alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2026

___________ Kevin L. Chambers, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Joan M. Gilmer, Clerk, St. Louis * County Circuit Court; Robert * [UNPUBLISHED] McCulloch, St. Louis County * Prosecutor, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 5, 2007 Filed: April 9, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Kevin Chambers appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a county pros ecutor and a circuit court clerk. He alleged that, as permitted under state law, hesubmitted to the circuit court a document detailing criminal conduct by St. Louis County police officers, see Mo. Rev. Stat.-2- § 545.250 (private citizen with knowledge of commission of crime may file sworn affidavit “with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the offense, for the use of the prosecuting attorney, or deposit it with the prosecuting attorney”); that the clerk (acting in concert with the prosecutor) refu sed to “process” the document; and that this refusal violated his right of access to the c ourts. We conclude Chambers did not state a section 1983 claim, because the alleged actions did not violate his constitutional rights. See West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (to state § 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege violation of right secured by Constitution or federal law). Specifically with regard to his access-to-courts claim, defendants’ alleged ac tions did not prevent Chambers from asserting his rights in a lawsuit against the police officers who allegedly mistreated him, and Chambers did not allege the requisite actual injury from defendants’ actions to state such a claim in any event. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351-354 (1996) (plaintiff must allege act ual injury in access-to-courts claim).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00241

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CEDRIC MACKEY,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant

and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion

to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered September 1 7 , 2014

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 1 7 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00241

- CR

CEDRIC MACKEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0155

- 14)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appella nt to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that this appeal be dismissed, and that the decision be certified to the

court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consi sted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

READING BLUE MOUNTAIN AND NORTHERN RAILROAD,

Petitioner

v.

SEDA

- COG JOINT RAIL AUTHORITY AND

BOARD OF SEDA

- COG JOINT RAIL AUTHORITY, SUSQUEHANNA UNION RAILROAD COMPANY, AND CARLOAD EXPRESS, INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 432 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

READING BLUE MOUNTAIN AND NORTHERN RAILROAD,

Petitioner

v.

SEDA

- COG JOINT RAIL AUTHORITY AND

BOARD OF SEDA

- COG JOINT RAIL AUTHORITY, SUSQUEHANNA UNION RAILROAD COMPANY, AND CARLOAD EXPRESS, INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 433 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM[ 432 MAL 2020 and 433 MAL 2020 ]

- 2

AND NOW , this 11th day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### STATE v. SIMMONS

No. 168P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 34.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of significant public interest allowed 4 May 1982.
Reduzca su exposición al polvo

Escoja el filtro correcto

¿Sabía usted?

Los filtros HEPA no son siempre la mejor

opción para aplicaciones de minería

Los filtros MERV 16 son menos restrictivos, 

brindan mayor flujo de aire y permiten menos

filtraciones, y requieren menos cambios de filtro

Las conclusions se basan en estudios de campo de NIOSH.

Para obtener más información, visite

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6268007/

En un estudio reciente,* los filtros MERV 16 

brindaron una calidad de aire casi 5 veces mejor que 

los HEPA en una cabina de triturador subterráneo

Fotos de NIOSH
# C_2011033EN.01002001.xml

| 2.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/20

---

Corrigendum to Communication from the Commission, Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 11 of 14 January 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 11 of 14 January 2011

2011/C 33/08

On page 5, paragraph 8:

for:

‘These guidelines complement Commission Regulation (EU) No [...] of [...] on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements (1) (‘the R&D Block Exemption Regulation’) and Commission Regulation (EU) No [...] of [...] on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements (2) (‘the Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation’).’;

1

2

read:

‘These guidelines complement Commission Regulation (EU) No 1217/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements (1) (‘the R&D Block Exemption Regulation’) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1218/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements (2) (‘the Specialisation Block Exemption Regulation’).’;

1

2

on page 5, footnote 1:

for:

‘OJ L [...], [...], p. [...].’;

read:

‘OJ L 335, 18.12.2010, p. 36.’;

on page 5, footnote 2:

for:

‘OJ L [...], [...], p. [...].’;

read:

‘OJ L 335, 18.12.2010, p. 43.’.

---
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ KARINA ESPINOZA

- PALMER, Petitioner

v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________ 2023

- 2268

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC

- 4324

- 22

- 0582

- A

- 1

.

______________________ O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 23-2268 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 02/05/2024E SPINOZA

- P ALMER V

. DVA 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 5, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 5, 2024 Case: 23-2268 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 02/05/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       UT
<CIK> 0000060549
<NAME> LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                    PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         1,822,728
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                           1,348
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                              306,117
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             55,019
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,185,212
<COMMON>                                            424,334 <F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                              (124)<F2>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                 259,856
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                      684,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                          95,328
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                626,800
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                        0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                            0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                             0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                      779,018
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                     2,185,212
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                           737,112
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 47,317
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                          581,147
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                          628,464
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             108,648
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                    1,648
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      110,296
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,636
<NET-INCOME>                                         82,660
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           3,266
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        79,394
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             67,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            25,245
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              186,830
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $836.
<F2>Represents unrealized gain/loss on marketable securities,
    net of taxes.
</FN>



</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Kevin Cook v. Monaghan Medical Corporation

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 121

- CV

Trial court case number: 2 0 1 6

- 68 2 79

Trial court: 333rd District Court o f Harris County

A ppellant, Kevin Cook , has filed a notice of the appeal of the trial court’s final judgment , signed on January 18 , 201 9

. A ppellant also has filed a motion to extend the

time to file his a ppellant’s b rief.

