alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Myers, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 284]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered March 19, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (three counts), and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it had to separately consider the charges and render separate verdicts is not preserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, the claim is without merit, as the Supreme Court properly charged the jury as to each count and the verdict sheet was noted accordingly *(see People v Johnson,*87 NY2d 357, 360 [1996]). Furthermore, a review of the record and the verdicts returned establishes that the jury considered each charge separately *(see People v Santos,*202 AD2d 258 [1994]; *People v Hatcher,*162 AD2d 148, 149 [1990]; *People v Johnson, 130*AD2d 804 [1987]).

The defendant’s claim that his adjudication as a persistent vi*823olent felony offender violated his right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Highsmith,*21 AD3d 1037 [2005]; *People v Rice,*285 AD2d 617 [2001]). In any event, as the defendant’s sentence was enhanced solely based upon his recidivism *(see*Penal Law § 70.08 [1] [a]), he was not entitled to a jury trial to determine the facts of his prior felony convictions *(see People v Horn,*7 AD3d 638 [2004]; *People v Telesford, 2*AD3d 757, 758 [2003]).

The defendant’s contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief that his due process rights were violated by the People’s preindictment and postindictment delay is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Champelle,*144 AD2d 378 [1988]). In any event, the contention is without merit *(see People v Brown,*262 AD2d 419 [1999]; *People v Rosado,*166 AD2d 544 [1990]). Florio, J.P, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00801-CV

In re David Bryan Ballard

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

David Bryan Ballard, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion to Enter New Evidence 

that Appellant’s Attorney Failed to Enter in Above Cause Number to Show Doubt Existed but 

Wasn’t Presented at Either Trial or in Appellant’s Attorney’s Appeal” in this Court. Looking to 

the substance of Ballard’s pleading, rather than its title or form, we construe his pleading as a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 

601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine 

its nature). Ballard appears to be challenging a judgment of conviction for failing to register as a 

sex offender rendered in Cause No. 02-103-K277 in the 277th District Court of Williamson County 

in June 2005.

The habeas corpus procedure set out in article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony post-conviction relief in state court. See Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 5. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction over post-conviction 

relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id.; Hoang v. 
State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (only court of criminal appeals has authority 

to grant post-conviction relief from final felony convictions).

Accordingly, we dismiss Ballard’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: December 20, 2018
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,863]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 29, 2009, in response to a petition filed by a Wisconsin State, One-Stop Operator on behalf of workers of Watry Industries, Inc., Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13470 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan, 120

Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its March 28, 2014, order and to grant petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint in District Court Case No. A691418.
Gibbon7924L-, C. J. s J. Pickering

Saitta cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Brooks Hubley LLP Atkinson & Watkins, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I94Th (400
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

97-359.

#### State ex rel. SuperAmerica Group, Div. of Ashland, Inc. v. Adzic.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that relator’s claim in prohibition be, and hereby is, dismissed. Relator’s claim in mandamus remains pending and will proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X.

Douglas, J., not participating.
#### State v. Bethea

Case below: 176 N.C. App. 767

No. 362P06

Def’s PWC to Review Decision of COA (COA05-866)

Denied 03/08/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000008192
<NAME> ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,799,395
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     80,870
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         243,502
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       336,974
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,460,741
<COMMON>                                        54,963
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      488,514
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            234,948
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 778,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           43,950
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           802,245
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              64,950
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      175
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       10,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     39,212
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   702
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 691,082
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,460,741
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      982,492
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            32,272
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     815,691
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     847,963
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        134,529
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,787
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 140,316
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        63,871
<NET-INCOME>                                    75,017
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      9,904
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   65,113
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        82,162
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         212,672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Janulyn McKanic, Appellant, v Amigos del Museo del Barrio, Respondent.

Decided April 5, 2011

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Steward, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-514-000]


Cyprus Energy Futures, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

January 14, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Cyprus Energy Futures, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is February 3, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1979483929ebfbdb8bfb482a4a1a1bea3a591b7b4a3b2ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aceae9feefe3c2c0c5c2c9ffd9dcdcc3ded8eccac9decf82cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1354 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3274 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to address the use of intrathecal 

pumps. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2010 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to address the 

use of intrathecal pumps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INTRATHECAL PUMPS. 

