alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                         323,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  580,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,522,286
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,622,495
<PP&E>                                         565,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,328,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,079,559  
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,980
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,304,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,328,507
<SALES>                                      2,682,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,682,952
<CGS>                                        1,905,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  790,923  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (111,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (111,169)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       43,131
<NET-INCOME>                                   (68,038)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1878 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1878

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
    Representatives, Allowance for Compensation of Interns in House 
                Leadership Offices for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
    Representatives, Allowance for Compensation of Interns in House 
                Leadership Offices for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, ALLOWANCE FOR COMPENSATION OF INTERNS IN 
              HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Allowance for Compensation of Interns in House Leadership Offices for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.00.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e R i char d S ee bo rg, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e f or the ** * N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T OS HI AK I I T O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71496 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 297- 304 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t29, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: S C H R O E D E R and G O U L D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S E E B O R G , D i stri ct Judg e. *** T os hi a ki I t o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of J apa n, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

ade c i s i on o f th e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls su m m ar il y a ff irm in g an Im m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s



# FI LED SEP 09 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of

hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e . I t o c l a i m s tha the f e a r s f utur e pe r s e c ut i on o n a c c o u n t o f

h is s e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n . P et i t i on erhas notes t abl i shed thathe suff er ed any pas tpers ec ut i on on that ac coun t , no r has he es t abl i shed any c i rc um st ance s i nd i ca t i ng thathe w ou l d suffe r future pers ec ut i on i f he r eturned. T he re cord show s thatthe pet i t i on ertra vel ed back and forth b etw ee n the U ni t ed S t at es and Japan se vera l t i m es i n the ye ar s p r e c e d in g h is f

ilin g o f h is ap p lic a tio n , a n d th e te s tim o n yo f h is o w n e x p e rt f

a ils to es t abl i sh pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof ho m osexual i ty i n Japan. It o h as no tpres ent ed a n ye v id e n c e o f

s e v e r e h a rm th a t w o u ld r is e to ale v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e H

ox ha v . A s h c r o ft , 3 1 9 F . 3 d 1 1 7 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . F o rs i m i l a rr e a s o n s , I t o d i d n o ts h o w a l i ke l i hood tha the w oul d be t ortur e d i f r e turne d t o J apa n. F i na l l y , I t o’ s a s s e rt i on tha tthe I Jdi d notpr ope r l yc ons i de ra nd w e i gh a l l the e v id e n c e a n d te s tim o n yd o e s n o t r a is e ac o lo r ab le d u e p r o c e s s c la im . M a rt i n ezR osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). T h e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew i s D EN I ED .
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60413

Summary Calendar

DONALD MORAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CENTURION; DOCTOR ROLANDO ABANGAN; OLLIE LITTLE, Health 

Services Administrator,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CV-15

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Moran, Mississippi prisoner # 171513, appeals the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment to the defendants and the dismissal of his pro se

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He argues that the defendants demonstrated 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, by failing to provide treatment from a podiatrist or to prescribe

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60413 Document: 00514492348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2018
No. 17-60413

2

pain medication for his healed ankle and foot injuries. This court reviews a 

district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo, employing the same 

standard used by the district court. McFaul v. Venezuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 

(5th Cir. 2012).

As an inmate, Moran had a clearly established Eighth Amendment right 

not to be denied, by deliberate indifference, attention to his serious medical 

needs. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2006). Prison 

officials violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual 

punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s 

serious medical needs, resulting in unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. 

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). A prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference only if “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to 

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); see 

Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994).

The medical records show that Moran requested and received treatment 

for his foot and ankle pain, including x-rays, pain medicine, and orthopedic 

shoes. While Moran argues that he continued to experience pain, the 

defendants’ unsuccessful treatment and Moran’s disagreement with the 

treatment are insufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 

463 F.3d at 346. Further, the mere claim that he was not referred to a 

specialist does not itself state a claim of deliberate indifference. See Green v. 

McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1127 (5th Cir. 1986).

Because Moran has not shown a “wanton disregard” for his “serious 

medical needs,” the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. See Domino v. 

Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).

 Case: 17-60413 Document: 00514492348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2018
#### Bernard WAX, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-7119.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 19, 2001.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Bernard Wax moves to voluntarily dismiss his appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) The revised official caption is reflected above.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Michael R. ATRAQCHI and Irene S. Atraqchi, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Appellees.

No. 00-7236.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 24, 2001.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge; RANDOLPH and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 3, 2000 and September 8, 2000 be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its July 3, 2000 memorandum opinion.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
#### In re: SCHWARZ PUBLISHING, INC., dba San Diego Jewish Times, Debtor. Haidee Joy, Appellant, v. Gerald H. Davis, Chapter 7 Trustee, and Schwarz Publishing, Inc., Appellees.

No. 09-60036.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

Haidee Joy, San Diego, CA, pro se.

Gary B. Rudolph, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Gary B. Rudolph, Thomas S. Engel, Esquire, Engel & Miller, Gerald H. Davis, San Diego, CA, for Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Haidee Joy appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving the Chapter 7 trustee’s settlement of a potential preference claim against Michael J. Schwarz and allowing the abandonment of the debtor company’s records. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review the bankruptcy court’s decision independently, *State Bar v. Findley (In re Findley),*593 F.3d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

Contrary to Joy’s contention, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the settlement because the facts in the record establish that the compromise was fair, reasonable, equitable, and adequate. *See Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.),*784 F.2d 1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir.1986) (explaining the standard for the bankruptcy court’s approval of a compromise).

In addition, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the trustee to abandon certain business records because their storage was burdensome to the estate and they were of inconsequential value, especially considering that the trustee made copies of the documents that are necessary to the administration of the estate and gave Joy an opportunity to examine the records prior to abandonment. *See*11 U.S.C. § 554(a); *Johnston v. Webster (In re Johnston),*49 *322F.3d 538, 540 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that § 554(a) permits abandonment upon a showing that the property is of inconsequential value or is burdensome to the estate).

We do not consider the issues that Joy failed to raise in the bankruptcy court, including her employment classification with the debtor company and the administration of the company’s pension plan. *See*28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1291; *Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 n. 5 (9th Cir.1999).

Joy’s request to strike the trustee’s answering brief is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7491

MICHAEL BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden - FMC, Butner, NC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-360-5-H) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Black, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Black appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, in which he challenged conditions of confinement. Because Black may amend his complaint to proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than § 2241, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not a final order and is not subject to appellate review. SeeDomino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
#### Alexander *v.*Mullen et al.

*Pleading.—Injunction.—Levy of*Execution.—Complaint by A., alleging that B. recovered a judgment against A. and a turnpike company; that execution was issued on the judgment; that the sheriff had levied the execution on the house and lot of A., being his homestead and dwelling-house; and that at the time of the levy and before, A. and the turnpike company offered to give up a toll-house to be levied upon and sold to satisfy the execution. Prayer, that the sheriff be enjoined from selling the house and lot of A.

*Held,*that the complaint was bad, for not averring that the toll-house belonged to the execution defendants, or one of them.

APPEAL from the Henry Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

The only question in this case is as to the sufficiency of the complaint, which was adjudged bad on demurrer in the circuit court. The appellant, in the complaint, alleges that at the May term of the said circuit court, in the year 1871, Eliza Slatter recovered a judgment against the North-Western Turnpike Company and the appellant for a certain amount of money; that an execution of *fieri facias*was issued upon the judgment and placed in the hands of said Mullen as sheriff of said county; and that the -'sheriff had levied the same upon the house and lot of the appellant, being his homestead and dwelling-house, a description of which is given in the complaint. It is then alleged, “ that at and before the time said execution was levied, the plaintiff) Harvey Alexander, and the NorthWestern Turnpike Company, by their directors, offered to give up to said sheriff one toll-house situated in said county, of the value of five hundred dollars, and they still offer to *399give up, to be sold upon said execution, said toll-house. Wherefore the plaintiff prays that the said sheriff be enjoined from selling said dwelling-house, until he has exhausted the other property of the defendants, and until he has first levied upon and sold said toll-house.”

*X- Brotvn*and *R. L. Polk,*for. appellant.

*M E. Forknev*and *E. H. Bandy,*for appellees.

It is very clear that the circuit court committed no error in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. An objection to the complaint which lies at the surface is, that it does not appear that the toll-house, which was turned out to be levied upon by the sheriff, was owned by the execution defendants or either of them. We think there may be other objections to the complaint, but we need not decide whether there are or not.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARGARET C. REFROE,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-314-CG-M

:

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, 

LLC,

Defendant.

:

:

:

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is 

made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s Motion 

to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) be 

GRANTED and Plaintiff Margaret Renfroe’s Amended Complaint be 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00314-CG-M Document 35 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Meeting of the Regional Energy Resource Council

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The TVA Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) will hold a 
meeting on Monday, February 2 and Tuesday, February 3, 2015, regarding 
regional energy related issues in the Tennessee Valley.
    The RERC was established to advise TVA on its energy resource 
activities and the priorities among competing objectives and values. 
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
    The meeting agenda includes the following:
    1. Welcome and Introductions
    2. Recap of October 2014 meeting
    3. Presentations and discussion regarding TVA's Integrated Resource 
Planning process and an overview of preliminary results
    4. Distributed Generation--Integrated Value project overview
    5. Public Comments
    6. Council discussion and advice
    The RERC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a 
public comment session. The public comment session will be held at 9:00 
a.m. EST, on February 3. Persons wishing to speak are requested to 
register at the door by 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3 and will be 
called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be 
limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may 
be mailed to the Regional Energy Resource Council, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-9 D, Knoxville, Tennessee 
37902.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2015 from 10:30 
a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and Tuesday, February 3, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 
p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Chattanoogan Hotel, 1201 
Broad Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402, and will be open to the public. 
Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact 
below know at least a week in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 
WT-9 D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-6113.

    Dated: December 19, 2014.
Joseph J. Hoagland,
Vice President, Stakeholder Relations, Tennessee Valley Authority.
[FR Doc. 2014-30287 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
11863.

#### Render *v.*Harris.

Decided May 2, 1921.

Action on contract; from city court of LaG-range — Judge Duke Davis. September 24, 1920.

*E. T. Moon,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. B. Wyatt,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.,

This court, in Render v. *Harris,*25 *Ga. App.*302 (103 S. E. 179), determined the law of this case by holding that the court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition as amended. The evidence is in substantial accord with the allegations made by the petition, and the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial is

*Affirmed.*

*Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.*