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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7661

NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97-

775-L, CA-97-898-L)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Jones v. Corcoran, Nos. CA-97-775-L; CA-97-898-L (D. Md.

Nov. 7, 1997). 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
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40041 Summary Calendar

PHILLIP CHARLES MELONCON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICKY BLACKBURN, In his Official Capacity as Chief Sheriff, Morris County, TX, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-73

- - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ricky Charles Meloncon appeals the district court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Ricky Blackburn. Based upon a careful review of the record and the briefs, we hold, for reasons expressed by the district court, that the district court did not err in entering summary judgment for Blackburn. In light of this holding, we need not consider whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissingNo. - 2 - the complaint for failure to prosecute.
AFFIRMED.
Paritguirre 

J. 

Douglas 

served). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this 

appeal and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division 

Ahmed Elnenaey 

Dickerson Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A cep
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - May 2008 

Benefit payments May 2008 May 2007 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - ag

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ed and disabled 

$834,595,000 

553,019,000 

101,405,000 

156,826,000 

23,345,000 

$815,117,000 

538,689,000 

97,099,000 

156,451,000 

22,877,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month May 2008 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 567,500 ......... 2,300 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 275,300 $1,991 900 $2,451 ......... .........

 Age 191,100 1,959 2 300 2 3,146 $1,084 3 $1,466

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,100 1,773 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 50,200 2,259 300 2,460 1,004 1,049 

Spouses and divorced spouses 136,300 735 700 860 517 380 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 129,900 1,203 600 1,547 1,024 844 

Widowed mothers and fathers 800 1,495 4/ 1,867 775 758 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,200 802 100 857 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,000 881 4/ 1,200 708 703 

Other survivors 100 558 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

May 

2008 

$5,029,000 

May 

2007 

$5,015,000 

Number 

120,400 

Average 

$42 

Number 

400 

Average 

$41 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); about 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

May 2008 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,200 $502 $291 

Sickness 4,800 512 

May 2008 

Benefit payments 

292 

May 2007 

Unemployment

Total 

1,730,000 

$3,611,000 $4,483,000 

1,800,000 

Sickness 1,881,000 2,683,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary 

Recycled

 Paper
@misc{1202336,
  author = {Val Miller},
  title = {Recommended guide for determining and reporting uncertainties for balances and scales:},
  year = {2002},
  month = {2002-01-01 05:01:00},
  publisher = {, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.6919},
  language = {en},
}
#### In the Matter of Larry Johnson, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 822]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner refused to return to his cell while being escorted from the first aid corridor and struck a correction officer with a closed fist. Other officers responded and assisted in placing petitioner in mechanical restraints. During the struggle, petitioner bit one of the correction officers on the wrist. As a result, two misbehavior reports were filed against petitioner, one charging him with refusing a direct order, assaulting staff, disturbing the order of the facility and violating facility movement regulations and a second charging him with assaulting staff. He was found guilty of all charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior reports, together with petitioner’s admission that he struck and bit correction officers while they were attempting to subdue him, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Amaker v Carpenter,*28 AD3d 828, 829 [2006]; *Matter of Lebron v McGinnis,*26 AD3d 658, 658 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 704 [2006]). Petitioner’s claim that he was acting in self-defense presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Carter v Goord,*8 AD3d 771, 772 [2004]; *Matter of Bingham v Goord,*302 AD2d 837, 838 [2003]). Moreover, inasmuch as petitioner told the Hearing Officer that he did not wish to call any witnesses at the hearing, there is no merit to his claim that he was improperly denied the right to call witnesses *(see People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130, 142 [1985]; *Matter of Morales v Selsky,*1 AD3d 848, 849 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 510 [2004]).

*1174Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00007-CR

Raul Garza Salazar

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-DCR-1701-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
Filed 7/13/15 P. v. Magana CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOHN A. MAGANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B261157

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA152513)

THE COURT:*

Defendant John A. Magana appeals from the order denying with prejudice his 

petition for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126.1 Defendant is 

currently serving a sentence of 90 years to life pursuant to section 667, subdivisions 

(b)–(i) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (a)–(d) (the Three Strikes law).

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. Counsel filed an 

“opening brief” in which he stated he had failed to find any arguable issues. On 

March 20, 2015, we informed defendant he had 30 days in which to file a supplemental 

 

*

BOREN, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

1 All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.
brief containing any issues he wished this court to consider. No response has been 

received to date.

The record shows that on April 22, 1998, defendant was convicted of four counts 

of second degree robbery. He was sentenced to three terms of 25 years to life to be 

served consecutively and one term of 25 years to life to be served concurrently. 

Enhancements of five consecutive years were imposed for each of defendant’s three prior 

serious felonies pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). This Court affirmed the 

judgment on October 4, 1999, in case No. B124446 (unpublished opinion). 

On November 10, 2014, defendant filed his petition for recall of sentence. On 

November 13, 2014, the superior court denied his petition on the ground that “[o]ne of 

defendant’s current convictions is for second degree robbery,” which is a violent felony 

pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (c)(9). As a consequence, the court ruled that 

defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1). 

We have examined the entire record, and we are satisfied that defendant’s

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The order denying defendant’s petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
, J. 

P.3d 30, 41 (2005), abrogated in part on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC 

u. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008). Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to grant petitioner in forma pauperis status and file the 

November 1, 2014, complaint attached as exhibit 1 to his writ petition. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, Chief Judge 

Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

Stanley Earnest Rimer 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 09e197
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 678 

Commending the performance of the Special Operations Forces and a military 

working dog in the eradication of the terrorist leader of the Islamic 

State of Iraq and Syria. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2019 

Mr. ESTES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the performance of the Special Operations 

Forces and a military working dog in the eradication 

of the terrorist leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and 

Syria. 

