alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hicks *v.*State.

4664

243 S. W. 2d 372

Opinion delivered November 12, 1951.

*Ike Murry,*Attorney General, and *Robert Doivnie,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of incest with his daughter 14 years of age (see § 41-811, Ark. Stats.), and prosecutes this appeal. The original and supplemental motions for new trial present the matters herein discussed:

I. *Sufficiency of the Evidence.*The prosecuting witness testified unequivocally that the acts of intercourse had occurred at various intervals during a period of seventeen months. Her testimony made a case for the jury in view of our holding on the nest point. See *Ragsdale*v. *State,*132 Ark. 210, 200 S. W. 802.

II. *Lack of Corroboration.*The testimony of the prosecuting witness was not corroborated, but her age was only 14 years. Since she was under 16 years of age, *529slie could not have been an accomplice to the acts of incest, so her testimony did not have to be corroborated. See *Westbrooks*v. *Slate,*179 Ark 714, 17 S. W. 2d 868; and see, also, 27 Am. Jur., 299:

> “Under this rule, a conviction of incest may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix who is by reason of minority incapable of consenting to defendant’s act.”

III. *Instructions.*Neither the State nor the defense requested any instructions; and all that were given were on the Court’s own motion. They defined the statutory crime of incest (§ 41-811, Ark Stats.), the statutory punishment (§ 41-812, *et seq.,*Ark. Stats.), the presumption of innocence, the definition of a reasonable doubt, and finally an instruction directly applying the law to the case at bar. The only objection was:

> ‘ ‘ To the giving of all of said instructions the defendant, at the time, objected and excepted.”

A careful study of the instructions disclosed that they were correct as against the general objection registered.

IY. *Recantation.*In the supplemental motion for new trial, appellant alleged that the prosecuting witness had recanted her testimony. But when the prosecuting witness was brought into court for a hearing on such motion, she reaffirmed her original testimony and refused to retract any part of it. Therefore, there was an entire failure to show recantation. In each of the cases of *Sutton*v. *State,*197 Ark. 686, 122 S. W. 2d 617, and *Doss*v. *State,*203 Ark. 407, 157 S. W. 2d 499, there was a recantation by the prosecuting witness. We held that even in such a case the granting of a new trial was within the sound discretion of the trial court; and we found no abuse of discretion to have been committed in refusing a new trial in either of said cases. Certainly, in the case at bar, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the basis of recantation, since the prosecuting witness not only refused to recant but strongly affirmed her original testimony.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
PUBLIC LAW 110–321—SEPT. 19, 2008 122 STAT. 3535 

Public Law 110–321 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for extensions of certain authorities of the Department of State, 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. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR REEMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE ANNUITANTS. 

Section 824(g)(2) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 

4064(g)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘2008’’ each place it appears 

and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES AS ELIGIBLE 

FOR REST AND RECUPERATION TRAVEL FOR MEMBERS OF 

THE FOREIGN SERVICE. 

The Foreign Service Act of 1980 is amended— 

(1) in section 901(6)(B) (22 U.S.C. 4081(6)(B)), by inserting 

after ‘‘United States’’ the following: ‘‘or its territories, including 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

United States Virgin Islands’’; and 

(2) in section 903(b) (22 U.S.C. 4083(b)), by striking ‘‘, 

its territories and possessions, or the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico’’ and inserting ‘‘or its territories, including American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States 

Virgin Islands’’. 

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PAY SUBSISTENCE OF SPECIAL 

AGENTS ON PROTECTIVE DETAILS. 

Section 32 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 

1956 (22 U.S.C. 2704) is amended, in the first sentence, by striking 

‘‘on authorized protective missions, and’’ and inserting ‘‘on authorized protective missions, whether at or away from their duty stations, and’’. 

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR RADIO FREE ASIA. 

Section 309(c)(2) of the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6208(c)(2)) is amended by striking 

‘‘2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

Sept. 19, 2008 

[H.R. 6456] 


bjneal on POFP91QD1 with PUBLAWS
122 STAT. 3536 PUBLIC LAW 110–321—SEPT. 19, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6456: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

July 30, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 8, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING ACTIVITIES. 

