alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PERSONAL JUDGMENT — EXECUTION.

[Hamilton circuit Court,

February Term, 1885.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Cist, Admr., v. Beresford, Sheriff.

Action must be Revived by Personal Representatives on Death oe Either Party.

When a personal judgment, or a decree for the sale of specific real estate, is taken, and the plaintiff dies before the sheriff or other officer levies the writ of execution, or seizes and appraises the specific real estate under the order of sale, the action must be revived in the name'of the personal representative of such plaintiff, before the writ-or order of sale can be executed.

On Petition for writ of mandamus.

Smith, J.

On January 31,1871, Finnell obtained in the court of common pleas a decree against P. M. Kennedy and ivifé, that they were indebted to him in the sum *20of $596, and that he had a lien for its payment on certain real estate, and ad" judged that unless they did pay in three days, an order issue to the sheriff, commanding him to appraise, advertise and sell the real estate as on execution at law, and make due return of his proceedings. The case was then left off the trial docket, and has since remained off in accordance with sec. 5132.

Judge J. A. Jordan and Henry M. Cist, for Plaintiff.

McDougall & Longworth and Moulton, Johnson & Levy, *co7itra.*

Finnell died November 1, 1876, and Cist was appointed administrator of his estate soon thereafter. The action has never been revived in his name, nor the death of the plaintiff suggested on the record. On February 2, 1885, the clerk, on the application of the administrator, issued an order of sale on the decree, and the sheriff appraised the property and advertised it for. sale. On February 9, 1885, the common pleas court, on motion of the defendant; made an order that the order of sale be recalled. The sheriff, though he still holds the order of sale, refuses further to proceed under it, and the court is asked to require him by a writ of mandamus to proceed and sell the real estate. On demurrer to the petition, showing these facts, the court : *Held:*

That it is the law of Ohio, that where an execution (which includes an order of sale on a decree) comes into the hands of a sheriff to be executed, and he either levies the execution or appraises the specific property under the order of sale, and then either the plaintiff or defendant dies, the officer can proceed fully to execute the command of the writ, and for this purpose, if necessary, an *alias*or *pluries*writ may issue and be executed, and this on the ground that an execution is an entire thing, and cannot be superseded after it is begun. Arnold v. Fuller’s Heirs, 1 O., 458, 467; Lessee of Massie’s Heirs v. Long, 2 O., 287; Lessee of Cartney v. Reed, 5 O., 221; Great Western Stock Co. v. Saas, 24 O. S., 542; Beaumont v. Herrick, 24 O. S., 445; Craig v. Fox, 16 O., 563. But the effect of a simple decree of this kind is not the same. And if the plaintiff or the defendant die before the issue of an order of sale, the action abates and must' be revived in the name of the personal representative of a deceased plaintiff, before an order of sale can properly issue. Moore v. Ogden, 35 O. S., 430.
#### § 21.7075 Entitlement to tuition assistance top-up.

An individual who is entitled to educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30 is also entitled to 36 months of tuition assistance top-up. This entitlement is parallel to, and does not replace, the entitlement to educational assistance available under § 21.7072. If the individual receives tuition assistance top-up, VA will make a charge against both the entitlement under § 21.7072 and the entitlement under this section. The charge will be as described in § 21.7076(b)(10).

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3013, 3014(b), 3032)

[72 FR 16980, Apr. 5, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 35662, June 29, 2007]
§ 21.5725 Obtaining benefits. ( a ) *Actions required of the individual.* In order to obtain benefits under the educational assistance and subsistence allowance program, an individual must— ( 1 ) File a claim for benefits with VA, and
( 2 ) Ensure that the accredited institution certifies his or her enrollment to VA. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2149)
( b ) *VA action upon receipt of a claim.* Upon receipt of a claim from an individual VA shall— ( 1 ) Determine if the individual, or the veteran upon whose service the claim is based, has or had basic eligibility;
( 2 ) Determine that the eligibility period has not expired;
( 3 ) Determine that the individual has remaining entitlement;
( 4 ) Verify that the individual is attending an accredited institution;
( 5 ) Determine whether payments may be made for the course, and
( 6 ) Make appropriate payments of educational assistance and subsistence allowance.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2142-2149)
*Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-11056

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

WARREN DOUGLASS COBLE, JR

 Defendant - Appellant

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Amarillo

2:04-CR-25-ALL-J

---------------------

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties to vacate

the appellant’s sentencing is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion of the parties

to remand the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Texas, Amarillo Division for resentencing is granted.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 4, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4865

WILLIAM WAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-53)

Submitted: April 16, 2002

Decided: May 1, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

William Wayne Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement,

to one count of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 2241(a) (West 2000). Approximately three months after entering his

plea of guilty, Johnson moved to withdraw his plea, which the district

court denied. Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw

his guilty plea. 

