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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 158 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 158

    To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of 
                                America.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of 
                                America.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any 
of its affiliates.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE B. WILLIAMS

No. 103

(Filed 7 September 1971)

Homicide § 31; Criminal Law § 135 — first-degree murder — death sentence — remand for sentence of life imprisonment

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, a first-degree murder case in which the defendant received the death sentence is remanded to the superior court with direction that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment in the State’s prison.

Justices Higgins and Lake dissenting.

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

SHARP, Justice.

At the trial of defendant, Willie B. Williams, at April 21, 1969 Criminal Session of the Superior Court of Bladen County, North Carolina, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and thereupon the court pronounced judgment which imposed a death sentence. Upon defendant’s appeal, this Court found “No error” in the trial and judgment. *State v. Williams,*276 N.C. 703, 174 S.E. 2d 503 (1970). On June 28, 1971, upon its consideration of defendant’s petition for writ of *certiorari,*the Supreme Court of the United States entered the following order: “The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment, insofar as it imposes the death sentence is reversed, *United States v. Jackson,*390 U.S. 570 (1968), *Pope v. United States,*392 U.S. 651 (1968), and the case is remanded for further proceedings.” *Willie B. Williams, Petitioner v. North Carolina,*403 U.S. 948, 29 L. Ed. 2d 860, 91 S.Ct. 2290 (1971).

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, this cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Bladen County with directions to proceed as follows:

1. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Bladen County will cause to be served on the defendant, Willie B. Williams, and on his attorneys of record, notice to appear during a session of said superior court at a designated time, not less than ten days from the date of the order, at which time, in open *389court, the defendant, Willie B. Williams, being present in person and being represented by his attorneys, the presiding judge, based on the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree returned by the jury at the trial at the April 21, 1969 Criminal Session, will pronounce judgment that the defendant, Willie B. Williams, be imprisoned for life in the State’s prison.

2. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Bladen County will issue a writ of *habeas corpus*to the official having custody of the defendant, Willie B. Williams, to produce him in open court at the time and for the purpose of being present when the judgment imposing life imprisonment is pronounced.

Remanded for judgment.

Justices Higgins and Lake dissent for the reasons stated in their separate dissenting opinions filed this day in *State v. Hill, ante*371, 183 S.E. 2d 97 (1971).
Case 1:06-cv-15002-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30400

Summary Calendar

 

HENRY MCFARLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-2183

- - - - - - - - - -

February 13, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry McFarland appeals the district court’s judgment

affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of

supplemental security income. McFarland contends that the

findings of the administrative law judge (ALJ) were not supported

by substantial evidence. McFarland specifically challenges the

ALJ’s findings regarding his ability to perform alternate work,

his subjective complaints of pain, and a sit/stand limitation. 
No. 97-30400 

-2-

McFarland also contends that the ALJ erred in relying on the

medical-vocational guidelines, that the Appeals Council erred in

failing to consider additional medical evidence, and that the

district court erred in failing to remand the case to the

Commissioner for additional evidence.

After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we

find no reversible error. The Commissioner’s decision was

supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal

standards. See Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.

1994).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP


The Board of Directors
GlobalNet, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-3 filed on April 2, 2001 of GlobalNet, Inc. of our report dated March 12,
2001, except as to Notes 13, 15 and 16, which are as of April 9, 2001, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of GlobalNet, Inc. and subsidiary as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December
31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of GlobalNet, Inc.

Our report dated March 12, 2001, except as to Note 13, 15 and 16, which are as
of April 9, 2001, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company
has suffered recurring losses from operations and has working capital and net
capital deficiencies, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 16, 2001
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Annual Report of Parentech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Landow, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  October 11, 2004

                                    /s/ Scott Landow
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Scott Landow, Chief Executive Officer
#### BANK v. WORONOFF

No. 7PC

Case below: 50 NC App 160

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 May 1981.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 19

- 00392

- CV

Elisa SAUKKO and all o ther o ccupants, Appellants

v.

Lois MORGADO

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CV04005 Honorable John Longoria, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: Septe mber 11 , 2019

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSEC U TION

Appellant s Elisa Saukko and all other occupants filed a pro se notice of appeal from a

judgment of eviction signed on June 6, 2019

. Their brief was originally due July 22, 2019 . Neither

the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. On August 2 , 2019, we ordered appellant s

to file, not later than August 12 , 2019, their brief and a written response reasonably explaining

their failure to timely file the brief. We advis ed appellant s that if they failed to file a brief and the

written response by the date ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See04

- 19

- 00392

- CV

- 2

- T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a). Appellant s ha ve not filed a brief or the written response as ordered by this

court.

We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that no

costs be assessed against appellant s because they are indigent.

PER CURIAM
Case 1:07-cv-03241-RJH-MHD Document 42 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03241-RJH-MHD Document 42 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03241-RJH-MHD Document 42 Filed 05/20/2008 Page 3 of 3
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 71321)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Cancer Etiology.                    