4 Section 102(10) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

5 U.S.C. 802(10)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘The term ‘dispense’ means to 

7 deliver’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(A) The term 

8 ‘dispense’ means— 

9 ‘‘(i) to deliver’’; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3274 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘such delivery.’’ and inserting 

2 the following: ‘‘such delivery; or 

3 ‘‘(ii) to deliver a controlled substance by a phar4 macy to a practitioner, pursuant to the prescription 

5 of the practitioner, where the controlled substance is 

6 to be administered through the use of an intrathecal 

7 pump by the practitioner acting in the usual course 

8 of professional practice.’’; 

9 (3) by striking ‘‘The term ‘dispenser’ means’’ 

10 and inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(B) The term ‘dispenser’ means’’; and 

12 (4) by striking ‘‘to an ultimate user or research 

13 subject’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3200 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Zachary Smith 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate May 25, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1562

PREFAB, INCORPORATED; JAMES M. MILLEAGE;

EDWARD D. SNAVELY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

BONNIE I. MILLEAGE,

Third Party Defendant - Appellant,

versus

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST, INCORPORATED; ASSOCIATED MACHINE TOOLS; GERALD O’REILLY; JOHN

DEMPSEY, JR.; WILLIAM NEWBOLD,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Third Party Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-97-2875-0-19)

Submitted: March 30, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001
2

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen D. Schusterman, SCHUSTERMAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Rock Hill,

South Carolina, for Appellants. Constance L. Young, Thomas L.

Ogburn, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina;

James W. Bradford, Jr., BRADFORD & BRADFORD, P.A., York, South

Carolina; Susan B. Lipscomb, NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Prefab, Inc., James Milleage, Edward Snavely, and Bonnie

Milleage (the “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order

dismissing their complaint for failure to obey discovery orders

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). The Appellants’ case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(West 1993 and Supp. 2000 ). The magistrate judge recommended that

the complaint be dismissed based on the Appellants’ repeated

failure to comply with discovery orders and advised the Appellants

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, the Appellants failed to

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (holding “that a court of appeals may

adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court

judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing

of objections with the district court identifying those issues on

which further review is desired”). The Appellants have waived

appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving
4

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. The motion to file a Rule 60(b) motion is denied. 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
SUBSCRIPTION REGISTER
                                
     Participants          Shares Purchased      Amount

     Caskey, Stan               56,000          $61,600
     Caskey, Steve              56,000           61,600
     Compton, Carter            25,000           27,500
     Dixon, Al                  20,000           22,000
     Drake Goodwin & Co.        30,000           33,000
     Dulock, Fred               30,000           33,000
     First London               60,000           66,000
     Ganter, Carl               20,000           22,000
     Gordon, Larry              50,000           55,000
     Grey, James                20,000           22,000
     Kemp, Bill                 30,000           33,000
     Malone, Dan               115,000          126,500
     McCool, William and Joan   30,000           33,000
     Phillips, Jim             100,000          110,000
     Semmens, Mike              10,000           11,000
     Sharratt, Marilyn           2,000            2,200
     Templeton, Jay             60,000           66,000
     Trembath, Rhoda            33,333           36,666
     Wilson Trust               50,000           55,000
     Winchester, Dorothy         9,000            9,900
          Total                806,333         $886,966
AMENDMENT,RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF CONTINUING UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTY

        **THISAMENDMENT, RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF CONTINUING UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTY**(**“Agreement”**) is dated this 31st day of January, 2007 by and between**MTS MEDICATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED**(formerly known as MTS Packaging SystemsInternational, Ltd.) **(“Guarantor”**) and **LASALLE BUSINESS CREDIT,LLC**, successor by merger to LaSalle Business Credit, Inc., as Agent(**“Agent”**)****for **LASALLE BANK MIDWEST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**(formerly known as Standard Federal Bank National Association)****(**“Lender”**). 

BACKGROUND
#### Sylvia B. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3170.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 18, 2006.

*ORDER*

Sylvia B. Harris has complied with the court’s order of May 31, 2006.

*1020Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, vacated and recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(2) Respondent should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of service of the brief for the petitioner.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        35,174,032
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   6,620,036
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              41,794,068
<CASH>                                       1,068,940
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         722,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,196,821
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             23,666,481
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          2,536,423
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         3,328
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,507,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,196,821
<PREMIUMS>                                   4,497,820
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          1,627,661
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             334,834
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                   5,364,453
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,278,323
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           606,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (789,164)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (437,428)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (351,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (351,736)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              19,763,111
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                          5,364,453
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              89,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                             2,372,768
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             22,665,796
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>