alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Ernest Peterson. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Stephen Lagoda. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Hilton McGee. (D) The People of the State of New York v. Hilton McGee. (E) The People of the State of New York v. Clarence Moore. (F) The People of the State of New York v. Floyd Nixon. (G) The People of the State of New York v. Houston White (Alias “Ace”). (H) The People of the State of New York v. George Hill. (I) The People of the State of New York v. Paul D. Hill. (J) The People of the State of New York v. Noel Barbosa. (K) The People of the State of New York v. Walter Weston.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court. Anthony F. Marra, Esq. of 100 Centre St., New York, N. Y. is assigned as counsel for the appellant for the purposes of the appeal. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ. [Same decision] Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [Same decision] Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [Same decision] Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
#### WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD CO. *v.*CASTEEL.

August 17, 1912.

1. It is error to instruct tlie jury that certain enumerated facts constitute negligence, where the law does not declare such to be negligence.

2. In a suit for a personal injury arising from a negligent tort (where the doctrine known as the master and servant rule does not apply), the burden does not rest on the plaintiff, as part of his ease, to show his freedom from negligence, but contributory negligence is matter of defense. It may, however, appear from the evidence introduced by either party.

*580Action for damages. Before Judge Morris. Cobb superior court. August 26, 1911.

*Tye, Peeples & Jordan*and *D. W. Blair,*for plaintiff in error.

*Clay & Morris,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

The plaintiff, a youth of thirteen years, with three companions, was playing on a turntable of the defendant railroad company, when he was injured. In a suit for the injury he alleged that the railroad company was negligent in maintaining upon its premises, without guard or adequate protection, the turntable, which was dangerous to life and limb, and of a nature to invite the intrusion of children. The defendant denied any negligence in this particular. The court charged the jury: “I give you this rule: where a railroad company leaves a dangerous machine, such as a turntable, if you believe that the table was a dangerous machine, unfastened in a city on a lot which is not securely enclosed, and where people and children are wont to visit it and pass through it, this is negligence on the part of said company.” This instruction contained an expression of opinion that certain acts constituted negligence. The court may not so instruct the jury, unless such acts are declared by law to be negligence. *Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.*v. *Arp,*136 *Ga.*489 (71 S. E. 867).

The court also charged that “the degree or measure of care which the child was required to exercise was that which is ordinarily exercised and which is to be reasonably expected from a child of his years and experience, under the circumstances he was in, as shown by the evidence; and before the jury can find him guilty of contributory negligence, or lack of due care, you must find that he failed to exercise such care and caution as reasonably might be expected of a child of his years and experience under the circumstances, and the burden of proving such lack of due care is upon the defendant; still, that proof may come either from the evidence introduced by the plaintiff or that introduced by the defendant, or from the evidence of both.” In its connection this instruction was not erroneous. Whenever the defendant’s negligence as the cause of the injury is made to appear, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence becomes a matter of defense. *City Council of Augusta*v. *Hudson,*88 *Ga.*599 (3), 600 (15 S. E. 678). Unless the plaintiff in making out his case submits proof of his own negligence as the contributory cause of his injury, the burden *581is on the defendant to prove the plaintiff’s negligence, if such defense is made to the action.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[106th Congress Public Law 282]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ282.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 866]]

Public Law 106-282
106th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
     for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 6, 2000 -  [H.J. Res. 110]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275 is 
amended by striking ``October 6, 2000'' in <<NOTE: Ante, p. 
810.>> section 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 14, 
2000''.

    Approved October 6, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 110:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 3, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 4, 5, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000):
            Oct. 6, Presidential statement.

                                  <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Aaron J. Levy.

Motion for leave to file supplemental petition granted. Settle order on notice. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3027 

To reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of sodium-2-chloro-6-[(4,6 

dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)thio]benzoate and application adjuvants 

(pyrithiobac-sodium). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2005 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of sodium-2- 

chloro-6-[(4,6 dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)thio]benzoate and 

application adjuvants (pyrithiobac-sodium). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF SODIUM-2-CHLORO-6-[(4,6 

4 DIMETHOXYPYRIMIDIN-2-YL)THIO]BENZOATE 

5 AND APPLICATION ADJUVANTS 

6 (PYRITHIOBAC-SODIUM). 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
2 

•HR 3027 IH 

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.08.04 Mixtures of sodium-2-chloro6-[(4,6 dimethoxypyrimidin2-yl)thio]benzoate (CAS No. 