Section 504(c) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–228; 22 U.S.C. 6206 note) is amended 

by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

Approved September 19, 2008. 


bjneal on POFP91QD1 with PUBLAWS
#### William Mason KIMMEL, Jr., Petitioner, v. Honorable Russell H. McINTOSH, Circuit Judge, Criminal Division, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 75-145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1975.

Prohibition denied.
*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

1

We address the other argument Barraza-Lopez raises on appeal in an

opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum disposition. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUAN PEDRO BARRAZA-LOPEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50280

D.C. No. 3:04-cr-01962-L-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Juan Pedro Barraza-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction on two counts

of illegal reentry and one count of escape from federal custody. He also appeals

his 100-month sentence.1

 We affirm. 

FILED

SEP 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1. Barraza-Lopez has waived his claim that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)’s 70-

day indictment-to-trial time limit was violated. In the plea agreement, he agreed

not to appeal any rulings other than those the agreement expressly outlined. 

Barraza-Lopez did not raise his § 3161(c) claim before the district court, so the

plea agreement of course did not list any ruling on this claim among those

preserved for appeal. Barraza-Lopez therefore waived his right to raise it here. 

See United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir. 2004). 

2. Barraza-Lopez’s 100-month sentence – at the low end of an

unchallenged Guidelines range – was not substantively unreasonable. See United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court

discussed all of the mitigating evidence Barraza-Lopez says was improperly

discounted and explained why it accorded greater weight to the aggravating

evidence. There was no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Burgum, 633

F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting a substantive unreasonableness challenge

when the district court’s findings were “rational, clearly explained and closely tied

to the factual record”). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[House Document 110-158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 110-158

 
 CERTIFICATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PURCHASE TROUBLED 
                                 ASSETS

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

      IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 115(a)(2) OF PUBLIC LAW 100-343, 
CERTIFICATION FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PURCHASE, OR COMMIT 
     TO PURCHASE, TROUBLED ASSETS UP TO THE LIMIT OF $350 BILLION 
                      OUTSTANDING AT ANY ONE TIME

  November 19, 2008.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
       Committee on Financial Services and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                      Washington, October 14, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to section 115(a)(2) of the 
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 10-
343) (the ``Act''), I hereby certify that it is necessary for 
the Secretary of the Treasury to exercise the authority granted 
under the Act to purchase, or commit to purchase, troubled 
assets up to the limit of $350 billion outstanding at any one 
time.
            Sincerely,
                                                    George W. Bush.

