alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE ex rel. Jauvé COLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2012-KH-2161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 2012.

In re Collins, Jauvé; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 03-07-0231; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW 1398.

Relator filed a motion in the district court, whereby relator contended his criminal sentence is illegal and unconstitutional. Relator states that the district court has not acted upon the motion, and relator now seeks an order from this court directing the district court to consider the motion. Prior to seeking an order from this court, relator applied for a writ from the court of appeal, which on September 24, 2012 denied relief, explaining that the court of appeal has “been advised ... that the district court is proceeding toward disposition of relator’s ‘Motion to Vacate Illegal and Unconstitutional Sentence Pursuant to New Rule of Law,’ filed July 13, 2.012.” Having found no ruling on relator’s motion in the district court online docket report, the present application for certiorari is hereby transferred to the district court, which is ordered to consider relator’s motion, if the district court has indeed not yet ruled upon the motion. In any event, the district court is further ordered to provide this court with a copy of its judgment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6395

JOHN THOMAS LEWIS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL WADE, Sheriff, Henrico County Sheriff’s Department; 

LIEUTENANT ROBINSON, Lieutenant, Henrico County Sheriff’s Department; 

DEPUTY AMOAH, Deputy, Henrico County Sheriff’s Department,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00835-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 12, 2018

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Thomas Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Thomas Lewis appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Wade, No. 1:16-cv-00835-CMH-TCB (E.D. 

Va. Mar. 20, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2007 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, 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 of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Niv E. CaviarNiv E. CaviarExecutive Vice President, Chief Business
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Smith, President and
Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ David A. Smith David A. Smith President and Chief
Executive Officer

August 14, 2003
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1730 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure proportional 

representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (for himself, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. ALLEN, 

Mr. BOYD of Florida, Mr. PAUL, Mr. EDWARDS, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. SIMPSON, Mrs. 

EMERSON, Mr. HERGER, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. TERRY, Mr. BOOZMAN, 

Mr. FORBES, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. KIND, Mr. HASTINGS

of Washington, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. REHBERG, 

Mr. LUCAS, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MILLER

of Florida, Mr. RENZI, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCINTYRE, 

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. JONES of 

North Carolina, Mr. WELCH of Vermont, Mr. BERRY, Mr. HARE, Mr. 

ROSS, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. BOREN, Mr. BOSWELL, and Mr. UDALL of New 

Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

proportional representation of rural interests on the 

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mmaher on PROD1PC60 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1730 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘MedPAC Rural Rep3 resentation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ENSURING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF 

5 INTERESTS OF RURAL AREAS ON MEDPAC. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1805(c)(2) of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b–6(c)(2)) is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘con9 sistent with subparagraph (E)’’ after ‘‘rural rep10 resentatives’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(E) PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF

14 INTERESTS OF RURAL AREAS.—In order to pro15 vide a balance between urban and rural rep16 resentatives under subparagraph (A), the pro17 portion of members of the Commission who rep18 resent the interests of health care providers and 

19 Medicare beneficiaries located in rural areas 

20 shall be no less than the proportion of the total 

21 number of Medicare beneficiaries who reside in 

22 rural areas.’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 subsection (a) shall apply to appointments to the Medicare 

mmaher on PROD1PC60 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1730 IH

1 Payment Advisory Commission made after the date of en2 actment of this Act. 

Æ 

mmaher on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6265

JOHN GRAYSON ATKINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK; CARLA O’KONEK; MICHAEL EASLEY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CA-00-60-5-BR)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Grayson Atkinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Grayson Atkinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Atkinson’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of

appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See Atkinson v. Beck, No. CA-00-60-5-BR (E.D.N.C.

Jan. 12, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7129 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7129

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide training in the 
use of medical cannabis for all Department of Veterans Affairs primary 
                care providers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2018

  Mr. Moulton (for himself, Mr. Gaetz, and Mr. Correa) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide training in the 
use of medical cannabis for all Department of Veterans Affairs primary 
                care providers, 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. TRAINING IN USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS PRIMARY CARE PROVIDERS.

