alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### * Commonwealth *versus*John Neal and Elizabeth Neal

A *feme covert*is not indictable for an assault and battery, committed in the company and by the command of her husband.

The defendants, being husband and wife, were indicted, at the last October term in this county, for an assault and battery. Upon a trial, which was had at the same term before Thatcher, J., the jury found the said *John*guilty; and as to the said *Elizabeth,*they found specially, — “ that she committed the assault and battery charged in the indictment, in company with, and commanded by the said *John Neal,*her husband. And if this in law will make her guilty, then the jury find her guilty ; but if being in company with and commanded by her husband will justify or excuse her in law, then the jury find that the said *Elizabeth Neal*is not guilty.”

The indictment was continued to this term for judgment upon this verdict; and now

*Whitman*argued that the wife, acting under the direction and coercion of the husband, was not personally liable to conviction and punishment, and this immunity extends to every case, except those of keeping a bawdy house and a gaming house. The jury have found that the wife, in this case, acted by the command of her husband. (1)

*Morton,*('Attorney-General,) for the commonwealth.

The law excuses the wife only in cases where she may be supposed ignorant of the criminality of the act; as in larceny, &c., she may not know in whom the property of the goods is. The husband’s commands are no excuse for her where she must know, as well as he, that the action is wrong; as in the case at bar, where she could not be ignorant that it was unjustifiable to beat and wound her neighbor. (2)

(1)

 4 *Black. Comm.*28.— 1 *Mass. Rep.*391, 476. — 10 *Mod.*63, 335. — 1 *Salk.*384

(2)

 1 *Hawk. P. C.*c. 1, § 9, 13. — See also *Black. Comm.,*ubi sup., and *Christian’s notes.*

*Curia.*

The general doctrine is, that a *feme covert*incurs no legal guilt by the commission of civil offences, by the coercion of her husband, or even when in his presence. To this general rule, there are certain exceptions, as of crimes forbidden by the law of nature, which are *mala in fe,*and some where the wife may be presumed the principal agent. The case at bar is not within the exceptions, and *Elizabeth Neal*is not guilty, and must therefore be discharged, (a)

*163ADDITIONAL NOTE.

[A married woman, living apart from her husband, may be indicted alone, and pun ished, for keeping a house of ill fame.— *Com.*vs. *Lewis,*1 *Metc.*181. — F. H.]

(a)

 [In *Sikes*vs. *Johnson M.,*(16 *Mass. Rep.*389,) it was held, that *a feme covert**163might be charged as a trespasser for having procured the trespass to be committed, though not present when it was done. — Ed.]
§ 4221.3 Initiation of arbitration. ( a ) *Time limits—in general.* Arbitration of a withdrawal liability dispute may be initiated within the time limits described in section 4221(a)(1) of ERISA.
( b ) *Waiver or extension of time limits.* Arbitration shall be initiated in accordance with this section, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of any agreement entered into by the parties before the date on which the employer received notice of the plan's assessment of withdrawal liability. The parties may, however, agree at any time to waive or extend the time limits for initiating arbitration.
( c ) *Establishment of timeliness of initiation.* A party that unilaterally initiates arbitration is responsible for establishing that the notice of initiation of arbitration was timely received by the other party. If arbitration is initiated by agreement of the parties, the date on which the agreement to arbitrate was executed establishes whether the arbitration was timely initiated.
( d ) *Contents of agreement or notice.* If the employer initiates arbitration, it shall include in the notice of initiation a statement that it disputes the plan sponsor's determination of its withdrawal liability and is initiating arbitration. A copy of the demand for withdrawal liability and any request for reconsideration, and the response thereto, shall be attached to the notice. If a party other than an employer initiates arbitration, it shall include in the notice a statement that it is initiating arbitration and a brief description of the questions on which arbitration is sought. If arbitration is initiated by agreement, the agreement shall include a brief description of the questions submitted to arbitration. In no case is compliance with formal rules of pleading required.
( e ) *Effect of deficient agreement or notice.* If a party fails to object promptly in writing to deficiencies in an initiation agreement or a notice of initiation of arbitration, it waives its right to object.
#### § 1977.11 Testimony.

Discharge of, or discrimination against, any employee because the employee “has testified or is about to testify” in proceedings under or related to the Act is also prohibited by section 11(c). This protection would of course not be limited to testimony in proceedings instituted or caused to be instituted by the employee, but would extend to any statements given in the course of judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative proceedings, including inspections, investigations, and administrative rule making or adjudicative functions. If the employee is giving or is about to give testimony in any proceeding under or related to the Act, he would be protected against discrimination resulting from such testimony.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09

- 16

- 00376

- CV

________________ SHARIQ MASOOD KHAN , Appellant

V.

BROOKE ERIN K HA N, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appe al from the County Court at Law No. 3

Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 16

- 05

- 05774

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 13, 2016, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal di d not
appear to have been timely filed. The appellant did not file a response. The trial
court signed the judgment on June 9, 2016, and the appellate timetables were
extended by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

Noti ce of appeal was due to be filed on September 7, 2016.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 30, 2016, more than ninety
days from the date of judgment and outside the period for which we may grant an
extension of time to perfect appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This Court lacks2

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED

.