Whereas, on October 26, 2019, members of the Special Operations Forces successfully raided the compound of Abu 

Bakr al-Baghdadi; 

Whereas al-Baghdadi founded the Islamic State of Iraq and 

Syria, one of the most depraved terrorist enemies of the 

United States; 

Whereas a military working dog, assisted members of the 

Armed Forces in Syria’s Idlib Province; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 678 IH 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces, assisted by the military working dog, located al-Baghdadi as he hid in a tunnel wearing a suicide vest; 

Whereas al-Baghdadi detonated his vest, killing himself and 

injuring the military working dog who was injured by exposed, live electrical cables in the tunnel; 

Whereas the military working dog swiftly returned to duty; 

Whereas the Armed Forces officially began using military 

working dogs in 1942; 

Whereas the most famous dog of World War II, Chips, received the Silver Star and Purple Heart for capturing a 

machine gun nest during the invasion of Sicily; and 

Whereas the role of military working dogs grew more valuable 

throughout the Korean War and the Vietnam War and 

remains an instrumental component of the military: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the immeasurable value of mili3 tary working dogs; 

4 (2) honors the military working dog assigned to 

5 the raid of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for assisting in 

6 the elimination of an enemy of the United States 

7 from the world; and 

8 (3) honors and celebrates the actions of the 

9 Special Operations Forces of the United States on 

10 October 26, 2019. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 201 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2019 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. WALDEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce in the One Hundred Sixteenth 

Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 

4 Commerce (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $22,584,586 for the One Hundred 

9 Sixteenth Congress. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 201 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $11,292,293 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2019, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2020; and 

7 (2) not more than $11,292,293 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2020, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2021. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137191 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137191 

 COA: 282368 

Kalamazoo CC: 95-001195-FC 

STANLEY PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 5, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

1215 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 30, 2008 

 Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00056-CV

Orca Assets, G.P., L.L.C.; Orca/ICI 

Development; Orca Petroleum, Ltd.; 

and Allen Berry

v.

Louis Dorfman; K.I. Holdings, Ltd.; 

Sam Myers; J.M.D. Resources, Inc.; 

Billy Cogdell Bowden; Barbara 

Standfield; Stacey Dorfman-Kivowitz; 

Julia Dorfman; Mark Dorfman; David 

Phillip Cook; Cheryl King Cook; Sam 

Y. Dorfman, Jr.; Frank Moravits, 

Individually and as Trustee of the 

Moravits Children Trust No. 1 and 

Moravits Children Trust No. 2;

Shelby Moravits; and Jerry Kortz

§

§

§

§

From the 342nd District Court

of Tarrant County (342-259139-12)

July 16, 2015

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s “Rule 166 Order on Legal Matters Decided 

by the Court.” It is ordered that the order of the trial court is affirmed.
It is further ordered that appellants Orca Assets, G.P., L.L.C.; Orca/ICI 

Development; Orca Petroleum, Ltd.; and Allen Berry shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
@inbook{1206996,
  author = {Hiroki Akamatsu and W.Bertrand (Randy) Doriese and John Mates and Brian Jackson},
  title = {Signal Readout for Transition-Edge Sensor X-ray Imaging Spectrometers},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-20 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, Springer Nature, Berlin, },
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935139},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_24-1},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 13.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) in connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of BHP Billiton Plc and BHP
Billiton Limited, (the Companies) for the annual period ended 30 June 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Companies, hereby certifies,
to such officers knowledge, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|                
|/s/ Peter Beaven
|Name:            |  | Peter Beaven           
|Title:           |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:            |  | 19 July 2017           

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronnie Coleman, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 897]

No opinion. Order filed. Concur-Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
[985 NE2d 898, 962 NYS2d 587]

#### In the Matter of Brian Ward, Respondent, v City of Long Beach, Appellant.

Argued January 2, 2013;

decided February 14, 2013

*1043APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Corey E. Klein, Corporation Counsel,*Long Beach *(Robert M. Agostisi*of counsel), for appellant.

*Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., L.L.C.,*Garden City *(Louis D. Stober, Jr.,*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner, a lieutenant in the City of Long Beach Fire Department, claimed to have suffered a work-related injury in October 2003. He filed for disability retirement with the State pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c. The State Comptroller granted that application and shortly thereafter petitioner retired from active duty. In May 2008, petitioner sought supplemental disability pension benefits from the City pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a. The Fire Commissioner denied the request, without explanation, and that determination was later upheld on appeal by the City’s Corporation Counsel. Petitioner brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and Supreme Court annulled respondent’s determination and directed respondent to pay petitioner the subject benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed.

In reviewing the City’s determination—one that was made without a hearing—the issue is whether the action taken had a “rational basis” and was not “arbitrary and capricious” *(see e.g. Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” *(Matter of Peckham v Calogero,*12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]). If the determination has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable *(id.).*

The City’s denial was based on statements made by petitioner’s estranged wife in the midst of a divorce and Corporation *1044Counsel’s personal observations of petitioner. Petitioner was given no notice of the allegations nor an opportunity to respond to them, despite the substantial contrary record evidence, including medical findings, that led to the approval of petitioner’s application for disability benefits from the State. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Appellate Division that the City’s justification for its denial lacks the requisite rational basis and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur; Judge Rivera taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.