    (a) Training.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide 
for all primary care providers of the Department of Veterans Affairs an 
initial training in the use of medical cannabis. The Secretary shall 
provide supplemental training as necessary.
    (b) Partnerships With Medical Schools.--In developing and providing 
the training to be provided under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
enter into partnerships with medical schools that have incorporated 
education on medical cannabis into their curricula.
                                 <all>
```
#### John Schut v. The Chicago & West Michigan Railway Company.

*Railroad companies*— Constitutional *law*— Attorney *fee of $25*— Neg*lect to fence right of way.*

That portion of Act No. 234, Laws of 1885, providing for the recovery of $25 as an attorney fee in case of recovery against a railway company for hilling cattle, is unconstitutional. *Wilder v. Railway Co., ante,*382.

Error to Newaygo. (Fuller, J.)

Argued May 10, 1888.

Decided May 23, 1888.

Case. Defendant brings error.

Reversed as to allowance of attorney fee.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Smith, Nims, Hoyt &• Erwin, for*appellant.

*Ed. E. Edwards (L. A. Miller,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Sherwood, C. J.

The plaintiff brought his suit against the defendant before a justice of the peace, in the township of Sherman, in the county of *Newaygo, to*recover the value of an ox killed on the defendant’s road by a passing train. The animal strayed from the plaintiff’s pasture field on the defendant’s track by reason of the neglect of the defendant to build a fence along its right of' way, as required by law.

The plaintiff’s right to recover was not contested, and, after suit brought, the defendant tendered to the plaintiff $80 for his damages and costs. The costs at that time incurred before the justice were $1.50. The tender was refused. It was sufficient, unless, as claimed by the plaintiff, he was entitled to a $25 attorney fee in addition to the other taxable costs, as provided in section 15, Act No. 234, Laws of 1885. *434This section provides that until the company has fenced its right of way, as required by law, it “ shall be liable for all damages done to cattle or other animals thereon;” to be recovered by the owner thereof, “together with an attorney’s fee of $25, to be taxed as costs against the defendant ” in case of a recovery. A trial was had before the justice, who rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $75 damages, and costs taxed at the sum of $32.50, the costs including an attorney fee of $25. On *certiorari*to the circuit court for the county of Newaygo this judgment was affirmed.

The judgment cannot be sustained. That portion of the statute providing for the recovery of a $25 attorney fee in case of recovery against the railroad company was held to be unconstitutional in *Wilder v. Railway Co., ante*, 382, and, the tender being sufficient to cover the damages and costs up to the time it was made, the recovery should have been for the amount of these two items, and no more, and the judgment must be modified accordingly.

The judgment must be reversed, and judgment will be rendered in this Court for the plaintiff for the sum of $76.50, and defendant will be allowed its costs in this Court to be taxed, and the amount thereof must be offset against such judgment.

Chahplin, Morse, and Campbell, JJ., concurred.
exhibit10_1.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

    


    TENTH
AMENDMENT TO

    THE
CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY

    EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT PLAN

    


    (as
amended and restated as of January 1, 1997, except as otherwise provided
therein)

    


    


    1. The
following sentence is added to Section 2.15, definition of Credited Service, as
amended by the Second Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, at the end
thereof:

    


    “Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in Section 2.15, Section 2.32, or elsewhere in the Plan, in
no event shall any former employee of Birmingham Utilities, Inc., Eastern
Connecticut Water Company, Inc., or any corporation or other entity related
thereto, receive credit for Credited Service hereunder for service with
Birmingham Utilities, Inc., Eastern Connecticut Water Company, Inc., or any
corporation or other entity related thereto.”

    


    2. The
following sentence is added to Section 2.40, definition of Vesting Service, as
amended by the Sixth Amendment, at the end thereof:

    


    “In calculating an Employee’s Vesting
Service, but for no other purpose, in the case of any individual employed by
Birmingham Utilities, Inc., Eastern Connecticut Water Company, Inc., or any
corporation or other entity related thereto who becomes an Employee of the
Employer in connection with the asset purchase between the Employer and said
Birmingham Utilities, Inc. or Eastern Connecticut Water Company, Inc., or any
other corporation or entity related thereto, service with Birmingham Utilities,
Inc., Eastern Connecticut Water Company, Inc., or any corporation or entity
related thereto shall be taken into account.”

    


    3. Except as
hereinabove modified and amended, the Plan as amended shall remain in full force
and effect.

    


    4. This
Amendment is effective as of January 1, 2008.

     

    


    CERTIFICATE 

     

        The
undersigned hereby certifies that The Connecticut Water Company Employees'
Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 1997, except
as otherwise provided therein, was duly amended by the Board of Directors of The
Connecticut Water Company by a Tenth Amendment on August 19, 2008, and the Plan,
as so amended, is in full force and effect.

    


    


    
      	
              Date:  August
      20, 2008

            	
              By:  /s/ Daniel J.