123343–16–8) and application adjuvants (pyrithiobacsodium) (provided for in 

subheading 3808.30.15) ...... 3.5% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §71r. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Apr. 9, 1930, ch. 125, §13, 46 Stat. 152; May 26, 1930, ch. 320, §1, 46 Stat. 379, which changed the name of the Advisory board for National Institute of Health to the National Advisory Health Council and provided for appointment of additional members and the terms of service, compensation, and allowances for such additional members and an additional function for the Council, was executed to section 21 of this title.
#### AMERICAN ICE CO., Respondent, v. CATSKILL CEMENT CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by the American Ice Company against the Catskill Cement Company. No opinion. Application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals from order affirming order changing the venue of the action denied.
### §§179, 180. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section 179, act May 17, 1900, ch. 479, §1, 31 Stat. 179, related to free homesteads to settlers, commutation rights, and payment to Indians.

Section 180, act Jan. 26, 1901, ch. 180, 31 Stat. 740, related to extension of right of settlers to commute entry.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2892

AN ACT

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the limitation on the number of reverse mortgages 

that may be insured under the FHA mortgage insurance 

program for such mortgages.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 2892 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reverse Mortgages to 

3 Help America’s Seniors Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON NUMBER OF MORTGAGES 

5 INSURED. 

6 Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

7 1715z–20) is amended—

8 (1) in subsection (g), by striking the first sen9 tence; and 

10 (2) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking ‘‘limita11 tions’’ and inserting ‘‘limitation’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2892

AN ACT

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act 

mortgages.FHA mortgage insurance program for such verse mortgages that may be insured under the to remove the limitation on the number of re-
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2563

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within 

the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, 

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2563 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUD2 IES. 

3 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Interior, act4 ing through the Bureau of Reclamation, is authorized to 

5 conduct feasibility studies on projects that address water 

6 shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River sys7 tems in Idaho, and deemed appropriate for further study 

8 by the 2006 Bureau of Reclamation Boise Payette water 

9 storage assessment report. Studies conducted under this 

10 section must comply with Bureau of Reclamation policy 

11 standards and guidelines for studies. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

13 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Inte14 rior $3,000,000 to carry out this section. 

15 (c) SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the 

16 Secretary of the Interior to carry out this section shall 

17 terminate 10 years after the date of the enactment of this 

18 section. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2563

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conRiver systems in Idaho, and for other purposes. shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette duct feasibility studies to address certain water
#### Mary Cordelia Morgan and Helen Morgan, appellees, v. Reliance Life Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, appellant.

Suit on life insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Norman L. Jones, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Reversed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1923.

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy and Graham & Graham, for appellant. George M. Morgan and Patton & Patton, for appellees; William L. Patton, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §8002. Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter—

(1) the term "congregate housing" means (A) low-rent housing which, as of January 1, 1979, was built or under construction, with which there is connected a central dining facility where wholesome and economical meals can be served to such occupants; or (B) low-rent housing constructed after, but not under construction prior to, January 1, 1979, connected with which there is a central dining facility to provide wholesome and economical meals for such occupants;

(2) the term "congregate services programs" means programs to be undertaken by a public housing agency or a nonprofit corporation to provide assistance, including personal assistance and nutritional meals, to eligible project residents who, with such assistance, can remain independent and avoid unnecessary institutionalization;

(3) the term "elderly" means sixty-two years of age or over;

(4) the term "eligible project resident" means elderly handicapped individuals, nonelderly handicapped individuals, or temporarily disabled individuals, who are residents of congregate housing projects administered by a public housing agency or by a nonprofit corporation;

(5) the term "handicapped" means having an impairment which (A) is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration, and (B) substantially impedes an individual's ability to live independently unless the individual receives supportive congregate services; such impairment may include a functional disability or frailty which is a normal consequence of the human aging process;

(6) the term "personal assistance" means service provided under this chapter which may include, but is not limited to, aid given to eligible project residents in grooming, dressing, and other activities which maintain personal appearance and hygiene;

(7) the term "professional assessment committee" means a group of at least three persons appointed by a local public housing agency or a nonprofit corporation and shall include qualified medical professionals and other persons professionally competent to appraise the functional abilities of elderly or permanently disabled adult persons, or both, in relation to the performance of the normal tasks of daily living;

(8) the term "temporarily disabled" means an impairment which (A) is expected to be of no more than six months' duration, and (B) substantially impedes an individual's ability to live independently unless the individual receives supportive congregate services; and

(9) the term "nonprofit corporation" means any corporation responsible for a housing project assisted under section 1701q of title 12.