______________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on November 1 6 , 2016 Opinion Delivered November 1 7 , 2016
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johns on, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James A. Wylie, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diomed Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  November 14, 2005                        /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                                -------------------------------
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: June 8, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0322 

Case No. 2012NM060030 

Respondent Docket No. F AA-2014-0686 

Case No. 2014WP910006 

Docket No~FAA-2014-0809 

Case No. 2012NM060029 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0810 

Case No. 2012NM060123 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0811 

Case No. 2013NM060083 

Docket No. F AA-2016-4267 

Case No. 2015WP910079 

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' SECOND 

JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

On April 6, 2016, the undersigned judge granted in part the parties' joint motion to stay 

proceedings for a period of 60 days and directed the parties to submit a joint report stating the 

progress of the settlement negotiations by June 6, 2016. 

On June 6, 2016, the parties submitted a Second Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings. The 

parties explained that the negotiations involve 28 cases in various procedural postures, includ~ng 

four within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Courts. In those four cases, 

the Respondent has entered into a tolling agreement with the Department of Justice through 
October 1, 2016. The parties requested the proceedings in the above captioned cases be stayed 

until that same date. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(8), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The parties' joint motion to stay proceedings is granted through October 1, 2016. 

2. The parties must submit a joint report stating the progress of the global settlement 

negotiations, including an indication of how much additional time, if any, the 

negotiations require, no later than October 1, 2016. 

~~-- . DOUGLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0809 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

w·ilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Todd Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

444 S. River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: . 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind A venue Southwest 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX:·· 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
CauseNo. 05-14-01618-CV Henry S. Miller Brokerage, LLC Appellant (Plaintiff below) § § § § Court ofAppeals 5rn District ofTexas vs. Ruth Mae Sanders § Appellee (Defendant below) § Dallas, Texas
APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOREXTENSION TO FILE BRIEF 1. Appellant's briefis due today, Thursday, January 29 1• 2. Appellant seeks a four-day extension to Monday, February 2. 3. The undersigned Jamie Wall is the attorney responsible for preparing Appellant's brief. On Friday, January 23, Wall was retained as new counsel for a party in a pending lawsuit in which depositions were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, January 26 and 27. Case study, preparation, and attendance atthe depositions consumed much ofthe weekend and all ofJanuary 26- 27, whichunexpectedly delayed Wall's commencement ofAppellant's brief. Thereafter and during the course ofpreparing the brief, Wall determined that additional legal research and analysis was necessary, which further retarded progress onthe brief. 4. The briefis underway, butwill not be finished and ready to file by today's deadline. Out ofan abundance ofcaution, Appellant seeks to extend the deadline to Monday, February 2. 5. No previous extensions to file the briefhave been granted
orrequested. 6. Certificate ofConference: Appellee's counsel is Douglas C, Kittelson. In response to Wall's telephone voice message this afternoon to confer about this motion, Kittelson sent Wall a text message expressing his non-oppositionto the extension. See Exhibit A (copy oftext message).

Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Extension to File Brief Page 1 

# \ 1 All dates referenced in this motion are in 2015 unless otherwise stated ACCEPTED 05-14-01618-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 1/29/2015 6:24:04 PM

LISA MATZ CLERKWherefore, Appellant prays for an extension to Monday, February 2, 2015 to file Appellant's brief. 

### Certificate of

### Service: OnJanuary 29, 2015, a true copy ofthis instrument was e-served on Appellee's counsel through the Texas online filing system.

Appellant's Unopposed Motion for Extension to File Brief Respectfully submitted, s/Jamie Wall Jamie Wall Attorney at Law State BarNo. 20756700 9551 Milltrail Drive Dallas, Texas 75238 Telephone: 214-675-5534 jwall@sanijet.com ACKERMAN & SAVAGE Attorneys and Counselors 8226 Douglas Ave., Suite 330 Dallas, TX 75225 214-346-4200 (Telephone) 214-346-4201 (Facsimile) W.RANDALLACKERMAN State BarNo. 00832475 STEVEN T. RAMOS State BarNo. 00784812 cyh(ij),ackennansavage.com 

### ATTORNEYS FORAPPELLANT

Page2

# •••oo**AT&T~** 

# 3:44 PM 

# v**~** 

# * 55% 

# ;a l• 

# ( dougkittelson@icloud.c... Contact iMessage Today 1:50 PM 

# Monday 

# is fine for an extension to fUe your brief 

# Thanks. I'll so represent In certificate of conference Delivered

EXHIBIT

... I 

# -/i •'**·~,** , - \ ', ( ' ' ' , ,,,.,

""" 

# Send 

# 3**~----~--------·----~----------------**
#### § 452.85 Reasonable qualifications on right to vote.

The basic right of members to vote in elections of the labor organization may be qualified by reasonable rules and regulations in its constitution and bylaws.[44]

###### Footnotes -
  452.85

[44] Act, sec. 101(a)(1).
#### Sammy SWEARINGIN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5615

474 S.W. 2d 111

Opinion delivered December 20, 1971

[Rehearing denied January 17, 1972.]