*Date:*                         December 16, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael B. Small, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8127, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, 301-402-0996,                         *smallm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: November 15, 2005.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-23350 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### STATE v. LANE

No. 209 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 565.

Petition by defendant for discretionary reviéw under G.S. 7A-31 denied 29 August 1978.
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    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  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 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted For From World War II (Dyer, B.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 11 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 11 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### Griffin A. Allen, petitioner.

Suffolk.

March 1, 1926.

March 3, 1926.

Present: Rugg, C.J., Crosby, Pierce, Carroll, & Wait, JJ.

*Practice, Criminal,*Exception: allowance and establishment.

Under G. L. c. 278, § 31, a judge of the Superior Court has no power to renew the right of a defendant in a criminal case to file exceptions after the time fixed by the statute, as extended by the court within the terms of the statute, has expired.

Petition, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court on February 13, 1926, to establish exceptions alleged to have been saved by the petitioner as defendant at the trial in the Superior Court before *Bishop,*J., of a complaint charging the defendant with larceny.

The case was submitted on a brief by *S. Smedile & J. S. Mitchell,*for the petitioner.

Rugg, C.J.

This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions disallowed by a judge of the Superior Court. It is alleged in the petition “That on January 9, 1925, the time for the filing of the defendant’s exceptions was extended to February 4, 1925; that the defendant’s exceptions were *228not filed on or before that date; that some time subsequent to February 4, 1925, the defendant prepared a motion to the effect that the time for the ‘presenting the bill of exceptions to the court for allowance’ be extended to and including February 10, 1925; that this motion was assented to on February 7, 1925, by Joseph J. Leonard, Assistant District Attorney; that this motion was presented to Bishop, Judge, on February 9, 1925, who made the following indorsement thereon, ‘The time for the filing of the bill of exceptions expired before this motion was presented to the court. If, under these circumstances, the court has the authority to do so, then the above motion is approved and allowed and the time for the allowance of exceptions is extended to and including Tuesday, February 10, 1925.’ The bill of exceptions was filed on February 9, 1925.”

The trial judge has no power to revive the right of a defendant in a criminal case to file exceptions after the time for filing exceptions as previously limited has expired. The language of G. L. c. 278, § 31, in this particular is the same as that of G. L. c. 231, § 113. That point is settled. *Hack*v. *Nason,*190 Mass. 346. *Barnard Manuf. Co.*v. *Eugen C. Andres Co.*234 Mass. 148, 152. *C. F. Hovey, petitioner,*254 Mass. 551. The right of the defendant to file exceptions had come to an end before the exceptions here sought to be established were filed. Since the exceptions were not filed within the time allowed by law, the petition to establish their truth cannot be considered.

*Petition dismissed.*
November 10, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SEAN MICHAEL WHEELER, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00275-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal of a judgment in favor of appellee, The State of Texas, 

signed February 19, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below AFFIRMED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Sean Michael Wheeler.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 305 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 82.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 October 1981.
#### MANUFACTURING CO. v. UNION

No. 23 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 544.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1974.
<TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

                                                                      
                                                 BASIC                   DILUTED                
                                         Thirteen    Thirty-Nine   Thirteen    Thirty-Nine
                                       Weeks Ended   Weeks Ended  Weeks Ended  Weeks Ended
                                           July 25,    July 25,     July 25,     July 25,
                                             1998        1998         1998         1998  
                                              (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<S>                                        <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING

  1     Average shares outstanding           4,300       4,300       4,300        4,300
  2     Net additional shares outstanding
    assuming exercise of stock options*        -           -           -            -  
  3     Average number of common shares
    and equivalent shares outstanding        4,300       4,300       4,300        4,300

EARNINGS (LOSSES)

        Net loss                           $  (226)    $(1,561)    $ (226)     $(1,561)

PER SHARE AMOUNTS

   Net loss
    (line 4 / line 3)                      $ (0.05)    $ (0.36)    $(0.05)     $ (0.36)

  Earnings per share amounts for all other reporting periods as it
  relates to the predecessor company is not meaningful due to the
  Company's reorganization.

  * Since there is a net loss, common stock equivalents are excluded
   from the diluted earnings per share calculations since they would
   be antidilutive.
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1


                    SUBSIDIARIES OF JACKPOT ENTERPRISES, INC.


<TABLE>
                                                                                
                                                      STATE OF
   COMPANY                             %OWNED       INCORPORATION

<S>                                   <S>           <S>

1. Cardivan Company                    100%           Nevada

2. Corral Coin, Inc.                   100%           Nevada

3. Corral Country Coin, Inc.           100%           Nevada

4. Corral United, Inc.                 100%           Nevada

5. Jackpot Gaming, Inc.                100%           Nevada

6. Jackpot Owl, Inc.                   100%           Nevada

7. Jackpot's Highway 93 Casino, Inc.   100%           Nevada

</TABLE>