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty

plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d

421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating "a fair and just reason" for withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e);

Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424. A "fair and just reason" is one that challenges the fairness of the guilty plea colloquy conducted pursuant to

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v.

Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). To determine whether

a defendant has shown a fair and just reason for withdrawal, a trial

court should consider the six factors set out in United States v. Moore,

931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424.

Although all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight,

the key to determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty

plea is whether the Rule 11 hearing was properly conducted. Puckett,

61 F.3d at 1099. This court closely scrutinizes the Rule 11 colloquy.

An adequate Rule 11 proceeding creates a strong presumption that the

guilty plea is binding. United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394

(4th Cir. 1992). 

In this case, the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11

inquiry. In ruling on Johnson’s motion to withdraw his plea, the district court considered each of the Moore factors and concluded that

Johnson had failed to show a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea. Our review of the record convinces us that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion. 

2 UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON
Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON 3
§ 42.26 Form, filing and service of papers. ( a ) *Form.* ( 1 ) Documents filed with the ALJ shall include an original and two copies.
( 2 ) Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding shall contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the case number assigned by the ALJ, and a designation of the paper (e.g. motion to quash subpoena).
( 3 ) Every pleading and paper shall be signed by, and shall contain the address and telephone number of, the party or the person on whose behalf the paper was filed, or his or her representative.
( 4 ) Papers are considered filed when they are mailed. Date of mailing may be established by a certificate from the party or representative or by proof that the document was sent by certified or registered mail.
( b ) *Service.* A party filing a document with the ALJ shall, at the time of filing, serve a copy of such document on every other party. Service upon any party of any document other than those required to be served as prescribed in § 42.8 of this part shall be made by delivering a copy or by placing a copy of the document in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed, to the party's last known address. When a party is represented by a representative, service shall be made upon the representative in lieu of the actual party.
( c ) *Proof of service.* A certificate of the individual serving the document by personal delivery or by mail, setting forth the manner of service, shall be proof of service.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    6,880
<SECURITIES>                            507,830
<RECEIVABLES>                           655,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           1,496,062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      3,019,962
<PP&E>                               16,125,030
<DEPRECIATION>                          992,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       18,828,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4,726,690
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  5,483
<OTHER-SE>                            9,227,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         18,828,280
<SALES>                               2,108,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2,146,622
<CGS>                                 2,435,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         2,435,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        568,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      508,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,366,591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,366,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,366,591)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.254)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.254)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.950 Helpless children; Spanish-American and prior wars.

Marriage is not a bar to the payment of pension or compensation to a helpless child under an award approved prior to April 1, 1944. The presumption, arising from the fact of marriage, that helplessness has ceased may be overcome by positive proof of continuing helplessness. As to awards approved on or after April 1, 1944, pension or compensation may not be paid to a helpless child who has married.

[26 FR 1608, Feb. 24, 1961]
#### § 17.266 Copyrights and patents.

If a grant-supported program results in copyrightable material or patentable inventions or discoveries, the United States Government shall have the right to use such publications or inventions on a royalty-free basis.

[33 FR 6013, Apr. 19, 1968. Redesignated at 61 FR 21966, May 13, 1996]
----

NOTICE TO READERS

Official Journal C 335 for 2005 will not be published.

----
cassis travel services inc. 

los angeles 

9200 Sunset Blvd 

Suite 320 

Los Angeles 

CA 90069 

t: 310.246.5400 

f: 310.246.5499 

new yopk 

535 Fifth Avenue 

Suite 1010 

New York 

NY 10017 

t: 212.333.3633 

f: 212.333.3595 

london 

2/4 Circus Road 

St.John's Wood 

London 

NW 8 6PG 

207.586.5566 

207.586.9097 

February 24, 2010 v^Y\'r?CW' •S1>T0032^008 

www.travelcts.com 

CSTR # 1014633-10 

Tlie Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo 

International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from Los 

Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between two of the 

world's most dynamic commercial centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld 

Alliance membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the transPacific market. American is likewise committed to Los Angeles — a world center of 

business, trade^ entertainment and technology ~ and has provided the city with 

unsurpassed air service for many decades. 