*Marshall Carlisle,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *John D. Bridgforth,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Sammy Swearingin, convicted of possession of stolen property worth more than $35, has filed no brief in this court, although he is not a pauper. It is evident from the record that appellant consistently refused to cooperate with or confer with his attorneys employed in the trial court. The two points raised by the motion for new trial, which was denied, are (1) that the court erred in failing to strike testimony offered by the State concerning certain tape cartridges and the tape box containing the tapes since the tapes and box were not offered or admitted into evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was no evidence properly introduced from which the jury could find appellant was in possession of stolen property which exceeded the value of $35.

Appellant was charged by information with possessing stolen goods, “namely 31 stereo tapes, transistor radio, Holly Carburetor, a silver teapot, and other miscellaneous items,” belonging to Bill Cline. Cline testified that on the evening of June 26, 1970, he had found *701his home broken into, thoroughly messed up, and many things missing. After the police had come and he had given them a report, he went to appellant’s garage. He hid in the weeds across the street and heard tapes being played that sounded like his tape collection, which he reported to the police. Thereafter, he testified, the bulk of the missing items were returned to him by appellant.

Ronald Haskins, a patrolman, testified that he went to appellant’s garage, saw a black tape box full of tapes, traded two tapes to appellant for two tapes from the box, which he marked, and which Cline later identified as his. These two tapes were the only stolen goods introduced into evidence. Cline on recall testified that the tape box, given him by his wife a few weeks prior to the break-in, and the tapes in it belonged to him, and that the box was worth $5 and the 20 tapes in it were worth $1.75 each.

Appellant’s assertion that testimony about the box and tape cartridges should have been stricken because the box and tapes were not offered into evidence is without merit. A witness may testify about articles of personal property involved in a crime without producing the articles. *Meyer*v. *State,*218 Ark. 440, 236 S. W. 2d 996 (1951); *Washington*v. *State,*248 Ark. 318, 451 S. W. 2d 449 (1970). It follows, therefore, that since this testimony was properly admitted, appellant’s second assertion must also fail. Without enumerating the long list of other goods and their value, the testimony shows that the tape box and tape cartridges had a value of more than $35.00.

Affirmed.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00084-CR

ROBERT SHAYNE KINSLOW, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR01649

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In May 2011, in Red River County, Texas, Robert Shayne Kinslow was placed on 

deferred adjudication community supervision for two charges of indecency with a child. On the 

same day, Kinslow was convicted of one charge of burglary and sentenced to two years’

confinement, but that sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for 

a period of five years. 

In November 2013, the State moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke Kinslow’s community 

supervision. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Kinslow guilty of the two counts of 

indecency with a child, sentencing him to two consecutive twenty-year terms, and revoked his 

community supervision on his burglary conviction, sentencing him to two years’ confinement. 

In this case, Kinslow appeals the adjudication of guilt regarding one count of indecency with a 

child. He has appealed from the adjudication of guilt on the other indecency charge under our 

cause number 06-14-00083-CR and from the revocation of his community supervision on the 

burglary conviction under our cause number 06-14-00085-CR.

Kinslow has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. 

He contends that the trial court erred: (1) by failing to conduct a sentencing hearing after 

adjudicating him guilty and (2) by assessing attorney fees against him.
3

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date in Kinslow’s appeal in 

cause number 06-14-00083-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that the 

judgment in this case should be modified to delete the award of attorney fees and affirmed, as 

modified. 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: November 17, 2014

Date Decided: December 19, 2014

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                    RESTATED

                        FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1996


 
                                                      Number             Number
                                                     of shares           of days

            Common shares outstanding - 7/1/95       2,860,614            366

            Exercise of warrants
                                   6/24/96              94,340              7
            Pooling adjustment                      19,247,800            366
                                                 -------------

            Common shares outstanding - 6/30/96     22,202,754
                                                 -------------
            Weighted average number of common
            shares outstanding                      22,110,218

            Net loss                            $   (5,005,917)

            Loss per common share:              $        (0.23)

FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997                      Number            Number
                                                   of shares           of days

            Common shares outstanding - 7/1/96     22,202,754           365

            Exercise of warrants
                                    12/20/96           94,340           192
                                     3/6/97            94,340           116

                                                 ------------
            Common shares outstanding - 6/30/97    22,391,434
                                                -------------
            Weighted average number of common
            shares outstanding                     22,282,361

            Net loss                         $     (2,735,490)

            Loss per common share:           $          (0.12)
#### §§ 4281.14-4281.15 [Reserved]
§ 520.410 How long does a messenger, learner, or apprentice certificate remain in effect? ( a ) Messenger and/or learner certificates may be issued for a period of not longer than one year.
( b ) Each special apprentice certificate shall specify the conditions and limitations under which it is granted, including the periods of time during which subminimum wage rates may be paid pursuant to a registered apprenticeship program.
( c ) No certificate may be issued retroactively.
( d ) The Administrator may amend the provisions of a certificate when necessary to correct omissions or defects in the original certificate or reflect changes in this part.