                                  

```
#### § 21.45 Rating values.

The examination of every candidate for appointment to any grade in the Regular Corps shall be rated by a board appointed pursuant to § 21.30 in accordance with such relative values for each part of the examination as are prescribed by the Surgeon General. No candidate who receives a final rating below 80 shall be appointed in the Regular Corps.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3029 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3029

 To designate the United States courthouse in Washington, District of 
  Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 1996

 Mr. Davis (for himself and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse in Washington, District of 
  Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 3rd Street and Constitution 
Avenue, Northwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be 
designated and known as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``E. Barrett 
Prettyman United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
698 A.2d 570

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Joseph P. CAPONE, Respondent.

No. 171 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 2, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated May 13,1997, it is hereby

ORDERED that JOSEPH P. CAPONE be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of two (2) years, retroactive to January 18, 1996, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3049

AN ACT

To amend section 1505 of the Higher Education

Arts Development.American Indian and Alaska Native Culture andity of the Board of Trustees of the Institute ofAmendments of 1986 to provide for the continu-
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3049

AN ACT

To amend section 1505 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1986 to provide for the continuity of the Board

of Trustees of the Institute of American Indian and

Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development.

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

•HR 3049 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONTINUITY OF BOARD.

2 Section 1505(i) of the Higher Education Amend3 ments of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4412(i)) is amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the pe5 riod at the end of the first sentence the following:

6 ‘‘or to recommend another individual if the member

7 does not consent to be reappointed’’; and

8 (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the

9 following:

10 ‘‘(2) If the President has not transmitted to the

11 Senate a nomination to fill the position of a member

12 covered by such a recommendation within 60 days

13 from the date that the member’s term expires—

14 ‘‘(A) if the member consents to reappoint15 ment, the member shall be deemed to have been

16 reappointed for another full term to the Board,

17 with all the appropriate rights and responsibil18 ities; or

19 ‘‘(B) if the member does not consent to re20 appointment, an individual recommended by the

21 Board under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to

22 have been appointed for a full term to the
3

•HR 3049 EH

1 Board with all the appropriate rights and

2 responsibilities.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 802.211 Covered real estate. The term *covered real estate* means real estate that: ( a ) Is, is located within, or will function as part of, a covered port; or
( b ) Is located within: ( 1 ) Close proximity of any military installation described in § 802.227(b) to (o), or another facility or property of the U.S. Government, in each case as identified in the list at part 1 or part 2 of appendix A to this part;
( 2 ) The extended range of any military installation described in § 802.227(h), (k), or (m), as identified in the list at part 2 of appendix A to this part;
( 3 ) Any county or other geographic area identified in connection with any military installation described in § 802.227(a), as identified in the list at part 3 of appendix A to this part; or
( 4 ) Any part of a military installation described in § 802.227(p), as identified at part 4 of appendix A to this part, to the extent located within the limits of the territorial sea of the United States.
# C_2005155EN.01001401.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 April 2005

in Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request relating to a very large number of documents - Total refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination - Exceptions)

(2005/C 155/27)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-2/03: Verein für Konsumenteninformation, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by A. Klauser, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Rating and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, established in Vienna, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by Österreichische Volksbanken AG, established in Vienna, and Niederösterreichische Landesbank-Hypothekenbank AG, established in Sankt Pölten (Austria), represented by R. Roniger, A. Ablasser and W. Hemetsberger, lawyers — application for annulment of Commission Decision D (2002) 330472 of 18 December 2002 relating to a request for access to the administrative file in Case COMP/36.571/D-1, Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’ — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger, P. Mengozzi, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Decision D (2002) 330472 relating to a request for access to the administrative file in Case COMP/36.571/D-1, Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision D (2002) 330472 relating to a request for access to the administrative file in Case COMP/36.571/D-1, Austrian banks — ‘Lombard Club’;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the interveners to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
# C_2005229EN.01003702.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/37

---

Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Case T-292/05)

(2005/C 229/78)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Maria Johansen, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily, set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint, adopted together with the Appointment Authority's appointment decision of 27 October 2004, in so far as it fixes her grade, in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and her step in accordance with the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint, adopted together with the Appointment Authority's appointment decision of 27 October 2004, in so far as it fixes her grade, in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and her step in accordance with the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | set out to the Appointment Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, and that with retroactive effect from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

set out to the Appointment Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, and that with retroactive effect from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect;

| — | in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded in A*10, step 4, from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded in A*10, step 4, from 1 June 2004, the date on which the appointment decision of 27 October 2004 took effect;

| — | order the defendant to pay the entire costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
   (1).

Centeno Mediavilla and Others

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005, p. 38.

1

---
# C_2005197EN.01000101.xml

| 12.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 August 2005

(2005/C 197/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2405 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4611 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68825 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3223 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5537 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 79,48 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8975 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9556 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5735 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,369 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 243,65 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,696 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0355 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4621 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,49 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,46 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,647 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6103 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4976 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6375 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7687 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0463 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 259,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9383 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0483 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3668 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 172,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6539 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,096 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,19 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,747 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2405

JPY

Japanese yen

136,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4611

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68825

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3223

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5537

ISK

Iceland króna

79,48

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8975

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9556

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5735

CZK

Czech koruna

29,369

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

243,65

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,696

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0355

RON

Romanian leu

3,4621

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,49

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,46

TRY

Turkish lira

1,647

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6103

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4976

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6375

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7687

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0463

KRW

South Korean won

1 259,73

ZAR

South African rand

7,9383

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0483

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3668

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 172,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6539

PHP

Philippine peso

69,096

RUB

Russian rouble

35,19

THB

Thai baht

50,747

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Judith A. LIPPINCOTT, Appellant, v. Charles M. LIPPINCOTT, Appellee.

No. 74-104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1975.

William John Mason, Miami, for appellant.

M. Donald Dreschef, S. Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 865, 867; Compare Mertz v. Mertz, Fla.App.1973, 287 So.2d 691.
HomeBiographies...Seth Center

# 				Dr. Seth Center			

															Deputy Envoy						Office of the Special Envoy for Critical and Emerging Technology												

				January 3, 2023 -									Present							

Tags

Office of the Special Envoy for Critical and Emerging TechnologyState Department Official

Back to Top