alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hickman v. Hickman.

Oct. 23, 1942.

*689J. K. Beasley for appellant.

Fred M. Jones for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Tilford

— Affirming.

Appellant sued appellee for divorce from bed and board and alimony on the ground of “habitual drinking,” wasting of His estate, and failure to provide for plaintiff, “as he should do, or for their children.” The appellee counterclaimed for an absolute divorce on the grounds of cruelty and five years living separate and apart without cohabitation. The Chancellor dismissed appellant’s petition and granted appellee the relief sought by him on his counterclaim. A reversal of so much of the decree as denies appellant alimony is sought upon the authority of our decisions that a husband in fault is not relieved, by a divorce erroneously granted, of the duty of supporting his consort.

The parties are middle aged and the parents of two adult sons, one of whom is married. The appellee for many years has been employed by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company as a flagman and extra conductor. He is heavily indebted for bills incurred by his wife, and she is without property or income, and in “medium” health. But a consideration of the record convinces us that appellant is responsible for the predicament in which she finds herself. Her acrimonious testimony in support of her accusations of cruelty and excessive drinking, though corroborated in part by the obviously biased testimony of her sons, is unconvincing, especially when weighted against that of appellee and of the disinterested witness who refuted the wholly vague and unsupported charges of immorality which she so freely hurled against her husband in explaining her refusal to cohabit with him. He appears to have been an industrious and sober “railroader,” who, according to the testimony of his superior, could not have retained his position with the Railroad had he been addicted to the abuse of liquor.

Appellant collected appellee’s pay cheeks for many years, and when that practice was forbidden by the Company, insisted that appellee deliver them to her. When he did so and his earnings were satisfactory, he appears to have been tolerated. Otherwise, according to his testimony, he was persecuted by both his wife and sons. *690With his money she defrayed the household expenses without accounting to him, and he appears to have been without voice in the matter of expenditures. He occupied a separate upstairs back bedroom, did his own washing, and bathed in the basement under a shower, although the house contained a bathroom. Frequently he was compelled to prepare his own meals, and on occasions was locked out of the house. While his charge that he and his wife had lived separate and apart without any cohabitation for five consecutive years was not satisfactorily established in view of their occupancy of the same house, his charge of cruelty was at least proven to the satisfaction of the Chancellor, whose findings of fact we are loath to disturb when we have no more than a doubt as to their correctness.

