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### EPPS v. MILLER

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 656.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 June 1970.
#### PATTERSON v. WEATHERSPOON

No. 206 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 711.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
**Exhibit 23.2** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors    HEI, Inc.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statements (Nos.,    333-70426,333-40026,333-104830,333-113419,    and    333-115982)    on    Form S-3,    (Nos.    333-86338,333-95529,333-95551,333-49489,33-33322,33-46928,    and    33-46929) on    Form S-8,    and    (No. 333-126079)    on    Form S-1    of HEI, Inc. of our report dated January 12, 2005, with    respect to consolidated statements of operations,    shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended    August 31, 2004, which report appears in the Annual Report    on    Form 10-K    for the fiscal year ended September 2, 2006, of HEI, Inc. /s/  KPMG    LLP     Minneapolis, Minnesota    December 1, 2006
#### STATE v. BOBBY HUBERT.

(Filed 20 March 1963.)

Constitutional Baw § SI—

The act of the court in recapitulating the testimony of a, witness which the jury could not hear, *held*prejudicial on authority of *8. v. Payton,*255 N.C. 420.

Appeal by defendant from *Burgwyn, Emergency Judge,*Regular October 1, 1962 Schedule B Criminal Term of MECKLENBURG.

This is a criminal action in which .the defendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with armed robbery of one Ernest McCoy, Jr.

After the State’s witness McCoy had testified for sometime, a juror spoke up and said: “Mr. Solicitor, we can’t hear a word he says, see if you can clarify his speech, we can’t hear a word he says.” The court then said: “I was afraid of that.” Whereupon, the court proceeded to summarize the testimony the witness had given up to that time, after which the Solicitor continued his direct examination of the witness.

After additional evidence had been introduced by the State and the defendant, the court charged the jury and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of armed robbery.

From the judgment imposed the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*141
      *Attorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard for the State.*

*John H. Cutter for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant 'assigns as error the action of the court in summarizing for the jury the testimony the witness bad given instead of leaving it to the Solicitor to re-question the witness.

In view of our recent decision in the case of *S. v. Payton, 255*N.C. 420, 121 S.E. 2d 608, we hold that this assignment of error is well taken and should be upheld.

Other assignments of error need not be considered since they may not recur on another trial.

The defendant is entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.

New trial.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

C-COR Incorporated: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-82697, 333-87909, 333-90011, 333-90589, 333-32676, 333-75888, 333-124182) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-124259, 333-116204, 333-64040, 333-61226, 333-49826, 333-43592, 333-30982, 333-89067, 333-65805, 333-02505) of C-COR Incorporated of our reportsdated September 7, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of C-COR Incorporated and subsidiaries as of June 24, 2005 and June 25, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders’ equity foreach of the three fiscal years in the period ended June 24, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 24, 2005 and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting as of June 24, 2005, which reports appear in the June 24, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of C-COR Incorporated. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

September 7, 2005
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search
		×
			NIOSH
			NIOSH
				All CDC
				Submit
			For a full list of topics:A-Z Index
			Advanced Search
		Advanced Search


The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)








Community Health Nursing for Working People						Print
																Related Pages
										June 1970
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 70-10253
Community Health Nursing for Working People
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  March 28, 2017						Source: 	National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeNIOSH Publications & Products
NIOSH-Issued Publications
Search NIOSHTIC-2 Research Database
Docket
Documents for Public Review
Peer Review Agenda
Databases
eNews
Federal Register Noticesplus icon
FRN Archive 2007-2010
FRN Archive 2005-2006
FRN Archive 2001-2004
FRN Archive 1996-2000
Press Releases and Updatesplus icon
Press Release Archives 2010-2013
Press Release Archives 2006-2009
Press Release Archives 2001-2005
Press Release Archives 1998-2000
Press Release Archives 1992-1997
Regulations
Regulatory Agenda
Science Blog
Software
Video Follow NIOSH Facebook
Pinterest
Twitter
YouTube
 NIOSH Homepage NIOSH A-Z
Workplace Safety & Health Topics
Publications and Products
Programs
Contact NIOSH


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
#### STATE v. CHARLES HENRY BRILEY.

(Filed 20 March 1963.)

Appeal by defendant from *Morris, J.,*October-November 1962 Criminal Term of Wilson.

Criminal prosecution on warrant charging that defendant, on Saturday, May 5, 1962, at 9:05 p.m., in Wilson County, unlawfully and wilfully operated a motor vehicle upon the public highway after his operator’s license had been permanently revoked. Upon trial *de novo*in the superior court on appeal by defendant from conviction and judgment in the General County Court of Wilson County, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and judgment imposing a prison sentence of one year was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorneys General Barham and Bullock for the State.*

*Robert A. Farris and Allen G. Thomas for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The State offered evidence tending to show that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in Wilson County (U. S. Plighway 264) shortly after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 5, 1962.

The State offered in evidence a certified nopy of the official record (Form DL 49) of the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Drivers License Division, of defendant’s convictions for violations of the motor vehicle laws and of the Department’s actions on account thereof. According to this record, defendant’s operator’s license was permanently revoked on March 12, 1957. Defendant objected “to the portion that is not germane to this inquiry” and excepted to the admission of said record over his said objection. Nothing appears in the record indicating defendant designated what portion (s) of said record he considered “not germane to this inquiry.” Hence, for reasons stated in *S. v. Corl,*250 N.C. 252, 108 S.E. 2d 608, the assignment of error based on said exception is overruled. It is noteworthy that the more serious violations shown on said record constitute the grounds for said permanent revocation on March 12, 1957, to wit, three convictions for operating a motor vehicle on 'a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Each of defendant’s remaining assignments of error has received careful 'consideration. Particular discussion thereof is deemed unnecessary. They do not disclose prejudicial error and are overruled.

No error.