A clerk’s record was filed in this appeal on June 4, 2019

. However, a reporter’s

record has not been filed. 1 Because the appellate record is not yet complete, appellant’s brief is not yet due. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.1 (providing appellate record consists of clerk’s record and, if necessary to appeal, reporter’s record); 38.6 (providing date to file appellant’s brief is later of date clerk’s record or reporter’s record is filed)

. Accordingly, appella nt’s motion to extend time is dismissed as moot

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ July 9, 2019

__

1 On June 5 , 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court reporter had not filed a reporter’s record because appellant had not requested preparation of a reporter’s record and had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for pre paration of th e record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c). The Clerk also notified appellant that unless he provided proof that he had paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record, or is entitled to proceed without payment of costs by July 5, 2019 , the Court m ight consider the appeal without a reporter’s record

.
#### STATE v. MASON and STREEPER

No. 62 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 735.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
#### STATE v. BAILEY

No. 250PA82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 642.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 12 May 1982.
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.2
 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLCS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the MTN Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the MTN Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the MTN Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of the Investor Certificate for the period between January 1, 2005
and December 31, 2005.
   By:
    
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    
    Director
 - 30 -
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2147 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2147

  To double the existing penalties for the provision of misleading or 
inaccurate caller identification information, and to extend the statute 
  of limitations for forfeiture penalties for persons who commit such 
                              violations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2019

   Ms. Collins (for herself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Peters, Ms. 
McSally, and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the following bill; which 
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To double the existing penalties for the provision of misleading or 
inaccurate caller identification information, and to extend the statute 
  of limitations for forfeiture penalties for persons who commit such 
                              violations.

    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 ``Anti-Spoofing Penalties 
Modernization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING PENALTIES AND EXTENDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR 
              SPOOFERS.

    (a) Increasing Penalties.--Section 227(e)(5) of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)--
                    (A) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting 
                ``$20,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$2,000,000''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
        inserting ``$20,000''.
    (b) Extending Statute of Limitations.--Clause (iv) of section 
227(e)(5)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)) 
is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and inserting 
        ``3-year''; and
            (2) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LESCARDEN
INC'S AUGUST 31, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL LEGENDS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         117,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     93,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,588
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          318,213
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,319
<OTHER-SE>                                   (129,944)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,588
<SALES>                                          9,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,288
<CGS>                                            6,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (109,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (109,273)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (109,273)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### NELSON v. HARRIS

No. 77 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 375.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 May 1977.
#### HOOPER v. CITY OF WILMINGTON

No. 37 PC.

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 548.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1979.
#### STATE v. GREENLEE

No. 64.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 489.

Motion of Attorney General tó dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 24 September 1974.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 7771** 

MICHAEL F. SCHULZE ,
Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
and

GERARDO GONZALEZ ,
Plaintiff ,

v.

DWIGHT C. RATLEY; SHANNON D. DAVIS; GERALD M. DEL RE; JAMES A. EDWARDS; PAMELA D. MAJOR; RAYMOND A. SIMMONS; DARLENE DREW; U N KNOWN OFFICERS, of the Federal Prisons; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. COMSTOCK; ANDERSON ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 6:11

- cv
- 00941

- JFA )

Submitted : March 19, 2013 Decided: April 2 , 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and TH ACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael F. Schulze, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for2 Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Schulze appeals the district c ourt ’ s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this action
filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the court’s ord er denying reconsideration . We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Schulze v. Ratley , No. 6:11

- cv
00941

- JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2012 ; Oct. 10, 2012 ). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2011239EN.01000501.xml

| 17.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2011/C 239/03

Aid No: SA.32661 (11/XA)

Member State: Italy

Region: Piemonte

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Definizione degli interventi contributivi a sostegno delle misure urgenti di profilassi fitosanitaria previste dal d.p.g.r. n. 10 del 18 febbraio 2011«Profilassi del Pseudomonas syringae p.v. actinidiae (PSA) batteriosi dell'actinidia: dichiarazione di stato di allerta e misure urgenti di prevenzione».

Pseudomonas syringae

actinidiae

Legal basis: Deliberazione della Giunta regionale n. 82-1653 del 28 febbraio 2011.

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 1 million

Maximum aid intensity: 50 %

Date of implementation: —

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 1 April 2011-31 December 2011

Objective of aid: Plant diseases — pest infestations (Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Growing of other tree and bush fruits and nuts

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Regione Piemonte Direzione Agricoltura |
| --- |
| Corso Stati Uniti 21 |
| 10128 Torino TO |
| ITALIA |

Regione Piemonte Direzione Agricoltura

Corso Stati Uniti 21

10128 Torino TO

ITALIA

Website: http://www.regione.piemonte.it/agri/set_fitosanit/fitopatologia/avversita/org_allerta.htm

Other information: —

---