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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3627 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3627

 To provide for the crediting of funds received by the National Guard 
                  Bureau as reimbursement from States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2021

Mr. Ryan (for himself, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Moore of Utah, Mrs. Bustos, and 
  Mr. Case) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the crediting of funds received by the National Guard 
                  Bureau as reimbursement from States.

    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 ``Guarding Readiness Resources Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU AS 
              REIMBURSEMENT FROM STATES.

    Section 710 of title 32, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Treatment of Reimbursed Funds.--(1) Any funds received by the 
National Guard Bureau from a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, as reimbursement 
under this section for the use of military property, shall be--
            ``(A) credited to--
                    ``(i) the appropriation, fund, or account used in 
                incurring the obligation; or
                    ``(ii) an appropriate appropriation, fund, or 
                account currently available for the purposes for which 
                the expenditures were made; and
            ``(B) treated as a reprogramming request, pursuant to which 
        such funds may not be obligated or disbursed until after the 
        Chief of the National Guard Bureau--
                    ``(i) submits a written request (including a budget 
                for the use of such funds, disaggregated by 
                appropriation and subactivity group) to the 
                Subcommittees on Defense of the Committees on 
                Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
                Representatives for authorization; and
                    ``(ii) receives such authorization.
    ``(2) Not later than October 31 of each year, the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau shall submit to the Subcommittees on Defense of 
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
Representatives an annual accounting of the use of the funds described 
in paragraph (1), disaggregated by appropriation and subactivity group, 
during the immediately preceding fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### DENCO BUS LINES, Inc., et al. v. ROSE.

No. 33827.

Oct. 10, 1950.

*224 P.*2d *260.*

Draper Grigsby, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Wallace Hatcher and C. J. Moody, both of Pauls Valley, for defendants in error.

HALLEY, J.

The parties will be referred to in the positions they occupied in the trial court.

The plaintiff alleged, and her evidence sustained the same, that on February 1, 1947, she was driving south on Highway 81 about a mile south of Chickasha, Oklahoma, when the car she was driving was side-swiped by a bus owned by the Denco Bus Lines and driven by the defendant Hershel H. Tremble, and that she was thrown against the steering gear of the car she was driving and suffered severe personal injuries. The defendants Den-co and Tremble denied that she was struck by any bus driven by Tremble. A jury trial was had and verdict rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed.

The defendants have assigned as error on the part of the trial court the giving of certain instructions and the failure to instruct on contributory negligence. The only error argued by them was the failure to instruct on contributory negligence, so that is the only question we will discuss. In order for it to be necessary to instruct on the question of contributory negligence there must be some evidence produced at the trial, either by the plaintiff or by the defendant, from which contributory negligence could be inferred or presumed. We have read the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, and we are unable to find any from which contributory negligence could be inferred or presumed, which would necessitate submitting the question to the jury as is required by section 6 of article 23 of the Constitution of Okla-. *467homa. We believe that our holdings in Miller v. Price, 168 Okla. 452, 33 P. 2d 624, and City of Durant v. McCurdy, 201 Okla. 137, 202 P. 2d 1078, are controlling under the facts in this case.

Affirmed.

DAVISON, C. J., and WELCH, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
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 
-                   FY2021 Justification               

#   FY2021 Justification 

##           Downloads        

FY21 FMSHRC CBJ.pdf

##### 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: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noe PINEDA-ALBARRON, a/k/a Primo, a/k/a Pedro Martinez Flores, a/k/a Noe Albarron-Pineda, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7204.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 26, 2016.

Decided: Feb. 1, 2016.

Noe Pineda-Albarron, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Noe Pineda-Albarron appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Pineda-Albarron,*No. 3:10-cr-00029-NKM-l (W.D.Va. Apr. 10, 2015). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
*Order Entered July 31, 2012:*

#### Wheeler Estate v Department of Treasury, Huzella v Department of Treasury, Wright v Department of Treasury, and Wheeler v Department of Treasury,

Docket Nos. 302251, 302259, 302261, and 302262.

The Court orders that the May 15, 2012, opinion is hereby vacated, and a new opinion is attached. ***

***

 Original opinion unpublished; new opinion reported at 297 Mich App 411—Reporter.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10159 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANGELA COKER MAYHALL, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-60-1
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Angela Coker M ayhall appeals the 20-month sentence imposed upon
revo c at i o n of supervised release. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The website of the Bureau of Prisons shows that Mayhall was released from prison on May 18, 2012, and the district court imposed no further term of supervised release. Therefore, Mayhall has no “concrete and continuing injury,” and there is no case or controversy over which this court may exercise jurisdiction under Article III, § 2, of the Constitution. See Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED a s MOOT. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 15, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pur sua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has det erm ined thatt hisop inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10159 Document: 00512054696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2012
#### Columbus Bar Association *v.*Winkfield.

[Cite as *Columbus Bar Assn. v. Winkfield,*139 Ohio St.3d 1248, 2014-Ohio-2491.]

(No. 2000-1138

Submitted May 28, 2014

Decided June 12, 2014.)

