alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ralph CHAPMAN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45566.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 27, 1969.

*477Robert J. Kelly, Batesville, Jon P. Thames, Meridian, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by G. Garland Lyell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

We reverse the conviction of appellant on a charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors for the single reason that the state’s instruction did not require the jury to believe that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt “from the evidence.” The instructions in a criminal case must require the jury to believe the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt “from the evidence,” and the omission of the words “from the evidence” is fatal error. Walters v. State, 176 Miss. 790, 170 So. 539 (1936).

We are not able to say that the error was harmless. Since no instruction in the case required the jury to confine its consideration of guilt to the evidence, the omission of the words “from the evidence” was not cured. The case is therefore reversed and remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

JONES, PATTERSON, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
SWORCCPP-000016
SWORCCPP-000017
SWORCCPP-000018

SWORCCPP-000020
SWORCCPP-000021
SWORCCPP-000022
SWORCCPP-000023
SWORCCPP-000024
SWORCCPP-000025
SWORCCPP-000026
SWORCCPP-000027
SWORCCPP-000028
SWORCCPP-000029
SWORCCPP-000030
SWORCCPP-000031
 

SWORCCPP-000032
SWORCCPP-000033
SWORCCPP-000034
SWORCCPP-000035
SWORCCPP-000036
SWORCCPP-000037
SWORCCPP-000038
SWORCCPP-000039
SWORCCPP-000040
SWORCCPP-000041
 

SWORCCPP-000042
SWORCCPP-000043
SWORCCPP-000044
 

 

SWORCCPP-000045
SWORCCPP-000046
 

 

 

SWORCCPP-000047
 

 

SWORCCPP-000048
SWORCCPP-000049
 

 

SWORCCPP-000050
 

 

SWORCCPP-000051
SWORCCPP-000052
SWORCCPP-000053
SWORCCPP-000054
 

 

SWORCCPP-000055
 

 

SWORCCPP-000056
 

SWORCCPP-000057
SWORCCPP-000058
SWORCCPP-000059
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1850 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 relating to 

the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory, and 

for other purposes. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1850 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Research 

3 and Development for First Responders Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIONAL URBAN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LAB5 ORATORY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Homeland Secu7 rity Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by 

8 adding at the end the following new section: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 322. NATIONAL URBAN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY LAB10 ORATORY. 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through 

12 the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall 

13 designate the laboratory described in subsection (b) as an 

14 additional laboratory pursuant to the authority under sec15 tion 308(c)(2). Such laboratory shall be used to test and 

16 evaluate emerging technologies and conduct research and 

17 development to assist emergency response providers in 

18 preparing for, and protecting against, threats of terrorism. 

19 ‘‘(b) LABORATORY DESCRIBED.—The laboratory de20 scribed in this subsection is the laboratory— 

21 ‘‘(1) known, as of the date of the enactment of 

22 this section, as the National Urban Security Tech23 nology Laboratory; and 

24 ‘‘(2) transferred to the Department pursuant to 

25 section 303(1)(E). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1850 RFS

1 ‘‘(c) LABORATORY ACTIVITIES.—The National Urban 

2 Security Technology Laboratory shall— 

3 ‘‘(1) conduct tests, evaluations, and assess4 ments of current and emerging technologies, includ5 ing, as appropriate, the cybersecurity of such tech6 nologies that can connect to the internet, for emer7 gency response providers; 

8 ‘‘(2) act as a technical advisor to emergency re9 sponse providers; and 

10 ‘‘(3) carry out other such activities as the Sec11 retary determines appropriate. 

12 ‘‘(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec13 tion may be construed as affecting in any manner the au14 thorities or responsibilities of the Countering Weapons of 

15 Mass Destruction Office of the Department.’’. 

16 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

17 in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is 

18 amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

19 321 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 322. National Urban Security Technology Laboratory.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Commonwealth Gas Company for
the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000022620
<NAME> COMMONWEALTH GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          255,254
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>              0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              64,828
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            33,104
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     353,186
<COMMON>                            71,425
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           27,739
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                  3,718
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     102,882
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                78,100
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  36,430
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>       13,650
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     122,124
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      353,186
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          240,982
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 5,641
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         218,016
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         223,657
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             17,325
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     484
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      17,809
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             8,159
<NET-INCOME>                         9,650
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        9,650
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            16,427
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            6,147
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                (909)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

John Paul Lewis, Jr., * From the 29th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 15995D.

Vs. No. 11-19-00014-CR * December 18, 2020

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6251

CHARLES E. LAWSON, JR.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

B. G. WILSON, Officer Sumter County,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (0:08-cv-03917-GRA)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles E. Lawson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred Johnston Cox, 

ELLIS, LAWHORNE & SIMS, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles E. Lawson, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny Lawson’s motion for appointment of counsel 

and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Lawson v. Wilson, No. 0:08-cv-03917-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2010). 

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
#### Johnnie LEE a/k/a James Brown, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44967.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed. 279 So.2d 313.
**Re: Boilers --**  **Major Source and Area sources**

Jim Eddinger To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: RobertJ Wayland, Thomas Cortney, As requested, the attached list the major changes being finalized to the boiler rules as compared to the March 2011 final rules. 

### (S ee attached file: One
-Pager Describing Major Changes 060712.docx) Jim

_______________ James A. Eddinger Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division 919 - 541 - 5426 "Higgins, Cortney"
--- 06/07/2012 01:15:47 PM
--- Hi Bob and Jim, Can you send a table/list of the major changes to the major source and area source r From : "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/07/2012 01:15 PM Subject: Boilers
-- Major Source and Area sources 

### Hi Bob and Jim, Can you send a table/list of the major changes to the major source and area source rules compared to the prior final rule? If you have this list with the associated costs and benefits, that would be very he lpful, but if not, just the list will do. I think you may have generated this for the proposed rule, but it’d be good to have it for the final rule. Regards, Cortney One - Pager Describing Major Changes 060712.docx
No. 00-7149.

#### Jones *v.*Smith et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56206-56207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28546]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces that the 
Special Emphasis Panel in Chemistry (1191) will be holding panel 
meetings for the purpose of reviewing proposals submitted to the 
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program. In order to review 
the large volume of proposals, panel meetings will be held on November 
13-14, November 17-18, November 20-21, and December 8-9. All meetings 
will be closed to the public and will be held at the National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM 
each day.

    Contact Person: Dr. Margaret A. Cavanaugh, Program Director, 
Inorganic, Bioinorganic and Organometallic program, Chemistry 
Division, Room 1055, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1842.

[[Page 56207]]

    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: October 23, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-28546 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29014]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. (EST) November 10, 1997.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room, 1250 H Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Approval of the minutes of the October 14, 1997, Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    3. Review of KPMG Peat Marwick audit reports:
    (a) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of Backup, 
Recovery, and Contingency Planning of the Thrift Savings Plan at the 
United States Department of Agriculture, National Finance Center.''
    (b) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of the 
Policies and Procedures of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment 
Board Administrative Staff.''
    (c) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of Thrift 
Savings Plan C and F Fund Investment Management Operations at Barclays 
Global Investors, N.A.''
    (d) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of U.S. 
Department of Treasury Operations relating to the Thrift Savings Plan 
Investments in the Government Securities Investment Fund.''
    (e) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of the 
Thrift Savings Plan Annuity Operations at the Metropolitan Life 
Insurance Company.''
    (f) ``Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Review of the 
Thrift Savings Plan Billing Process at the United States Department of 
Agriculture, National Finance Center.''
    4. Semiannual review of status of audit recommendations.
    5. Labor Department audit briefing.
    6. Quarterly investment policy review.
    7. Annual ethics briefing.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: October 29, 1997.
Roger W. Mehle,
Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 97-29014 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
Opinion issued March 10, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00509-CR

———————————

ROSEVELT LEE GILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1382563

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Rosevelt Lee Gill, pled guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery 

with a deadly weapon. In accordance with Gill’s plea bargain with the State, the 

trial court sentenced Gill on May 16, 2014 to thirty years in the Institutional Division 
2

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On June 9, 2014, Gill filed a pro se 

notice of appeal. 

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the 

defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. 