      Meaney

               

              Title:
      Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25033]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Request for Comments On An Existing 
Information Collection: (OMB Control No. 3206-0190; Form RI 92-19)

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) a request for comments on an existing 
information collection. This information collection, ``Application for 
Deferred or Postponed Retirement: Federal Employees Retirement System 
(FERS)'' (OMB Control No. 3206-0190; Form RI 92-19), is used by 
separated employees to apply for either a deferred or a postponed FERS 
annuity benefit.
    Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this information is 
necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of 
Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; 
whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of 
information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use 
of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Approximately 1,693 forms are completed annually. We estimate it 
takes approximately 60 minutes to complete the form. The annual 
estimated burden is 1,693 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Cyrus S. Benson on (202) 606-
4808, FAX (202) 606-0910 or via E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66251f141315482403081509082609160b48010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f7c464d4a4c117d5a514c50517f504f5211585049">[email protected]</span></a>. Please 
include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within December 6, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--James K. Freiert (Acting), 
Deputy Associate Director, Retirement Operations, Retirement and 
Benefits, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 
3305, Washington, DC 20415-3500.
    For information regarding administrative coordination contact: 
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RB/RM/Administrative 
Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 
4H28, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-4808,

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-25033 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# ORI l Jf 

# n tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# <!ourt of jf 

# eberal <!laints No. 16-1 ?lOC (Filed January 6, 2017) NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * 

### * * * * * 

### * * * * * 

### * *


### GORDON R. HOLMES, Plaintiff ,
v . 

### THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. 

### * * * * 

### * * * 

### * * * 

### * 

### * * 

### * * 

### * * * * * * 

### * * * 

### * * * 

### * * * 

### ORDER 

# FILED JAN - 6 2017 U.S

. COU RT OF FEDERA L CLAIMS

The co urt hereby requests plaintiff's consent to the co urt 's referral of this case to the Court of Federal Claims Bar Association Pro Bono/Attorney Referral Pilo t Program for the potential representation of plaintiff by couns el. In the event that plaintiff consents to such referral , the court makes no representation that the Bar Association will be s uccessful in identifying possibl e pro bono co un sel for plaintiff. If the Bar Association is able to identify possible counsel, plaintiff is not obligated to e ngage any particul ar attorney, nor i s an attorney obligated to r epresent plaintiff. Th e co urt do es not endorse representation by a n y individual attorney
. All d ecisions concerning representation, if any, will be by mutual agreement between plaintiff and an attorney. Accordingly , on or b efore Monday, January 23, 2017 , plaintiff s hall file a notice indicating whether h e consents to r eferral of thi s case to the Court of Feder a l Claims Bar Association Pro Bono/Attorney Ref erral Pilot Program. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit (11) - Statement Re:  Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Three Months Ended
                                                                           March 31,       March 31,
                                                                             1997            1996   
      <S>                                                                  <C>            <C>
      Primary:
      Average shares outstanding                                            2,070,966      2,068,222
      Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
        treasury stock method using average market price                       53,979         14,246
      Totals                                                                2,124,945      2,082,468
                                                                           ==========     ========== 
      Net income                                                           $  512,518     $  355,157
                                                                           ==========     ==========
      Per share amount                                                          $0.24          $0.17
                                                                                =====          ===== 
      Fully diluted:
      Average shares outstanding                                            2,070,966      2,068,222
      Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
        treasury stock method using average market price which
        is greater than quarter-end market price                               54,924         15,774
      Totals                                                                2,125,890      2,083,996
                                                                            =========      =========
      Net income                                                           $  512,518     $  355,157
                                                                           ==========     ==========
      Per share amount                                                          $0.24          $0.17
</TABLE>