alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas G. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. Wilber M. BRUCKER, Secretary of the Army, et al., Appellees.

No. 13544.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 10, 1957.

Decided May 23, 1957.

*781Mr. Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Peter H. Schiff, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appel-lees.

Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub, and Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Paul A. Sweeney, and Morton Hollander, Attys., Dept, of Justice, were on the brief for appellees.

Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a veterans preference eligible, held an indefinite civil service appointment in the Springfield Ordnance District. His position was abolished, thus causing his reduction in force. He contends that within the meaning of section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, 58 Stat. 390, as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 8611 ******he was a “competing employee” with non-veterans holding positions in lower grades and that he should have been retained in their stead. The regulations of the Civil Service Commission, however, do not give to a veterans preference eligible holding an indefinite appointment a right to be retained in a lower grade in preference to those in that grade who are not veterans preference eligibles.2 We cannot say that this effect of the regulations is so inconsistent with the Veterans Preference Act as to require the Court to reach a conclusion different from that of the officials charged with primary responsibility in administering the Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court in favor of appellees, granted on their motion for summary judgment, is

Affirmed.

1

. Section 12 provides in pertinent part: “In any reduction of personnel * * * competing employees shall be released in accordance with Civil Service Commission regulations which shall give due effect to * * * military preference . * # *_»

2

. Employees in different grades may be in the same “competitive level” if they can be readily interchanged without undue interruption to the work program. *§*20.2 (f) of the Commission’s Regulations. Appellant does not urge that the jobs are so interchangeable.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRY PRESTON ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-91-11-ST-MU, CA-94-83-5-MU) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert J. Breimann, Jr., STREET, STREET, STREET, SCOTT & BOWMAN, Grundy, Virginia, for Appellant. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Adams , Nos. CR91-11-ST-MU; CA-94-83-5-MU (W.D.N.C. May 31, 1996). 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
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Congratulates Parties in Resolving Gulf Coast Rail Dispute - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5k0bftxlXk\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-congratulates-parties-in-resolving-gulf-coast-rail-dispute\/\">FMCS Congratulates Parties in Resolving Gulf Coast Rail Dispute<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-congratulates-parties-in-resolving-gulf-coast-rail-dispute\/embed\/#?secret=5k0bftxlXk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Congratulates Parties in Resolving Gulf Coast Rail Dispute” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"5k0bftxlXk\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C. (Nov. 25, 2022) \u2013 The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) congratulates Amtrak, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern and the Port of Mobile (Ala.) on their Nov. 22 agreement, ending more than six years of challenging negotiations. The parties began mediation with FMCS in June after the dispute was brought before the Surface Transportation […]"}
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3505 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3505

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a refundable tax 
    credit against income tax for certain healthcare professionals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2021

   Mr. Higgins of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a refundable tax 
    credit against income tax for certain healthcare professionals.

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

SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 36A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 36A CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS.

    ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual who is a 
healthcare professional with respect to the taxable year, there shall 
be allowed a credit of $5,000 against the tax imposed by this subtitle 
for such taxable year.
    ``(b) Healthcare Professional Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term `healthcare professional' means, with respect to any 
taxable year, any individual who, at any time during such taxable year, 
is--
            ``(1) a practitioner, as such term is defined in section 
        1842(b)(18)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1395u(b)(18)(C)),
            ``(2) a certified nursing assistant,
            ``(3) a licensed practical nurse or registered professional 
        nurse, or
            ``(4) a home health aide.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986 is amended by inserting ``, 36A'' after ``36''.
            (2) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
        amended by inserting ``, 36A'' after ``, 36''.
            (3) The table of section for subpart C of part IV of 
        subchapter A of chapter 1 such Code is amended by amending the 
        item relating to section 36A to read as follows:

``36A. Credit for certain healthcare professionals.''.
                                 <all>
```
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Company, WEVA 2006-853, et al              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Company, WEVA 2006-853, et al

April 10-2014-Wolf Run meeting.pdf

April 10-2014-Wolf Run meeting.htm

sol-vs.wolf-run-mining-docket-weva2006-853-et-al.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENYATTA LATCHISON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

T. FELKER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-16340

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00370-FCDCHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Senior United States District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 13, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Kenyatta Latchison appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm.

FILED

JUN 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Latchison was convicted of second-degree murder and assault on a child

causing death. He argues that two of the prosecutor’s comments during closing

arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct, and that his trial counsel provided

ineffective assistance by failing to object to one of the comments.

The prosecutor’s first comment addressed the burden of proof only

indirectly, the jury was properly instructed, and the prosecutor’s prior and

subsequent statements correctly set forth the burden of proof. Accordingly,

Latchison cannot show that the remark “had substantial and injurious effect or

influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619,

623 (1993) (citation omitted). For the same reasons, he cannot show that “there is

a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s [failure to object to the remark,] the

result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).

The state court construed the prosecutor’s second comment as a permissible

attack on the credibility of a defense witness. Because that decision was not an

unreasonable application of Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986), Latchison

is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

AFFIRMED.
#### Thomas Joseph ISBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-6749.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2016.

Thomas Joseph Isbell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*201Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges,

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Joseph Isbell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent *“a*substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Isbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Isbell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41329

Conference Calendar

 

GERALD DANIEL BEAUMONT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CV-642

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

June 13, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Daniel Beaumont, federal prisoner # 07336-035,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Beaumont argues that he

properly raised his claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition; that,

in the alternative, he comes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 savings

clause; and that the district court failed to consider the merits

of his petition.

Beaumont argues that insufficient evidence supported his

conviction and that the evidence improperly broadened the
No. 00-41329

-2-

indictment. Beaumont’s claims should have been raised in a

§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence because a

§ 2255 motion is the proper manner for a federal prisoner to

challenge his conviction or sentence. See Reyes-Requena v.

United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900-01 (5th Cir. 2001). Beaumont

does not meet the requirements for the § 2255 savings clause

because he has not demonstrated that his relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 was inadequate or ineffective. See id. at 901-02, 904. 

Beaumont was not entitled to a consideration of the merits of his

claim because he was not authorized to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3351 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3351

To amend title 5, United States Code, to correct a legislative drafting 
  error in such title, to eliminate the reduction in pay of a Federal 
employee or District of Columbia employee as a result of such employee 
serving as a member of the National Guard of the District of Columbia, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2021

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to correct a legislative drafting 
  error in such title, to eliminate the reduction in pay of a Federal 
employee or District of Columbia employee as a result of such employee 
serving as a member of the National Guard of the District of Columbia, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia National Guard 
Federal Employee Leave Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CREDITING AMOUNTS RECEIVED AGAINST PAY OF FEDERAL 
              EMPLOYEE OR DC EMPLOYEE SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE 
              NATIONAL GUARD OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) In General.--Section 5519 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``or (c)''.
    (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any amounts credited, by operation of such section 5519, against the 
pay of an employee or individual described under section 6323(c) of 
such title during the period beginning on January 6, 2021, and ending 
on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GUSTAVO GAYTAN-SALIM , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50493

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-01123-LAB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Gusta vo Ga y ta n -Sa l im a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t and c ha lle nge s the 75-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED OCT 19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Gay ta n-Sa lim c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d

by de c lining to a

ward a m inor-role a djustm e n t unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1 .2(b). W e re v ie w a distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theGuide line s de novo a n d its de te rm ination tha

t a de fe nda nt wa s not a m inor role pa

rtic i pa nt for c le ar e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Hurtado , 760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2014), c e rt. de nie d , 135 S.C t . 1467 (2015). The re c o rd re fle c t s tha

t the c ourt prope rly

a pplie d the Guide line s a

nd our pre c e d e nt, c onside ring the tota lity of the c irc um sta nc e s a s we ll a s Ga

y ta n-Sa lim ’ s role in the sm uggling ope ra tion. Se e id . at 1068-69; U nite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z-C a stro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th C ir. 2011). Thedistric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in de ny ing the a djustm e nt. Se e Hurtado , 760 F.3d a t 1068-69. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 0 4 9 3 2