Los Angeles, as well as the entire Southern California region will gain a significant 

economic benefit from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and 

employees. However, we need your help to make the LAX/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to 

fly from Los Angeles to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

Cassis/Travel Services, Inc. 

Michele L. Mbotgonltry 

President & CEO
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00202-CR

NO. 02-16-00203-CR

NO. 02-16-00204-CR

JORDAN BAJONERO-PALMA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. F-2014-2221-D, F-2014-2222-D, F-2014-2223-D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On October 16, 2015, appellant Jordan Bajonero-Palma pleaded guilty to 

and was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, committed on March 

23, 2014; aggravated robbery, committed on April 7, 2014; and two counts of 

aggravated robbery, both committed on April 6, 2014. The trial court assessed 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

his punishment at concurrent sentences of two years, twenty-five years, and 

twenty-five years, respectively. In each case, the trial court certified that 

Appellant had the right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant did 

not file a motion for new trial in the trial court, but did file pro se notices of appeal 

from the trial court’s judgments on April 25, 2016. 

On June 3 and July 21, 2016, we notified Appellant that we did not believe 

we had jurisdiction over his appeals because the notices of appeal had not been 

filed timely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We warned Appellant that we would 

dismiss his appeals for want of jurisdiction unless he or any other party

responded showing grounds to continue the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.

Appellant responded that his notices were untimely because his attorney “said he 

was going to file a notice of appeal” but “did not.” 

Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a timely filed notice of 

appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If a notice 

of appeal is not timely filed under Rule 26.2, we do not have jurisdiction to 

address the merits of the appeal and may take no action—including granting an 

out-of-time appeal—other than dismissal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Rule 26.2(a) requires that a notice of appeal be filed 

within thirty days after the date the trial court imposes sentence. Tex. R. App. P. 

26.2(a). Appellant did not file his notices of appeal within thirty days of the trial 

court’s imposition of sentences; thus, we have no jurisdiction over his appeals 

and dismiss them. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 
3

/s/ Lee Gabriel

LEE GABRIEL

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 18, 2016
§ 1002.10 Furnishing of credit information. ( a ) *Designation of accounts.* A creditor that furnishes credit information shall designate: ( 1 ) Any new account to reflect the participation of both spouses if the applicant's spouse is permitted to use or is contractually liable on the account (other than as a guarantor, surety, endorser, or similar party); and
( 2 ) Any existing account to reflect such participation, within 90 days after receiving a written request to do so from one of the spouses.
( b ) *Routine reports to consumer reporting agency.* If a creditor furnishes credit information to a consumer reporting agency concerning an account designated to reflect the participation of both spouses, the creditor shall furnish the information in a manner that will enable the agency to provide access to the information in the name of each spouse.
( c ) *Reporting in response to inquiry.* If a creditor furnishes credit information in response to an inquiry, concerning an account designated to reflect the participation of both spouses, the creditor shall furnish the information in the name of the spouse about whom the information is requested.
Filed: April 17, 1996
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7522 (CA-93-1424-AM) Lorenzo A. Scorpio, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Julia Foster-Woodson, etc., et al, Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed April 4, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 5 -- the panel information is corrected to read "Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER , Senior Circuit Judge." For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Bert M. Montague Clerk2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7522
LORENZO A. SCORPIO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JULIA FOSTER-WOODSON, Institutional Case Manager, Nottoway Penitentiary; CLARENCE L. JACKSON, Chairman of the Board, Virginia Boardof Parole; EDWARD W. MURRAY, Director, Department of Corrections of Virginia; YVETTE KING,Substance Abuse Counselor; GEORGE LACKS, Correctional Officer; E. DAVIS, Rec. Dept. Supervisor; R. BUTLER, Rec. Dept. Supervisor; S. V. JONES, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-93-1424-AM) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo A. Scorpio, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).4 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motion to alter or amend the judgment denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Scorpio v. Foster-Woodson, No. CA-93-1424-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 1995). To the extent that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (West 1994), might apply to Appellant's action, Appellees are entitled to immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (public officials are free from liability for monetary damages if they can plead and prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      606
<ALLOWANCES>                                       182
<INVENTORY>                                        935
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,134
<PP&E>                                           5,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,076
<BONDS>                                          2,836
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,308
<SALES>                                          2,632
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,632
<CGS>                                            1,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  88
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    216
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>