Judgment affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 582.99

 581.32

 584.05

 581.89

 581.50

 581.00

 582.83

 583.02

 581.41

 581.08

 580.91

 580.13

 584.04

 583.46

 583.97

 580.85

 579.55

 583.48

 581.41

 582.82

 581.11

 582.11

 581.68

 583.78

 582.14

 580.86

 584.62

 581.81

 582.13

 583.33

 21,277

 20,288

 21,921

 20,622

 20,393

 20,100

 21,182

 21,295

 20,340

 20,147

 20,048

 19,599

 21,915

 21,562

 21,872

 20,014

 19,271

 21,574

 20,340

 21,176

 20,164

 20,752

 20,498

 21,756

 20,770

 20,019

 22,273

 20,575

 20,764

 21,483

STORAGE

-534

-989

+1,633

-1,299

-229

-293

+1,082

+113

-955

-193

-99

-449

+2,316

-353

+310

-1,858

-743

+2,303

-1,234

+836

-1,012

+588

-254

+1,258

-986

-751

+2,254

-1,698

+189

+719

CHANGE

21,795

21,564

23,152

35,804

39,094

39,331

39,518

38,691

38,614

39,415

34,078

22,686

41,844

40,549

40,231

33,230

29,698

31,532

29,903

30,107

23,622

24,459

20,602

21,022

20,267

20,094

21,387

16,388

13,846

12,088

INFLOW

 14,327

 14,340

 14,493

 13,459

 13,387

 13,377

 13,229

 13,195

 13,328

 13,429

 13,319

 14,104

 12,974

 12,779

 12,675

 13,292

 13,385

 13,788

 13,949

 13,792

 14,470

 14,737

 14,939

 14,780

 15,050

 14,845

 14,795

 15,100

 13,614

 11,637

POWER

 7,652

 7,636

 7,749

 22,914

 25,736

 26,012

 25,656

 25,352

 25,680

 25,996

 20,723

 8,720

 27,608

 27,860

 27,312

 20,788

 16,601

 16,496

 16,488

 15,807

 9,572

 9,337

 5,704

 5,520

 5,628

 5,540

 5,366

 2,055

 45

 0

SPILL

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

 85

FISHTRAP

 0

 2

 2

 1

 1

 5

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 3

 9

 3

 3

 2

 2

 2

 3

 2

 5

 4

 2

 3

 1

 3

 5

 4

 7

 4

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2006 KESWICK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 9, 2006

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -328 864,611 414,588 447,553 2,550 87

ACRE-FEET -328 1,714,956 822,335 887,721 5,058 173

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 822,335

SPILL 887,721

 21,811

FISH TRAP 5,058

SPRING

CR. P. P.

RELEASE (1)

 2,147

 2,141

 2,144

 2,140

 2,139

 2,145

 2,139

 2,134

 2,140

 2,142

 2,124

 1,931

 3,396

 3,946

 4,137

 4,134

 4,132

 4,159

 4,180

 2,988

 2,984

 2,982

 2,796

 2,822

 2,114

 80

 1,007

 1,668

 3,245

 3,043

 79,279

 157,250

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND EVAPORATION.

SHASTA

RELEASE

C.F.S

 19,290

 19,107

 20,489

 33,796

 36,980

 37,107

 37,596

 36,892

 36,570

 37,262

 30,995

 18,934

 37,803

 36,333

 35,458

 28,877

 25,309

 27,540

 25,524

 26,977

 20,188

 21,344

 17,690

 18,224

 18,021

 20,043

 20,479

 14,401

 10,666

 8,637

 778,532

 1,544,218

Table 8
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

#### § 26.74 Release of pledged securities or cash (including cash equivalents).

Securities of the United States pledged and deposited as provided in § 26.63(a), will be released only in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR part 225. Securities and cash (including cash equivalents) will not be released by the appropriate TTB officer until the liability under the bond for which they were pledged has been terminated. When the appropriate TTB officer is satisfied that they may be released, the appropriate TTB officer will fix the date or dates on which a part or all of such securities and cash (including cash equivalents) may be released. At any time prior to the release, the appropriate TTB officer may extend the date of release for such additional length of time as the appropriate TTB officer deems necessary.

(61 Stat. 650; 6 U.S.C. 15)

[T.D. TTB-146, 82 FR 1131, Jan. 4, 2017]
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed March 23, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01060-CV KEJUAN KNOX, Appellant V. EXCHANGE 7272, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-04609-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue . After appellant failed to respond to our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record , we ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brie f to be filed by Febr uary 27, 2023. By postcard dated March 3, 2023, we informed appellant his brie f was overdue and directed him to file his brief within ten da ys. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed his br ief or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding th e status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

221060F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT KEJUAN KNOX, Appellant
No. 05-22-01060-CV V. EXCHANGE 7272, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-04609- E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered March 23, 2023
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 172

 169

 170

 169

 174

 175

 175

 174

 182

 175

 179

 178

 173

 179

 180

 180

 180

 181

 153

 162

 168

 161

 141

 137

 147

 133

 111

 121

 126

 135

 135

 150

 151

 153

 153

 155

 155

 149

 154

 153

 148

 149

 157

 159

 157

 160

 153

 159

 157

 127

 133

 157

 137

 127

 121

 133

 107

 104

 107

 117

 124

 130

 159

 159

 161

 160

 162

 161

 162

 161

 163

 160

 169

 165

 165

 168

 168

 165

 167

 172

 135

 151

 162

 149

 134

 129

 140

 114

 107

 116

 122

 130

 132

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 27, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

GREENS LANDING ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MORRIS LYNN JOHNSON, Petitioner,
v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo. 12-0542 (RJL)



# _________________________ )**MEMORAN~INION** August
__ , 2012 Petitioner "moves this Honorable court for issuance ofa writ ofHabeas Corpus, ordering the reinstatement, or [termination of] his Parole pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2241." Pet. at 1 [Dkt. #1]. A habeas action is subjecttojurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the petitioner's warden, Rumsfeldv. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), and "adistrict court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorialjurisdiction,"Stokes v. US. Parole Comm 'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Court will grant respondent's motion to transfer this matterto the district in whichpetitioner currently is incarcerated, the Southern District ofIndiana. An Order is issued separately.

United States DistrictJudge
### SUBCHAPTER III—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STRENGTHENING INSTRUCTION IN ACADEMIC SUBJECTS
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications (CGP).
Title:Quadrennial      Energy Review Act [electronic resource] : hearing before the      Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One      Hundred Twelfth Congress, first session, to receive testimony on the      Department of Energy’s Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) and two      bills pending before the committee: S. 1703--Quadrennial Energy Review      Act of 2011, and S. 1807--Energy Research and Development Coordination      Act of 2011, November 15, 2011
 
 
SuDocs Number: Y 4.EN 2:S.HRG.112-188

Item    Number: [if !vml]>[endif]> [if !vml]>[endif]>1040-C (online)

System    Number: 000866737
 
 
 
 
 
[ERRATA]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  April 23, 2020  Page Name:  http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/
perm |
|--|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear by T.D. ATF-235, 66 FR 5473, Jan. 19, 2001, and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

§ 20.146 Labels on bulk containers. ( a ) Completely denatured alcohol in bulk containers with a capacity exceeding 1 gallon shall be labeled on the head or side of the container or on the side of the casing, with the following: ( 1 ) The name and address of the person filling the containers;
( 2 ) The contents in gallons:
( 3 ) The words “Completely Denatured Alcohol”; and
( 4 ) The formula number.
( b ) Packages of 5 gallons or less shall bear labels required by § 20.147, in lieu of the labels required by this section.
( c ) The letters and figures used for marking packages shall be large enough to be easily read and, when printed, labeled, or stenciled, shall be in permanent ink and shall contrast distinctly with the background to which applied.
( d ) Packages may also be marked with the brand name and a statement to the type of merchandise contained in the package if these markings do not obscure or detract from the required markings. The person filling the packages shall maintain the record required by § 20.261.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID HERRERA

,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 2 18

- C R

Appeal from the

396 th D istrict Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1296382R )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Herrera has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. Rule 42.2(a) permits an appellate

court to dismiss a criminal appeal on the appellant ’ s motion at any time before the court ’ s

decision. T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.2(a). Finding that Appellant has complied with the requirements of

Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

October 29, 2014

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. Senior Judge (Sitting by assignment , not participa ting )
Renewable Energy System Tax Credit, is available at :

http://www.energy.utah.gov/
April 10, 2013 

To: The Department of Transportation 

From: Michael S. Phillips, 

President of Lewistown Rotary Club 

RE: Lewistown Air Service 

The purpose of this letter is to represent several local area business men and women who 

are involved in Rotary together about how important we·feel it is to keep the Essential 

Air Service funding for our local airport. 

With Lewistown being one hundred plus miles from either Billings or Great Falls, we 

feel it remains very important to the economic viability of this rural community that we 

maintain an airline provider. Our local economic development group has been diligently 

working to develop an industrial park near our airport. Without the use of a public air 

service, this idea may not be realized as we also do not have bus or train service. In 

closing, please consider Lewistown in your EAS benefits for our local community. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Michael S. Phillips 

Lewistown Rotary President 

msp 

1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3699 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3699

To amend title 31, United States Code, to require an annual report from 
the Financial Management Service within the Department of the Treasury 
regarding amounts paid or payable by Federal agencies to the judgement 
                     fund, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 2015

Mr. Westmoreland (for himself, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, and Mr. Smith of 
  Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to require an annual report from 
the Financial Management Service within the Department of the Treasury 
regarding amounts paid or payable by Federal agencies to the judgement 
                     fund, 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 ``Judgement Fund Taxpayer 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT FROM THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE.

    Section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) Not later than January 1 of each year, the Financial 
Management Service shall report to Congress the following information 
with regard to each agency (as defined in section 551 of title 5) on 
account of payments made from sums appropriated by this section:
            ``(1) The total amount paid in reimbursement by that agency 
        during the preceding fiscal year on account of each such 
        payment.
            ``(2) The total amount still due from that agency in 
        reimbursement for each such payment, as of the end of the 
        preceding fiscal year.
            ``(3) For each of the amounts described in paragraph (1) or 
        (2), the name of the plaintiff or claimant to whom the payment 
        was made from sums so appropriated.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12.2
 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
              By:
    /s/ Steve SunName:
    Steve SunTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
### subpart 1—program for middle and secondary school students
### §§3871 to 3876. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–297, title I, §1003(a), Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 293

Section 3871, Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §591, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 480; Pub. L. 98–211, §15, Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1416, related to Federal regulations.

Section 3872, Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §592, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 480; Pub. L. 98–211, §16, Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1417, related to withholding of payments.

Section 3873, Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §593, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 481; Pub. L. 98–211, §17, Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1417, related to judicial review.

Section 3874, Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §594, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 481, related to availability of appropriations.

Section 3875, Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §595, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 481, related to definitions.

Section 3876, Pub. L. 97–35, title V, §596, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 482; Pub. L. 98–211, §18(a), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1417, related to application of other laws.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1988, see section 6303 of Pub. L. 100–297, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 1071 of this title.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JORDAN P. W., a juvenile, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30078.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.

Decided Feb. 3, 2006.

Lori Harper Suek, Esq., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Donahoe, Esq., FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jordan P.W. (W.) appeals his adjudication of juvenile delinquency for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(c). He contends that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress a statement. W. argues that his statement made during noncustodial post-polygraph questioning was involuntary because he did not specifically consent to such questioning. We review de novo a district court’s decision whether to suppress evidence, *United States v. Chaudhry,*424 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir.2005), and whether a statement was voluntary, *United States v. Haswood,*350 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir.2003). Factual findings underlying its determination of voluntariness are reviewed for clear error. *Id.*at 1027.

W. contends that the consent he and his aunt gave to the polygraph examination did not extend to the post-polygraph questioning. Thus, he claims his post-polygraph statement was involuntary in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We reject W.’s argument that a polygraph examination constitutes a search or seizure subject *151to the Fourth Amendment and know of no authority supporting it.1

Nor did the post-polygraph questioning violate W.’s Fifth Amendment due process rights. In *Wyrick v. Fields,*459 U.S. 42, 47-48, 103 S.Ct. 394, 74 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982), the Supreme Court held that an individual, in providing informed consent to a polygraph examination, also consents to post-polygraph questioning. The Court rejected a per se rule requiring additional warnings prior to post-polygraph questioning. *Id.*at 48-49, 103 S.Ct. 394. Here W. and his aunt consented to the initial polygraph examination, and no evidence was offered of a significant change in the character of the post-polygraph questioning; it would have been unreasonable for W. and his aunt to assume that W. would not be informed of the polygraph readings and asked to explain any unfavorable result. *See id.*at 47, 103 S.Ct. 394. Finding no Fifth Amendment violation in the admission of W.’s statement, we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The only federal court to address whether a polygraph examination is a Fourth Amendment search has rejected W.’s position. *See Stehney v. Perry,*907 F.Supp. 806, 822 (D.N.J. 1995) ("a polygraph does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment”), *affd,*101 F.3d 925 (3d Cir. 1996) .