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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARCUS LORENZO GASKINS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:03-cr-00015-F-l) 

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Marcus Lorenzo Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Marcus Lorenzo Gaskins appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his motion seeking clarification of 

restitution and fines imposed in his criminal judgment. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Gaskins, No. 7:03-cr-00015-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 

2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 25, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00675-CR

IN RE WILLIE EUGENE PEARSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-2089-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Friday, August 7, 2015, relator Willie Eugene Pearson filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Matt Johnson, presiding judge of the 54th District Court of McLennan 

County, to address relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus.
2

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the 

mandamus jurisdiction of the court of appeals to: (1) writs against a “judge of a 

district or county court in the court of appeals district”; and (2) all writs necessary 

to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. 

McLennan County is not within our appellate district. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. 

§ 22.201(o) (West. Supp. 2014). Instead, McLennan County is within the Tenth

Court of Appeals district. Id. § 22.201(k). Because McLennan County is not in our 

appellate district and no writ is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we 

have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus directed at the presiding judge of the 

54th District Court of McLennan County

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0095. XAVIER WHITE v. THE STATE.

In 2013, Xavier White pled guilty to multiple crimes, including armed robbery.

1

On March 11, 2019, White moved to vacate his sentence, arguing that his 15-year

sentence for armed robbery is void. The trial court denied the motion, and White

appeals.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year

after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal,

whichever is later. Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010). 

Once this statutory period expires, a trial court may modify only a void sentence. Id. 

A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Jones

v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). When a sentence falls within the

statutory range of punishment, it is not void and is notsubject to modification beyond

the time provided in § 17-10-1 (f). See id. Moreover, a direct appeal does not lie

from the denial of a motion to modify a sentence filed outside the statutory time

period unless the motion raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. 

Frazier, 302 Ga. App. at 348.

In his motion to vacate his sentence, White argued that the trial court could

only sentence him to the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ten years for

armed robbery pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (b). White, however, misreads the

1 White filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied.

We affirmed the ruling in an unpublished opinion. See White v. State, Case No.

A18A0289, decided May 14, 2018.

August 27, 2019
statute, which provides for a mandatory minimum rather than a mandatory sentence.

Under OCGA § 16-8-41 (b), a person convicted of armed robbery may be punished

by “death or imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more

than 20 years.” 

Because White’s sentence is within the prescribed statutory limit, it is not void.

Accordingly, he is not entitled to file a direct appeal from the trial court’s order, and

this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/27/2019
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5063 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5063

   To amend the Small Business Act to extend the period during which 
    credit for contracting with Puerto Rico businesses and covered 
    territory businesses are double counted, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2023

  Ms. Velazquez (for herself, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. 
   Moylan, and Mr. Sablan) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Small Business Act to extend the period during which 
    credit for contracting with Puerto Rico businesses and covered 
    territory businesses are double counted, 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 ``Small Business Contracting Credit 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DOUBLE CREDIT FOR PUERTO RICO BUSINESSES AND 
              COVERED TERRITORY BUSINESSES.

    Section 15(x)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(x)(1)) is 
amended by striking ``during the period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this subsection and ending on the date that is 4 years 
after such date of enactment'' and inserting the following: ``during 
the period beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of the Small Business Contracting Credit Act and ending on 
the date that is 3 years after the date of the enactment of such Act''.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4868

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Global
Industries, Ltd.'s financial statements for the twelve months ended March 31,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,693
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,610
<PP&E>                                         432,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 625,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,138
<BONDS>                                        144,825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           915
<OTHER-SE>                                     368,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   625,367
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               379,901
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  265,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 91,685
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0482

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

MARK ANDREW PARTRIDGE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until November 8, 2024, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

October 4 2024

10/04/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0482
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5076 

To clarify that, in awarding funding under title X of the Public Health 

Service Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not 

discriminate against eligible States, individuals, or other entities for 

refusing to counsel or refer for abortions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2023 

Mr. COLE (for himself, Mrs. BICE, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. BABIN, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. HERN, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. OGLES, Mr. 

BURCHETT, and Mr. RUTHERFORD) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To clarify that, in awarding funding under title X of the 

Public Health Service Act, the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services may not discriminate against eligible 

States, individuals, or other entities for refusing to counsel or refer for abortions. 

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 ‘‘Prevent Discrimination 

5 in Title X Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5076 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION. 

2 Section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

3 U.S.C. 300a–4) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

6 Secretary may not require any State, individual, or other 

7 entity to counsel or refer for abortions as a condition for 

8 receiving funding under this title.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4119

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          44,862
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             150
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   470
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    387,882
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         261,782
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           240,871
<LOANS>                                        763,965
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,544,874
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,143,804
<SHORT-TERM>                                   211,950
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,908
<LONG-TERM>                                     85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,470
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,544,874
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,788
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,017
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    21
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                51,826
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              21,982
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,368
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,458
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,375
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (60)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,315)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (450)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (450)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.69
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,183
<LOANS-PAST>                                       942
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    98
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,091
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,002
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,009
<RECOVERIES>                                       243
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,611
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,611
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            164


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4223

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### In the Matter of Meyer Temkin et al., Petitioners, v Stanley E. Grayson, as Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York, Respondent.

Determination by respondent Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York, dated January 17, 1989, which assessed a deficiency in the payment of commercial rent or occupancy tax against petitioners in the amount of $85,302.51, including interest and penalty, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on July 7, 1989, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioners operate a nursing home as sole partners. Sometime after commencing this enterprise, they acquired, as tenants in common, the real property upon which the nursing home is located. The nursing home maintained separate books and records from the real estate operation and directly remitted "rent” in the form of payments to the respective obligees for mortgage, real estate taxes, insurance, and sewer rent. The nursing home partnership and the real estate operation, additionally, filed separate Federal, State, and city partnership returns. For the audit period of June 1, 1980 to May 31, 1983, respondent, Commissioner of Finance, assessed petitioners a deficiency for commercial rent or occupancy tax (Administrative Code of City of New York § 11-701 *et seq.),*attributable to the "rent” paid by the nursing home partnership. Petitioners maintain, essentially, that the payments by the nursing home are not subject to taxation since a partnership has no existence separate from the several partners, and "rent” could not be paid from petitioners to themselves.

*367However, contrary to petitioners’ contention, and consistent with the relationship which petitioners themselves created, a partnership may be treated as an entity separate and apart from the individual partners for tax purposes *(Matter of Great Lakes-Dunbar-Rochester v State Tax Commn., 65*NY2d 339). Here, the petitioners treated their ownership of the nursing home as distinct from their ownership of the property, and title of the real property was not conveyed to petitioners as partners until after the audit period involved. Since the law defines a "person” to include a "partnership”, and because "rent” encompasses "payment required to be made by a tenant on behalf of his or her landlord for real estate taxes, water rents or charges, sewer rents or any other expenses”, the Commissioner’s ruling accorded with the plain meaning of the statute (Administrative Code § 11-701 [1], [6]). Accordingly, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5120

Radio Systems Corp:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel