alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-10484

Summary Calendar

_______________________

CHARLIE LEWIS McGHEE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CV-1037-X)

_________________________________________________________________

August 29, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant McGhee, sentenced to l ife imprisonment in the

Texas Department of Corrections after a finding that he violated his

deferred-adjudication probation, raises five issues on appeal. Each

of these issues was carefully discussed by the magistrate judge, and

we have little to add to his opinion.2 In an abundance of caution, however, this court granted CPC

and asked the parties p articularly to brief whether McGhee’s due

process rights were violated by the trial court’s alleged imposition

of a predetermined sentence, and whether due process required the

court to hold a separate sentencing hearing after revoking McGhee’s

probation. In regard to the first of these issues, we note the state

court’s statement, when it ruled on McGhee’s habeas petition, that she

sentenced him to life imprisonm ent because of the offense he had

committed and the additional two burglaries that he committed within

one week of receiving a deferred adjudica tion. Neither in the

district court nor in this court has McGhee offered evidence or

persuasive argument why the federal courts should not defer to this

finding of historical fact by the state habeas court. The state judge

said she did not impose a “predetermined sentence” on McGhee following

his breach of probation. Like the magistrate judge, we conclude that

finding is supported by the record of the state court proceedings.

As for McGhee’s second complaint that he was entitled to a

separate sentencing hearing, additional briefing shows that argument

to be meritless. To the extent it relies on an alleged violation of

Texas law, that is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. On

the other hand, McGhee cites no federal law creating an entitlement

to a separate hearing in these circumstances. For this court to craft

one in a collateral proceeding would violate the Teague rule of nonretroactivity.3 For these reas ons, and those assigned by the magistrate

judge, this court affirms the denial of habeas relief.

AFFIRMED

.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-14-043]

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

United States International Trade Commission.

      ( print page 73338)    

# TIME AND DATE:

December 19, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,  Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131, 1132, and 1134 (Review) (Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (“PET Film”) from Brazil, China, and the United Arab Emirates). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on January 8, 2015.

5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 5, 2014.

William R. Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2014-29038 Filed 12-8-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### BRITTAIN BROTHERS COMPANY *v.*DAVIS.

No. 6255.

September 24, 1928.

*Willingham, Wright & Covington,*for plaintiff in error.

*Porter & Mebane,*contra.

Per Curiam.

William T. Davis filed his petition against Brittain Brothers Company, praying for rescission of a contract, cancellation, and recovery of a payment of $1,000. He alleged that in March, 1926, he paid the defendant $1,000, and gave a promissory note due March 23, 1927, for $1,000, for the purchase of certain land from the defendant. Defendant gave him a bond for title, and he went into possession. Before the note became due he discovered that defendant had title to- only a four-sevenths interest in the land; that petitioner and his mother and sisters owned the other three-sevenths interest, as heirs at law of their father; that his father and brother owned the land together; that his father died in 1920, and his brother sold the land in 1926 to defendant. There is a general allegation of fraud in misrepresenting the title. Plaintiff alleged that he had tendered the bond for title and had tendered the land to the vendor, and had vacated, and that he told the defendant that the property in question was subject to its order, etc. The tenders and the demand were refused by defendant. Plaintiff does not allege that his possession was disturbed in *160any way, or that any adverse title was asserted. Suit was brought before the obligation to make title matured under the bond for title. Petitioner “offers to do equity and to pay a fair and reasonable rent for the four-sevenths interest of the defendant in the premises” while he was in possession.

We hold that the court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition, and that the amendments sufficiently met the special demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except*

Beck, P. J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the ruling of the majority of the court. “A purchaser of land, who is in undisturbed possession under his vendor’s bond to make or cause to be made good and sufficient title on the payment of the purchase-money, can not recover from the vendor partial payments made on the purchase-price solely on the ground of a defect in the vendor’s title. Such relief is dependent upon the vendee’s equitable right of rescission or cancellation, which does not exist unless he allege that the vendor is insolvent or a non-resident, or some other fact which would make it inequitable for the vendor to hold the purchase-money already paid and to collect the balance.” *Henderson*v. *Fields,*143 *Ga.*547 (85 S. E. 741); *McGehee*v. *Jones,*10 *Ga.*127; *Mallard*v. *Allred,*106 *Ga.*503 (32 S. E. 588). Under the principles ruled in the case of *Henderson*v. *Fields,*supra, and the other cases cited, and still other cases laying down this doctrine, I am of the opinion that the demurrer should have been sustained.
In response to the Scientific and Technical Review Panel Final Report for 2021-S-0011 Standards for the 

Technical Review of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Reporting, the BPA Subcommittee Quality Assurance 

Task Group, wishes to extend its appreciation for the input and collective effort provided through the 

STRP process. For clarification of modifications made to the document subsequent to this report, the 

Task Group would like to share the following to address specific STRP report components:

Component 2 – Human Factors 

2.1 – The task group believes the refinement in language relating to the need for objectivity in selecting 

the reviewers is reflected in the wording modifications made to section 6 as suggested by the STRP 

under Component 6 – Method Description.

2.2 – The term “discrepancy” was defined as suggested.

Component 5 - Terminology

5.1 – The task group agrees with the STRP in the consistency of terms utilized in this standard with the 

OSAC Lexicon particularly regarding the employment of preferred OSAC terms, and has made every 

effort to do. However, the preferred definition for “administrative review” made reference to 

“laboratories “rather than the more comprehensive term of “forensic science service provider”. The task 

group has opted to deviate from the preferred definition and incorporate “forensic science service 

provider” into the term to address the inclusivity of the entire bloodstain pattern analysis scientific 

community.

5.2 – This correction was made

5.3 – Given the variety of terms currently listed in the OSAC lexicon, and in conjunction with the 

statement in 5.1, the task group has opted to not accept this addition at this time.

Component 6 – Method Description 

6.2 – Modifications were made to the language in Section 5.2 regarding objectivity of the reviewer being 

essential which the task group believes reflects the guidance from the STRP.

6.3 – The suggested statement “Communications...of the review” was added to section 6 in the 

document; however, for clarity and continuity, was placed in a different location than suggested. Also, 

the suggestion to remove “and explained” was accepted.

Component 7 – Reporting Results

7.1 – The suggested modification to add “in the original case file” was accepted.

Respectfully submitted,

BPA Subcommittee Quality Assurance Task Group

LeeAnn Singley (chair), Rebecca Hooks, Peter Valentin, Jason Simser
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4688 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 416
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4688

                          [Report No. 108-677]

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                        Chesapeake Bay Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2004

  Mr. Gilchrest (for himself, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Schrock, Mr. 
Cardin, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Castle, Mr. 
  Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Platts, Mr. English, Mr. 
    Cummings, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Bartlett of 
  Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                           September 13, 2004

               Additional sponsor: Mr. Moran of Virginia

                           September 13, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                        Chesapeake Bay Program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM.

    Section 117(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1267(j)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

                                                 Union Calendar No. 416

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4688

                          [Report No. 108-677]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                        Chesapeake Bay Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 13, 2004

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
2020 NIST Precision Measurement Grants

Dr. Edmund G. Myers, Florida State University

Towards a test of CPT with the Antihydrogen Molecular Ion

Violation of the CPT theorem would have profound consequences for all quantum field theories, 

including those assumed in the determination of fundamental constants, and shed light on the 

universe’s matter-antimatter asymmetry. A direct way to test CPT is to compare the properties of 

particles and antiparticles; these should be identical except for signs of quantum numbers. We aim

to do this by developing ro-vibrational and Zeeman-hyperfine spectroscopy on single trapped HH2

+

and anti-HH2

+ ions, with the ultimate aim of atomic-clock precision: better than 10−16 for rovibrational transitions and better than 10−14 for hyperfine transitions. Compared to anticipated 

spectroscopy on antihydrogen or measurements on antiprotons, this will result in a 104

improvement in precision for testing the CPT invariance of me/mp and the magnetic moment of the 

proton. We propose to produce single anti-HH2

+ ions by combining anti-HH− ions with antiprotons in a

Penning trap, and, at least initially, to perform the spectroscopy in a Penning trap. By enabling 

precursor experiments with normal matter, the NIST PMG award will be used to address the 

outstanding challenges to this ambitious project: a) the development of precision RF and laser 

spectroscopy on anti-HH2

+ in a Penning trap, and b) the production of anti-HH2+ in a Penning trap. 

More specifically, in the timeframe of the award, the funds will be used to construct a Penning trap 

system that will enable precision electron g-factor and hyperfine-Zeeman spectroscopy on a single 

HH2

+, and hence also demonstrate the detection technique for laser spectroscopy. It will also serve as 

a testbed for the synthesis of (anti-)HH2

+.