(Pub. L. 95–557, title IV, §403, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2105.)
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual  Report of Roebling Financial Corp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank J. Travea, III, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Janice A. Summers, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

 

 

| /s/ Frank J. Travea, III              |   | /s/ Janice A. Summers                                                      |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frank J. Travea, III                  |   | Janice A. Summers                                                          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                  |   |                                                                       |

 

| Date: | December 21, 2007 |
|-------|-------------------|
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 07- 1495 8

D. C. Docket N o. 05-00102 CV -W CO- 2 KIMARA DEWBERRY, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,

ve rs us GILMER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, RAIFORD C ANTRELL, Su pe ri nte nde nt o f G ilm er

Co unt y S ch ool D istri ct , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, ALEXAND ER B. RAINEY, fo rm er S upe ri nte nde nt o f G ilm er Co unt y S ch ool D i s t r i c t , i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, SANDRA DAVENPORT, Principal of E llijay

Prim ary School, in her o f f i c i a l a n di n d i v i du a l c ap a c i t y, CHARME HARM ON, Principal of E llijay

Ele m entary

School, in her of fic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty, et al., D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .Martin was the GCSD pe rsonnel direc tor from Apr il 1999 through January 2004; Harmon 1 and Davenport a

re pr incipals at GCSD elementa ry schools; Rainey

was the G CSD superintendent fr om D e c e mbe r 1 99 8 thro ug h D e c e mbe r 2 00 4; C antr e ll i s th e c ur re nt G CSD su

pe ri nte nd e nt. 2 Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (S ep te m be r 19, 200 8) Be fo re D U BI N A , H U L L a nd F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A ppe llant K im ar a D ew

be rr y ( “ D ew be rr y ”) appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of summ ary

j udgm ent in favor of Appellees Gilm er C ount y School District ( “G C S D ” ) , R a i f

o r dC a n t r e l l , A l e x a n d e r

B

. R a i n e y, S a n d r aD a v e n p o rt , C h a rme H ar m on, a nd J uli e Mart in on h er r ac e dis cr im ina tio n c la im s br ough t un de r 42 1 U

. S. C. § 19 81, 42 U

. S. C. § 19 83, a nd T itl e V II , 42 U

. S. C. §§ 2 000e to 2000 e- 17.

“ W e rev ie w de novo adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, vie w ing al l t he e vid en ce , a nd draw ing a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s, in favor

of the non m ovin g party .” Allstate Life I ns. Co. v. Miller , 424 F. 3d 11 13, 1115 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). A ft er

r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t3

in f av or of the A ppe lle es be ca

use D ew be rr y f ai ls t o sh ow tha t t he r ea sons giv enby the A ppe lle es f

or hir ing P ay

ton , P ar ks, Y oung , or

W at kin s w er e a m er e pr et ex t f or dis cr im ina tio n. AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Evans, Appellant.

Order entered on October 10,1960 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAWASI DINGLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:11-cr-00536-RBH-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathy Price Elmore, ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Kawasi Dingle pled guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(2006), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 

months of imprisonment. On appeal, Dingle challenges the 

district court’s determination that his prior South Carolina 

convictions for second degree burglary, in violation of S.C. 

Code Ann. § 16-11-312(A) (2003), were properly qualifying 

predicate felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). Because

Dingle’s argument is foreclosed by our previous decision in 

United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2010), we 

affirm.

In Wright, we held that a violation of S.C. Code Ann. 

§ 16-11-312(A) categorically qualifies as a predicate offense 

for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the statute tracks 

the generic definition of burglary promulgated by the United 

States Supreme Court. Wright, 594 F.3d at 266. Because one 

panel of this court may not overrule another, we conclude that 

Dingle was properly sentenced and affirm the district court’s 

judgment. United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th 

Cir. 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF ALAMEDA, CA, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME

OPPORTUNITY FUND,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-04575 SI (JCS)

ORDER TO SUBMIT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS IN .PDF

FORMAT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in addition to the submission of paper copy of settlement

conference statements to chambers, each party shall submit their confidential updated settlement

conference statements in .pdf format and email their statement to JCSPO@cand.uscourts.gov,

along with a .pdf of any previous settlement conference statement(s).

All other provisions of this Court's original Notice and Settlement Conference Order remain

in effect.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 104 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00223- CV

In re Joe Jones

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

On Apri l 1 1 , 2014, rela tor J oe J ones filed a petiti on for writ of m andamus seeking relief from the trial court’s oral ruling requiring him to appear for deposition and to produce documents. See T ex . R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10. That same day , we stay ed the trial court’s ruling “including any

require ment that J ones appe ar a nd provide testimony

or produc e docume nts.” We here by lift the stay wi t h reg ard to the trial court’s ruling requiring that J ones appea r for d eposi tion. Howeve r, we continue to stay the trial court’s ruling requiring that J ones produce the reque sted documents. The parties shall file a joint repor t six ty day s from the date of this order informing this Court about the status of the discovery dispute. I t is so ordered July

15, 2014.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield