alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
34191.

#### THOMPSON et al. v. COLTER.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Colter filed an action to enjoin Thompson and others from trespassing on his property and to establish the line between their properties. The jury found in favor of Colter. The motion for new trial filed by Thompson and others was overruled and they appeal.

1. The first enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial on the general grounds. The evidence supports the jury’s verdict. Thus, this enumeration of error has no merit.

2. The second enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in admitting a plat offered as plaintiffs Exhibit No. 8. The case of *Patterson v. Baugh,*56 Ga. App. 660 (193 SE 364) (1937), relied upon by Thompson, is to be distinguished from the present case in that the living owner testified in the present case as to the locations of the corners. The second enumeration of error is without merit.

*785Submitted November 3, 1978

Decided January 4, 1979.

3. The third enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in not granting appellants’ motion for mistrial because of the remarks of Colter’s counsel in his closing argument to the jury. In an effort to settle the dispute, the parties entered into an agreement whereby each appointed a surveyor to run the line together. The surveyor appointed by Colter testified at the trial, but the surveyor appointed by Thompson was not called to testify, although he was under subpoena. The failure to call this witness was the subject of comment by Colter’s counsel in his closing argument.

"Where a witness is known, competent, and compellable to testify as to material facts of which he is cognizant, counsel may properly comment in his argument before the jury on the failure of a party to whom the witness is accessible to produce the witness’ testimony.” *Floyd v. Colonial Stores,*121 Ga. App. 852 (6) (176 SE2d 111) (1970), and citations. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for mistrial.

4. The fourth and fifth enumerations of error contend that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the form of verdict and "in entering the final judgment in the form used.” The jury was instructed that the form of the verdict should be, "We the jury find in favor of the ... [plaintiff or defendants]”.

When asked for objections to the charge, appellants’ counsel stated: "I would assume that in view of the written contentions that if they find for the Defendants, they find that the fence is the line, that if they find for the Plaintiff they find that the Brantley plat is the line.” The trial judge replied, "I think that’s the effect of it.” No further comment about or objection to the charge was made.

There was no evidence presented from which the jury could have found the line to be other than one of the two alternatives stated by Thompson’s counsel. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury as to the form of the verdict or in entering final judgment on the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*786
      *H. Dale Thompson,*for appellants.

*H. G. Bozeman,*for appellee.
No. 46441.

#### Protest 56756-K of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protest was therefore sustained.
# C_2013026EN.01007703.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/77

---

Action brought on 21 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-144/12)

2013/C 26/163

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful;

| — | annul the decision of 3 February 2012 to apply the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 3 February 2012 to apply the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Retirees visit new operations center on DSCR

By Leon MooreDLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, VA  –              
A line in the book “You Can't Go Home Again,” written by Thomas Wolfe states “Some things will never change. Some things will always be the same.”

That definitely isn’t true for the close to 80 former Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, employees who got to tour the new Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Operations Center Oct. 1. Phase I of the Operations Center, which is now complete with most of the building occupied, was either in the planning, design or building phase when they retired. This was an opportunity to finally see what they only got to see through graphic designs and artist renditions. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DSCRDefense Supply Center Richmond VirginiaDLA Aviation at RichmondDefense Logistics Agency Aviation Richmond
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# New video showcases field support 

By DLA Disposition Services Public Affairs

                Poland  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

ArmyPolandexcess military property
# C_2016191EN.01005401.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/54

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 April 2016 — Chevalier v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-99/12) (1)

1

(2016/C 191/79)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10/11/2012, p. 24.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL D. NUNLEY, II, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. FRED FOULK, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-16390D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00607-KJMEFB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2014 ** San Francisco, California Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Michael Nunley, II, appeals the dismi ssal of his habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm. 1. A federal habeas court may not grant relief to a state prisoner on a claim already “adjudicated on the merits in State court,” unless the adjudication “resulted 

# FILED
SEP 12 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).in a decision that was contrary to, or i nvolved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme C ourt of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Nunley argues th at his Sixth Amendment claim was not adjudicated on the merits by the Californi a Court of Appeal. We must presume, however, that the Court of Appeal adjudicated that cl aim on the merits even though it did not directly address it. Johnson v. Williams , 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013). This “presumption is a strong one that may berebutted only in unusual circumstances,” which are not presented here. Id. 2. A state court decision does not contradict or unreasonably apply clearly established federal law if no Supreme Court holding squarely a ddresses a defendant’s claim. Wright v. Van Patten , 552 U.S. 120, 126 (2008). No Supreme Court opinion holds that where, as here, a defendant voluntar ily testifies that his former attorney did not notify him of forensic test results, the Sixth Amendment forbids the attorney from being compelled to testify about that issue. There is no clearly es tablished federal law contradicting the California appellate court’s conclusion that Nunley waived any attorney-client privilege as to whether hi s former counsel had informed him of the DNA test results. AFFIRMED
.

2
#### David Miller and Valentine Faulkner, appellees, *vs.*Henry L. McGuire, appellant.

*Jlppeal from Louisa.*

Where a defendant in a suit at law, neglecis to plead his legal defence in bar to the action, he cannot make the substance of such defence, a ground for the interposition of the Chancery Court, to injoin the collection of the money on said judgment.

Where the bill alleges new and material testimony, discovered after the trial at law, the substance of that testimony should be set out.