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Lawrence Edward Winkfield, Attorney Registration No. 0034254, last known business address in Westerville, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court, coming now to consider its order of April 11, 2001, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with the final year stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio on the conditions that respondent (1) serve a three-year monitored probation, with a monitor assigned by relator, and that such monitor’s principal office be located within the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area, (2) fulfill all recommendations of mental-health practitioners, including ongoing and routine psychotherapy counsel and treatment as recommended by Dr. Jerry M. Zober or another licensed psychiatrist, and (3) refrain from any illegal conduct.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period, respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating *1249that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
#### TRADERS COMPRESS CO. v. BOARD OF REVIEW, OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM. et al.

No. 34155.

Oct. 31, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1950.

*224 P. 2d*268.

Richardson, Shartel & Cochran, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Burton Duncan and Gerald S. Tebbe, both of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

WELCH, J.

This is an appeal by Traders Compress Company from an administrative order made by Board of Review of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the questions presented by the appeal are moot. A response has been filed in which it is shown that by reason of the lapse of time the relief sought by the plaintiff in error can no longer be obtained.

We have held that the Supreme Court will not attempt to determine abstract, hypothetical, or moot questions, but, where it is made to appear that the qúestíons brought up for review have become moot, the proceedings will be *565dismissed. Glass et al. v. Banfield Bros. Packing Co., 168 Okla. 217, 32 P. 2d 713; Douglas v. Baker, 167 Okla. 348, 29 P. 2d 619; Campbell v. Reynolds, 167 Okla. 365, 29 P. 2d 941; State ex rel. Rives v. Halley, 167 Okla. 504, 30 P. 2d 915; Hudson v. Moore, 169 Okla. 12, 35 P. 2d 886.

Appeal dismissed.

ARNOLD, V. C. J., and CORN, HALLEY, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur. GIBSON and LUTTRELL, JJ., dissent.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector David PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7299.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 8, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 29, 2016.

Hector David Portillo, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hector David Portillo appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Portillo,*No. l:95-cr-00522-LMB-1 (E.D.Va. July 7, 2015). We deny Portillo’s motion for summary disposition. 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.

*AFFIRMED,*
#### Lawrence A. RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ronnie PENNINGTON, Sheriff, Rankin County Jail, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-60949

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2010.

Lawrence A. Ray, Raymond, MS, pro se.

James Lawson Hester, Page, Kruger & Holland, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lawrence A. Ray filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his constitutional rights based on a period of pretrial confinement in a state *835criminal case. His case was dismissed in a final judgment. This appeal is from the November 5, 2009 order denying his motion to reopen the case. Because that motion sought relief from the final judgment and was filed more than 10 days after the entry of judgment, it is considered a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). *See Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc.,*933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir.1991). Ray’s notice of appeal was not timely as to the final judgment dismissing his case. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of that judgment. *See Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); *Knapp v. Dow Corning Corp.,*941 F.2d 1336, 1337-38 (5th Cir.1991). Instead, Ray’s appeal is limited to review of the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. *See Pryor v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*769 F.2d 281, 284-86 (5th Cir.1985).

The denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi,*635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir.1981). “It is not enough that the granting of relief might have been permissible, or even warranted — denial must have been so *unwarranted*as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” *Id.*Ray contends that incompetence and misconduct by his counsel effectively deprived him of all representation in his case. Ray’s case was dismissed after consideration of the merits of his claims, and Ray has not shown that there was malfeasance by his counsel warranting relief from the judgment. *See Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.,*699 F.2d 693, 697 (5th Cir.1983). The magistrate judge’s denial of Ray’s Rule 60(b) motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Ray also reiterates the merits of his claims regarding his pretrial confinement. Those contentions are unavailing in this appeal, as his Rule 60(b) motion may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal of the merits of the dismissal of his case. *See Knapp,*941 F.2d at 1338.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Gerald Carmicheal CAMPBELL, Plaintiff—Appellant v. E.M. SECURITY, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-13018

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2010.

Gerald Carmicheal Campbell, Savannah, GA, pro se.

Before BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Campbell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination suit. Campbell challenges the court’s denial of his request for appointed *345counsel. However, Campbell’s request was moot because his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint was untimely — well beyond the 180-day limit. Equitable tolling was inapplicable to this deadline because Campbell did not provide any reason for his late filing. *See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,*455 U.S. 385, 398, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982). Thus, the court correctly dismissed his case and denied his request for counsel as moot.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 No. 33-75268 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Purchase Plan, No. 33-80662 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No. 33-93394 pertaining to the 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, No.333-29801 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No. 333-60057 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No. 333-79789 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No. 333-43504 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Purchase Planand No. 333-72098 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and Registration Statements on Forms S-3 No. 333-38266 and No. 333-54912 of InSite Vision Incorporated of our report dated January 30, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of InSite Vision Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Palo Alto, California 

March 27, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3613 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 333
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3613

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2022

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

               April 4 (legislative day, March 31), 2022

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 202 Trumbull Street in Saint Clair, Michigan, as the ``Corporal 
            Jeffrey Robert Standfest Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JEFFREY ROBERT STANDFEST POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 202 Trumbull Street in Saint Clair, Michigan, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Corporal Jeffrey Robert Standfest Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Jeffrey Robert Standfest Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 333

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3613

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 202 Trumbull Street in Saint Clair, Michigan, as the ``Corporal 
            Jeffrey Robert Standfest Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

               April 4 (legislative day, March 31), 2022

                       Reported without amendment
```