alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
153 So.2d 252

#### Barbara Ann Cunningham WAGNER v. Willie Ray CUNNINGHAM.

4 Div. 153.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 9, 1963.

W. R. Martin, Ozark, for appellant.

No attorney for appellee.

LAWSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree wherein the trial court refused to modify the provisions of a divorce decree relative to the-custody of a minor child, a young boy.

The wife, appellant, secured the divorce from appellee on June 21, 1961. Cruelty was the ground on which the divorce decree was based. The custody provisions of the decree were pursuant to a written agreement which was made a part of the decree and which provided:

> “(a) From the date of execution of this agreement until the date said minor enters the public schools First Party [the father] is to have custody and exclusive control for one week and then Second Party [the mother] is to have custody and exclusive control for one week. Commencement of the custody period to be determined by the parties hereto.

> “(b) From the date said minor enters the public schools custody is to be as follows:

> “From Sunday at S :00 P.M. until Friday at 5 :00 P.M. each week, Second Party has exclusive custody and control.

> “From Friday at S :00 P.M. until Sunday at 5 :00 P.M. each week First Party has exclusive custody and control.

> “Each party is to pick up the minor child when his or her custody period begins.

> “However, during the vacation period or during the summer months when the child is not attending school, the periods of custody rights are exactly reversed for each party.'

> “The custody rights as herein set out may be altered from time to time upon mutual agreement of the parties hereto.”

Since the divorce, the father and mother have married other persons. Both of them were still living in Dale County at the time 'the petition for modification was filed on September 4, 1962. But the mother’s present husband is in the military service and *176is stationed in New Jersey. She wants to join her husband and wants to take the young boy with her. To that end she sought to have the custody provisions of the divorce decree modified so as to permit her to take the child with her to New Jersey. He is now of school age. In other words, she wanted custody of the child during the school months without any right of visitation to the father on weekends.

As before indicated, the trial judge refused to order a modification. We cannot say that he erred in concluding that such a modification would not be to the best interest of the child.

Remarriage of the party or parties to a divorce is not in and of itself such a material change as to justify modification of an original decree awarding custody. McBride v. McBride, 268 Ala. 619, 109 So.2d 718, and cases cited. In the instant case, there has been no change in circumstances other than remarriage.

The decree of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
§ 603.10 Conditions for disclosure. ( a ) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, no Record contained in a SOR shall be disclosed by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, unless prior written consent is obtained from the Individual to whom the Record pertains.
( b ) The limitations on disclosure contained in paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply when disclosure of a Record is: ( 1 ) To employees of the NCPC for use in the performance of their duties;
( 2 ) Required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 555;
( 3 ) For a Routine Use as described in a SORN;
( 4 ) To the Bureau of Census for statistical purposes, provided that the Record must be transferred in a form that precludes individual identification;
( 5 ) To an Individual who provides NCPC adequate written assurance that the Record shall be used solely for statistical or research purposes, provided that the Record must be transferred in a form that precludes Individual identification;
( 6 ) To the NARA because the Record warrants permanent retention because of historical or other national value as determined by NARA or to permit NARA to determine whether the Record has such value;
( 7 ) To a law enforcement agency for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity, provided that the law enforcement agency must submit a written request to the NCPC specifying the Record(s) sought and the purpose for which they will be used;
( 8 ) To any person upon demonstration of compelling information that an Individual's health or safety is at stake and provided that upon disclosure, notification is given to the Individual to whom the Record pertains at that Individual's last known address;
( 9 ) To either House of Congress, and any committee or subcommittee thereof, to include joint committees of both houses and any subcommittees thereof, when a Record falls within their jurisdiction;
( 10 ) To the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, to allow the Government Accountability Office to perform its duties;
( 11 ) Pursuant to a court order by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
( 12 ) To a consumer reporting agency trying to collect a claim of the government as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
#### § 1000.461 What must a Tribe/Consortium do if an organizational conflict of interest arises under an AFA?

This section only applies if the conflict was not addressed when the AFA was first negotiated. When a Tribe/Consortium becomes aware of an organizational conflict of interest, the Tribe/Consortium must immediately disclose the conflict to the Secretary.
### **CHAPTER 723—SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES**

Sec.
7213.
Corps of Engineers: assignment or transfer of officers to duties involving civil functions.
7214.
Corps of Engineers: detail of officers to assist Mayor of District of Columbia.
7216.
Leader of Army Band: appointment.
7217.
Duties: chaplains; assistance required of commanding officers.
7218.
Duties: warrant officers; limitations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(e)(2)(A), (f)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839, redesignated chapter 343 of this title as this chapter and items 3533, 3534, 3536, 3547, and 3548 as 7213, 7214, 7216, 7217, and 7218, respectively.

**2016**—Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title V, §502(s)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2104, struck out item 3543 "Aides: detail; number authorized".

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1672(b)(5), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3015, struck out items 3541 "National Guard Bureau: assignment of officers of regular or reserve components" and 3542 "Chief and assistant chief of staff of divisions of Army National Guard in Federal service: detail".

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §§502(13), 512(5)(C), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2910, 2929, struck out items 3531 "Chief of Staff to President: appointment", 3532 "Assistant to Comptroller of Department of Defense: detail, grade", and 3535 "Assistant to Chief of Engineers", and in item 3534 substituted "Mayor" for "Commissioner".

**1968**—Pub. L. 90–623, §2(6), Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1314, substituted "Corps of Engineers: detail of officers to assist Commissioner of District of Columbia" for "Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia; assistants; detail" in item 3534.

Pub. L. 90–235, §4(a)(3), (10), (b)(2), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 759, 760, struck out item 3538 "Geological Survey: detail of officers of Ordinance Corps", item 3539 "American National Red Cross: detail of officers of Army Medical Service", item 3544 "Duties: regular officers; performance of civil functions restricted", and item 3545 "Duties: officers; superintendence of cooking for enlisted members".

**1964**—Pub. L. 88–647, title III, §301(8), Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1071, struck out item 3540 "Educational institutions: detail of members of regular or reserve components as professors and instructors in military science and tactics".

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–861, §1(84), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1481, struck out item 3546 "Duties: officers of Medical Corps, contract surgeons; attendance on families of members".
### **CHAPTER 1201—AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE**

Sec.
12001.
Authorized strengths: reserve components.
12002.
Authorized strengths: Army and Air Force reserve components, exclusive of members on active duty.
12003.
Authorized strengths: commissioned officers in an active status.
12004.
Strength in grade: reserve general and flag officers in an active status.
12005.
Strength in grade: commissioned officers in grades below brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) in an active status.
12006.
Strength limitations: authority to waive in time of war or national emergency.
12007.
Reserve officers of the Army: distribution.
12008.
Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve: warrant officers.
12009.
Army and Air Force reserve components: temporary increases.
12010.
Computations for Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve: rule when fraction occurs in final result.
12011.
Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the reserves or the National Guard.
12012.
Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active duty or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the reserves or the National Guard.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title V, §515(b)(4)(H), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3235, substituted "Navy Reserve" for "Naval Reserve" in item 12010.

**1999**—Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1066(a)(31), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 772, inserted "in an" after "officers" in item 12003.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6091

JAMES LEE HOOKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-96-661-2)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 16, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lee Hooker, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 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

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Hooker v. Angelone, No. CA-96-661-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Mary E. Beck, Respondent, v. Carrie Beck and Others, Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with'ten dollars costs. Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1635

CLA R ETTA C. GREEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DENIS R. MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv - 00788

- DCN )

Submitted : March 2, 2021 Decided: March 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Edward M. Brown, EDWARD M. BROWN LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter M. McCoy, Jr., United States Attorney, William Hammond Jordan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Claretta C. Green, a n African American female, appeals the district court’s order accepting the mag istrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on Green’s race and sex discrimination claims , brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) , 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2 000e

- 17. * On appeal, Green assigns error to the district court’s determination that Green failed to adequately plead that the VA’s failure to comply with its post

- payment procedures was an adverse employment action to support her discrimination claims. G reen also asserts that the court erred in finding there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the VA acted with discriminatory intent when it reported Green to the National Practitioner Data Bank and the South Carolina Board of Nursing.
W e have considered the parties’ arguments and reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. See Green v. Wilkie , No. 2:18

- cv - 00788

- DCN ( D.S. C

. May 11 , 2020 ). We dispense with oral argument because

* Green also brought a Title VII harassment claim against the VA, as well as a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act ( “ FMLA ” ) , 29 U.S.C. §§ 26011

- 2654 , and a Fifth Amendment due process claim

. Green abandoned her harassment and FMLA claims in her opposition to the VA’s summary judgment motion , and later abandoned her due process claim by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss that claim. See Martin v. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985)

.3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### STATE OF MONTANA ex rel TONY BAKER, Petitioners, *v.*SHERIFF OF LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, and JUDGE PETER MELOY of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, Respondent.

No. 13885.

July 7, 1977.

565 P.2d 646.

ORDER

The verified petitioner of petitioner, TONY BAKER, for a writ of habeas corpus having been presented to the Court, and the Court having reviewed said verified petition,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said petition is summarily denied.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

                    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public telephone meeting on Friday, January 6, 2012, beginning at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be audio webcast on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.sec.gov.*

On December 15, 2011, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9285), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.

The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of a recommendation to the Commission on relaxing current restrictions on general solicitation and advertising in exempt offerings of securities.

For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: December 29, 2011.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-33775 Filed 12-29-11; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
### §1462. Assets of Fund

There shall be deposited into the Fund the following, which shall constitute the assets of the Fund:

(1) Amounts paid into the Fund under section 1466 of this title.

(2) Any amount appropriated to the Fund.

(3) Any return on investment of the assets of the Fund.

(Added Pub. L. 98–94, title IX, §925(a)(1), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 645.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Appropriations

Pub. L. 98–94, title IX, §925(b)(3), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 648, required transfer into the Fund on Oct. 1, 1984, of any unobligated balances of appropriations made to the Department of Defense that had been currently available for retired pay, and provided that amounts so transferred would be deemed part of the assets of the Fund.
§ 115.815 How does a tribe request trust funds from a tribal trust account? To request trust funds from a tribal trust account, a tribe may: ( a ) Make a written request to the BIA or the OTFM that is signed by the proper authorizing official(s), list the amount of trust funds to be withdrawn, provide any additional documentation or information required by law to withdraw certain trust funds, and must include a tribal resolution approving the withdrawal of the specified amount of trust funds; or
( b ) Contact the OTFM to withdraw funds in accordance with the Trust Reform Act and 25 CFR part 1200.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Public Affairs

We are aware of the ballistic missile launches and are consulting closely with our allies and partners. While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies, the missile launches highlight the destabilizing impact of the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs. The U.S. commitments to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remain ironclad.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00409-CV

YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND COMMISSIONER OF 

EDUCATION

v.

EDITH PORTER, JENNIFER ADAMS, AND RITA VASQUEZ

On Appeal from the

261st District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-1-GN-12-002831

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. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 13, 2015
#### Lloyd Dagley v. The State.

No. 22903.

Delivered June 14, 1944.

Rehearing Denied October 18, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Hawkins & Myers,*of Houston, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of an automobile over the value of $50.00. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

There are no bills of exception in the record complaining of the admission or exclusion of any evidence, nor any objections to .the court’s charge.

The only, question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The State’s evidence, briefly stated, shows that at 11:00 or 11:30 P. M. on the 28th day of November, 1943, J. B. Martin parked his automobile on Louisiana Street in the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas. The next morning he discovered that it was gone. He did not give the appellant or anyone else his consent to take it. On the night in question, two city policemen noticed the car in question *500being driven on Fannin Street. They observed that it did not have any rear license plate. The officers followed the car around the block and overtook it. They inquired of the appellant ( who was driving it) where the keys to the car were, to "which he replied that he had lost them and therefore wired around the switch so as to operate it. He told the officers that- he had purchased the automobile about two or three weeks prior thereto from the Cox Motor Company.

On his trial appellant testified that a soldier boy, whom he did not know and had never seen before the night in question, loaned him the car to take a drunk woman home, but she declined to go with him. He admitted that he had been .to the penitentiary twice before.

I-t is our opinion that the evidence is ample upon which the jury could base their conclusion of his guilt.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant insists that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction, and that we erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.

To accept appellant’s version would do violence to the rule that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property is a sufficient circumstance upon which a jury may conclude that such possessor was guilty of theft of the property. 25 Texas Digest, Larceny, Sec. 64, page 637.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
### §1169. Regular enlisted members: limitations on discharge

No regular enlisted member of an armed force may be discharged before his term of service expires, except—

(1) as prescribed by the Secretary concerned;

(2) by sentence of a general or special court martial; or

(3) as otherwise provided by law.

(Added Pub. L. 90–235, §3(a)(1)(A), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 757.)
§ 11.446 Cruelty to animals. A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she purposely or recklessly: ( a ) Subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; or
( b ) Subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; or
( c ) Kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner.
( d ) Causes one animal to fight with another.