David Miller and Valentine Faulkner, filed their bill against Henry L. McGuire, in the District Court of Louisa county. The grounds of complaint were that McGuire had sold to complainant, Miller, a certain land “claim” for $150, and Miller with Faulkner his security executed a note for the same, payable 1st March 1837, and that McGuire at the same time executed to Miller a bond of indemnity against ail prior claims. That there was a verbal agreement between Miller and McGuire, that if he, Miller, was dispossessed by a prior claimant, that the note was to be cancelled ; that this agreement was made when the par-lies were alone, and that he supposed the bond of indemnity contained this stipulation, as neither of the complainants can read writing, &c. The complainants charge that at the time of sale, McGuire knew that one James Envin had an older and a better right to the claim, that said Erwin lawfully obtained possession of the premises, and that in consequence the consideration of the note had entirely failed. That judgment had been obtained on said note because the complainants had no adequate defence at law. That since the judgment, testimony not known at the time of trial had been discovered. That McGuire had removed from the territory, and resided in parts ua known to complainants, and that they were without remedy at law upon the bond of indemnity. Injunction prayed and obtained.

To this bill there was a general demurrer which was overruled; and at the November term 1840, the injunction was made perpetual, and a decree against the defendant for costs.

The defendant by attorney appealed to the Supreme Court.

Learned, for complainants.

*151Grimes, for defendant.

Per Curiam,

Mason Chief Justice.

This case must follow the fate of Faulkner vs. Campbell, just decided, and for the same reason. It only differs from that case in one particular. The bill contables in a general and vague way an allegation of newly discovered testimony. This is not sufficient. The newly discovered testimony should have been set forth, that the court might judge of its materiality. The decree of the court below will therefore be reversed, the demurrer sustained and the bill dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 9601)

#### John S. Connor *v.*United States

Entry No. 1219.

(Decided February 19, 1960)

*Laporte & Meyers*for tbe plaintiff.

*George Ooehran Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Richardson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has .been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> WHEREAS, entry was made by erroneously adding certain charges to the invoiced values instead of deducting said charges,

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, subject to the approval of the Court that at the time of exportation of the bicycles involved, such or similar bicycles were not freely offered for sale for home consumption in the country of exportation or for export to the United States or in the United States as defined in Section 402 (c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930;

> That the cost of production of the involved bicycles as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the unit invoiced value plus packing as invoiced of all items other than the item marked (x) in red ink by the appraiser; and as to that item so marked, the cost of production is the unit invoiced value plus lamps at 19 shillings, English currency, less *B%%*plus 2%% applicable only to the lamps, plus packing as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case be submitted for decision on the above stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in 19 U.S.C.A. section 1402(f) (section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930), is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue and that said value is the unit invoiced value, plus packing, as invoiced, of all items other than the item marked (x) in red ink by the appraiser; and as to that item so marked, the cost of production is the unit invoiced value, plus lamps, at 19 shillings, English currency, less 3%%, plus 2%%, applicable only to the lamps, plus packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 96-7811.

#### Ochoa *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-51234

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR HERMOSILLO-MINOR, also known as Edgar Hermosillo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-1986-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Hermosillo-Minor appeals the 77-month sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with

intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that his sentence was greater than

necessary to meet the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Hermosillo-Minor

asserts that application of the career offender enhancement yielded an advisory

guidelines range that overstated the seriousness of his offense and did not

properly account for the § 3553(a) factors. He also argues that the sentence fails

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 11, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-51234 Document: 00511569133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2011
No. 10-51234

to account for mitigating factors in his personal history and characteristics,

particularly his problems with substance abuse.

Hermosillo-Minor does not dispute the calculation of the guidelines range. 

Rather, he challenges the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Where the

district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range,

it is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531

F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court considered HermosilloMinor’s arguments for a lower sentence and made an individualized sentencing

decision based on the facts of the case and in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Hermosillo-Minor’s sentence is

presumed to be reasonable because it was within his guidelines range, and he

has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that presumption. See

Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186. Thus, he has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with

respect to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564

F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-51234 Document: 00511569133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2011
We are transmitting to you via the ARB FTP Server the comprehensive Exceptional Events document for 1-Hour

Ozone Exceedances for the Sacramento Region, along with all of the appendices. This document provides an 

update to our original Exceptional Events document submitted in September of 2009. Please do not hesitate to 

contact us if you have any questions. 

 

FTP.ARB.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/EPA Kate

 

 

Gayle M. Sweigert

Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section

Air Resources Board

(916) 322-6923

Final EE Document 

Sweigert, Gayle@ARB 

to: 

Katherine Hoag, Matthew Lakin, Magliano, Karen@ARB 

03/30/2011 03:40 PM 

Cc: 

"BRIGETTE TOLLSTRUP (BTOLLSTRUP@airquality.org)", "CHARLES ANDERSON 

(CAnderson@airquality.org)" 

Hide Details 

From: "Sweigert, Gayle@ARB" <gsweiger@arb.ca.gov>

To: Katherine Hoag/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Matthew Lakin/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

"Magliano, Karen@ARB" <kmaglian@arb.ca.gov>

Cc: "BRIGETTE TOLLSTRUP (BTOLLSTRUP@airquality.org)" 

<BTOLLSTRUP@airquality.org>, "CHARLES ANDERSON (CAnderson@airquality.org)"

<CAnderson@airquality.org>

History: This message has been replied to.
#### Charles BERNARD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 98-3678.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1999.

Charles Bernard, pro se, petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Bart Schneider, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Bernard petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He complains that he filed a motion for postconviction relief in the Circuit Court for Gadsden County in case number 93-86-CF in February of 1997. The State of Florida was directed to respond to the motion and did so. No disposition of the merits of the postconviction motion, however, has been forthcoming from the Circuit Court.

In our view the trial court’s delay in acting on the motion is unreasonable and a writ of mandamus is appropriate in the circumstances. *Kramp v. Fagan,*568 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Attorney General of Florida, speaking on behalf of respondent, has expressed no objection to the relief sought by petitioner in this court. Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue the writ of mandamus. The circuit court shall rule on the pending motion for postconviction relief within 15 days of issuance of mandate in this cause.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

BARFIELD, C.J., KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.