alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHNSON v. REA.

March 31, 1836.

*Trial by inspection.*

To fix the special hail to the action, the *capias ad, satisfaciendum*against the original defendant, must be issued and delivered to the sheriff, four days, *exclusive of Sunday,*before the return day of such writ.

THIS was a *scire facias*on a recognizance of special bail to the action, given by the defendant in another case. The defendant pleaded, first, “ *comp, ad diem,*” and second, “ no *capias ad satisfa-ciendum*against the defendant in the original action, regularly issued and returned.” Replication, &c. and issues.

It appeared that a *capias ad satisfaciendum*had been issued and left in the sheriff’s office on the Friday before the return day, which was on Monday.

*160*Perkins,*for plaintiff.

*Meredith,*for defendant.

Authorities cited: 1 *Selw. Frac.*115; 1 *Tidd*994; Decas *v*Perry, 2 *Dow.*& %. 869.

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be for the defendant. To fix the special bail, it is necessary that the *capias ad satisfaciendum*against the original defendant should have been issued and delivered to the sheriff *four days before the return day, exclusive*of the Sunday, which is not the case here.

Judgment for defendant.
#### James Howard SMITH, Trustee for the Estates of Marilyn A. Hanson and Lynn M. Rice, petitioner, v. LASER, WILSON, /BUFORD & WATTS, P.C., et al.

No. 98-400.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 9, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Before the First Division,

February 26, 1940

No. 43264.

#### Protest 992391-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The evidence was found insufficient to sustain the claim made. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the Third Division,

May 7, 1943

No. 48260.

#### Protests 24226-K, etc., of Cherry Co. Ltd., et al. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) the claim under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
# C_2012184EN.01002503.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/25

---

Action brought on 23 April 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-46/12)

2012/C 184/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. 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 of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates of that competition;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
613 S.E.2d 480

#### Joshua BRISTOL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 1477-04-1.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

May 31, 2005.

Before FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON, ELDER, BUMGARDNER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS, FELTON, KELSEY, McCLANAHAN and HALEY, JJ.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing En Banc

On May 17, 2005 came the appellee, by the Attorney General of Virginia, and filed a petition praying that the Court set aside the judgment rendered herein on May 3, 2005, and grant a rehearing *en banc*thereof.

On consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing *en banc*is granted, the mandate entered herein on May 3, 2005 is stayed pending the decision of the Court *en banc,*and the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court.

The parties shall file briefs in compliance with Rule 5A:35. The appellee shall attach as an addendum to the opening brief upon rehearing *en banc*a copy of the opinion previously rendered by the Court in this matter. It is further ordered that the appellee shall file with the clerk of this Court twelve additional copies of the appendix previously filed in this case.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 42776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17147]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL9834-8]

Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection 
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste 
Injection; Blanchard Refining Company LLC Galveston Bay Refinery, Texas 
City, Texas (Formerly BP Products North America Inc.--Texas City 
Business Unit)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a final decision on a no migration petition 
reissuance.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to 
the land disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has 
been granted to Blanchard Refining Company LLC (Blanchard) Galveston 
Bay Refinery for three existing Class I injection wells located at 
Texas City, Texas. The company has adequately demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition 
reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a 
reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous 
constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains 
hazardous. This final decision allows the continued underground 
injection by Blanchard of the specific restricted hazardous wastes 
identified in this exemption into Class I hazardous waste injection 
wells Nos. WDW-80, 127, and 128 at the Galveston Bay Refinery facility, 
until December 31, 2020, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption. 
Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed 
by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A public comment 
period for the proposed approval of this reissuance was May 7, 2013, 
through June 24, 2013, and no comments were received. This decision 
constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. 
This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the 
Administrative Procedure Act.

DATES: This action is effective as of July 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent 
information relating thereto are on file at the following location: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Source Water Protection 
Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/
UIC Section, EPA--Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7150.

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
David F. Garcia,
Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-17147 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Troop Support Europe and Africa employees and families build overseas morale with Turkey Trot

By John Dwyer IIIDLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Europe and Africa hosted a “Turkey Trot” 5K run and 3K walk November 19, 2021, for employees and families living in the local Kaiserslautern area. The event was held on nature trails near Kleber Kaserne to promote team building and increase morale​ prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday. Prizes were awarded for the fastest run time and the best costume.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Department of DefenseDoDDefense Logisitics AgencyDLA Troop Support Europe & AfricaPeople and CultureTurkey Trot
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Patrick D. O’Brien, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: April 11, 2007   /s/ Patrick D. O’Brien   Patrick D. O’Brien  Chief Executive Officer  
26
No. 42112.

#### Protests 662724-G, etc., of Cudahy Packing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 and *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284) the court sustained the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit (10)b

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
              SJNB FINANCIAL CORP. 1992 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN

      This Amendment No. 1 to the SJNB Financial Corp. 1992 Employee Stock

Option Plan ("Plan") is adopted by the Board of Directors of SJNB Financial 

Corp. ("Corporation") with reference to the following:

                                    RECITALS:

     A.    The Board of Directors of the Corporation desires to amend the Plan

to increase the number of shares for which options may be granted, subject to

the approval of the shareholders of the Corporation,

     THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.     Section 2 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

     "2.    STOCK SUBJECT TO OPTION
            "Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 6(g) hereof,
         options under the Plan may be granted to participants by the
         Corporation from time to time to purchase an aggregate of up to two
         hundred, thirty-five thousand (235,000) shares. For purposes of
         calculating the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock which may be
         issued under the Plan:
            "(a) Shares of Common Stock applicable to the unexercised
         portions of options which have terminated or expired may again be made
         subject to options under the Plan, if at such time options may still be
         granted under the Plan; and
            "(b)  All the shares issued (including the shares, if any, withheld
         for tax withholding requirements) shall be counted upon exercise of an
         option, even if shares of Common Stock are delivered to the
         Corporation as payment for the exercise."

     2.     The amendment effected by Section 1 of the Amendment No. 1 shall be

subject to being approved by the shareholders of the Corporation.

     3.     Except as amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and

effect.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


     CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON LLP, INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We have issued our report dated April 9, 1999, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of CompuTrac, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the year ended January 31, 1999. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
CompuTrac, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-40732; 33-40734; 33-02906; 33-07319;
33-61577).


GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 14, 1999
# C_2013178EN.01000402.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.

(Case C-160/13)

2013/C 178/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: X B.V.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2014112EN.01001901.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/19

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Firenze — Italy) — Paola C v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-122/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12 - Compensation of victims of violent intentional crime - Purely internal situation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 112/22

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paola C

Applicant:

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze — Interpretation of Article 12 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Scope — Legislation not providing a compensation scheme for victims of violent intentional crime committed in national territory ensuring fair and appropriate compensation to all victims of violent crimes.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The European Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question put by the Tribunale ordinario di Firenze (Italy).

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         558,818
<SECURITIES>                                 3,226,330
<RECEIVABLES>                                  613,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,634,377
<PP&E>                                      14,406,585
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,841,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,670,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          594,682
<BONDS>                                        115,546
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,887
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,889,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,670,060
<SALES>                                        958,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,816,343
<CGS>                                          609,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  903,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,182,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,042,748)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,042,748)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,042,748)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
Page 1

CAUSE NO. _________________

PD-0419-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/15/2015 1:29:59 PM

Accepted 4/16/2015 11:38:37 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

__________________________________________________

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS

__________________________________________________

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 08-13-00025-CR 

TRIAL COURT NO. 960D10169-384-1

EX PARTE: DANIEL ALVAREZ

____________________________________________________________________

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION

OF TIM E TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

________________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Petitioner, Daniel Alvarez, files this Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Petition for Discretionary Review under Tex. R. App. P. 10.1, 10.5(b), and 53.7(f). 

In support of this motion, Petitioner shows the following:

1. The Eighth Court of Appeals for the Western District in El Paso rendered its 

opinion and judgment in Ex Parte: Daniel Alvarez, No. 08-13-00025-CR, on January

28, 2015, a motion forrehearing wasfiled on February 27, 2014 and denied on March

18, 2015. The petition for review due date for filing is due on April 17, 2015.

2. Petitioner requests an extension of time of thirty days, to March 17, 2015. This 

is Petitioner's first request for an extension of time in this case.
Page 2

3. Petitioner relies on the following facts as a reasonable explanation for the 

requested extension of time:

The undersigned has had several court hearings, client conferences, worked on 

a Petition for Review in a case styled In the Matter of the Estate of Sherman 

Alexander Hemsley, No. 15-0156 filed on April 2, 2015; prepared for a trial on April

6, 2015 in a case styled The State of Texas v. Marisela Delarosa, No. 20140D02737 

which was dismissed on the day of trial; is currently in a trial that begin on April 14,

2015 in case styled The State of Texas v. Luis Arroyos, No. 20120C09468; and is 

currently working on an appeal (10 volumes) in a case styled The State of Texas v. 

David Espinoza, No. 08-14-00268-CR due on April 21, 2015, necessitating the filing 

of this extension request.

Therefore, Petitioner prays that this Court grant this motion for extension of 

time.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James D. Lucas

JAMES D. LUCAS 

SBN 12658300

2316 Montana Avenue

El Paso, Texas 79903

Tel: (915) 532-8811

Fax: (915) 532-8807

Counsel for Petitioner 

jlucas2@elp.rr.com
Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James D. Lucas, hereby certify that on the 15th day of April , 2015, a true and

correct amended copy of the foregoing instrument was delivered to the below-named 

individuals by electronic means:

Jaime Esparza

District Attorney

El Paso County Courthouse

500 E. San Antonio, Room 201

El Paso, Texas 79901 

tdarnold@epcounty.com

State Prosecuting Attorney

P.O. Box 12405

Austin, Texas 78711

information@spa.texas.gov

Dated this 15th day of April, 2015.

/s/ James D. Lucas 

JAMES D. LUCAS
#### The United States, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Henry E. Switzer, defendant in error.

*Error to Cedar.*

Where the public prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi on an indictment for burglary, it was held that the county was liable for the costs of prosecution.

At the District Court held in and for the county of Johnson, while the county of Linn was attached for judicial purposes, to wit: at May-term 1840, Henry Switzer, Lester Wallace, and William Long were indicted for burglary. The case was afterwards transferred to Linn, and the venue, as to the defendant Switzer, changed to the county of Cedar. And was disposed of at the May term of the Cedar District Court, 1842, by the district prosecutor entering a nolle prosequi. A judgment was thereupon rendered against the county of Linn for the payment of the costs.

The county of Linn, in the name of the United States, prosecuted a writ of error.

Error assigned :

The court erred in rendering a judgment against the county of Linn for costs.

Bates, for plaintiff in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The only question involved in this case, is whether the county is liable to pay the costs of the prosecution, in cases where a nolle prosequi has been entered by the public prosecutor. It was undoubtedly in the power of the District Court to direct the costs to be thus paid, prior to the act of February 15th, 1842. The sixth section of that act declares that *“*no costs shall be rendered by the court in the event of the acquittal of a person charged with a criminal offence against the private prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious; or the county, or the territory, *303except, dsc.” This section makes no change in the previous law, except in the event of an “ acquittal.” The entering of a nolle prosequi, is not an acquittal, and therefore the court was justified in entering up a judgment for costs against the county.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 45339.

#### Protests 991469-G, etc., of L. H. Arens et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.