Dr. Saul Perlmutter, University of California, Berkeley

NIST-Traceable Flux Calibration of Standard Stars for Cosmology

The proposed work seeks to perform an experimental determination of the wavelengthdependent optical flux scale of standard stars at the 0.5% level required by modern 

cosmology and astrophysics. This involves transferring the SI flux system established by

NIST to our SuperNova Integral Field Spectrograph (SNIFS) via our SNIFS CALibration 

Apparatus (SCALA), and from there to a network of stable standard stars faint enough to be 

observed with major new front-line telescopes such as LSST and WFIRST. Doing so will 

mitigate flux calibration as a major source of systematic uncertainty in measuring, e.g., the 

properties of dark energy and the age of the universe.
No. 16,555.

#### The State *v.*Bercaw.

Filed Sept. 16, 1892.

*Appeal.*— Questions *Arising on Trial.*— How *Presented.*— Questions arising on the trial, and not on the pleadings, must, on appeal, be presented by a bill of exceptions.

Bill of *Exceptions.*— Stenographer’s *Report.*— How *Made a Part of the Record.*— When a stenographer’s report is brought into the transcript by the clerk it is not a bill of exceptions. Such a report, to be a part of the record, must be properly embodied in a bill of exceptions.

From the Boone Circuit Court.

*H. P. New,*Prosecuting Attorney, *J. Claybaugh, C. S. Wesner*and *D. S. Holman,*for the State.

Elliott, J.

— The State seeks a decision of questions arising on the trial of the case in the court below, but there is no bill of exceptions in the record. It seems quite clear that where the questions arise on the trial and not upon the pleadings, there must be a bill of exceptions showing the rulings and the exceptions of the State. Elliott’s App. Proc., sections 276, 280. The stenographer’s report of the evidence brought into the transcript by the clerk is not a bill of exceptions. Such a report is not part of the record unless it is properly embodied in a bill of exceptions signed by the judge. See authorities cited in Elliott’s App. Proc., sections 821, 822.

Judgment affirmed.
10456.

#### Keiley *et al. v.*Cleage.

Decided July 19, 1920.

Action for contribution; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. January 10, 1919.

Jenkins, P. J.

In accordance with the ruling made by the Supreme Court, in response to a certain question certified to it in this case (150 *Ga.*215, 103 S. E. 167), the judgment of the trial court, refusing to grant the motion for a new trial, must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*

*511The question referred to in the decision was: “Where, ‘in consideration of ’ a creditor giving to a principal debtor ‘ a line of credit’ in a stated amount, guarantors become responsible for the payment of ‘ this loan ’ by signing such an instrument as is quoted . . , is all liability on the part of such guarantors' discharged upon its being shown that the creditor has actually refused the request of the principal debtor for a portion of the credit thus named in the guarantors’ agreement?” The guaranty was signed by certain stockholders and directors of an industrial corporation, in order to enable the corporation to borrow money from a certain bank, and was as follows: “The undersigned stockholders and directors in the Bock Springs Coal Company of Turley, Tenn., in consideration of your bank giving to this company a line of credit of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) on their notes to be renewed from time to time, without notice to us, guarantee the payment of this loan to your bank; this obligation to hold good until we give you notice in writing to the contrary. ” The bank lent $5,000 to the corporation, in pursuance of the contract, and refused to make an additional loan of $3,000, for which the corporation applied. On default of the corporation in payment of the $5,000, one of the guarantors paid the amount, and sued his coguarantors for contribution. The defendants pleaded a discharge, on the ground that the bank had refused to lend to the corporation the additional amount of $3,000. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict against the defendants, their motion for a new trial was overruled, and they excepted. The Supreme Court, in answer to the certified question, held that “the language in the contract referring to the total amount of loans to be made to the corporation was merely a limit upon the guarantors’ liability, and the refusal of the bank to loan the additional amount of $3,000 did not operate to discharge the guarantors from liability for the amount which was actually loaned by the bank.”

*Spence & Spence, G. S. Peck,,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Anderson, Rountree & Crenshaw,*contra.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell L. PADGETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6254.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

Darrell L. Padgett, pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Charleston, WV, for appellee.

*176Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Darrell L. Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 West Supp. 2000) motion. 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 a certificate of appealability, deny Padgett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Padgett,*No. CR-91-166; CA-94-377-1 (S.D.W.Va. Nov. 21, 2000). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


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

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     389
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         389
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,025
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          297,508
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       (98,483)
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,025
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,443
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,946)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .001
        



</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 02, 2020.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 02, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0057. IN RE THE ESTATE OF MARY HULETT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

18CV106