See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of 

appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who pleabargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal 

without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
3

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis

MARIA E. RUSSO

v. Record No. 2400-94-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM CAPITAL GARDENS, INC. T/A MAY 30, 1995 DENNIS' SPAGHETTI AND STEAK HOUSE AND AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (John H. Klein; Rutter & Montagna, on brief), for appellant. (Robert W. McFarland; Mark S. Davis; Kevin E. Mooney; McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, on brief), for appellees.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Maria E. Russo failed to prove that she sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule

5A:27. On appellate review, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). To recover benefits, Russo must establish that she suffered an injury by accident "arising out of and in the course

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 of [her] employment." Code § 65.2-101. "The phrase arising 'out of' refers to the origin or cause of the injury." County of Chesterfield v. Johnson , 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74 (1989). The evidence proved that Russo was employed as a waitress in employer's restaurant. While she was working, she bent down to pick up a napkin off of the floor and felt pain in her knee. At the hearing, Russo demonstrated that she bent over, with her left foot slightly off of the ground behind her, and she reached for the napkin with her left hand. Russo sustained a left knee injury as a result of this incident. In denying Russo's application on the basis that her injury did not arise out of her employment, the commission made the following findings: We agree with the Deputy Commissioner's determination . . . [that] a "critical link" must exist between the conditions and the injury in order for the injury to arise out of the employment. No such link has been proven. The claimant was performing a simple bending motion when her knee gave out. Excluded from coverage under the Act are workplace injuries that come from hazards to which the worker would have been equally exposed apart from the employment.

The commission's decision is supported by County of Chesterfield v. Johnson , 237 Va. 180, 186, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1989), and Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour , 8 Va. App. 482, 484, 382 S.E.2d 305, 306 (1989). Therefore, we affirm the

commission's decision.3 Affirmed.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50798

Summary Calendar

CHONITA CRAYTON, Individually and as next friend

of Jerome Crayton, II, a minor child,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMAL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JERRY MAJORS,

Individually and in his Official Capacity as 

Superintendent of the Comal Independent School

District; WILL KRIEG, Individually and in his Official

Capacity as Principal of Canyon High School; 

CHARLES ADAMS, Individually and in his Official

Capacity as Assistant Principal of Canyon High School,

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-98-CV-328)

May 6, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-appellant Chonita Crayton, individually and as next

friend of Jerome Crayton, II, a minor child (“Crayton”), appeals

the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

defendants-appellants. Crayton argues on appeal that she

sufficiently raised genuine issues of material fact in order to
2

survive a motion for summary judgment on her claims of wrongful

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964.

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no

reversible error in the district court’s order. Therefore, we

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. See Crayton v. Comal

Indep. Sch. Dist., No. SA-98-CA-328 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 1998).
**Video: HDL-VLT_7-3-Mobile Robot.mp4**

**YouTube Information:**

Title: Virtual Hydraulics Lab Tour – Mobile Robot

Description: A brief introduction to the autonomous mobile robot, which is being programmed to conduct soil erosion testing in the Hydraulics Laboratory.

Video: mp4

Captions: attached

Thumbnail file: attached

Public Listing Type: Unlisted (we only want people to discover this video through our website and the virtual tour.)

**Permissions, copyright, licensing:**

Video: The entire video is FHWA-owned.

Music: Time to Move by VESHZA. Licensed from Artlist. See attached PDF: TimetoMove_License_719099 - 2020-2021.pdf

**Script:**

The autonomous robot is programmed to move between different devices while avoiding obstacles utilizing its sensors and digital mapping system. The goal is to have a soil testing facility in the future that automates the tedious process of soil erosion testing, therefore increasing the capacity to provide soil erosion values for design.  

**508 Caption Description:**

The video shows an overhead camera angle, simulating security camera footage, of the lab floor between the ex-situ soil testing device and the soil compaction station. The mobile robot starts on the left side of the screen, rotates and then drives completely autonomously across the lab floor between the safety strips on the floor. When it gets even with the compaction station, it pauses then begins moving towards the station while gradually turning. When it arrives at the station the robot arm scans each Shelby tube mount on the mobile platform to count the samples, then scans the top of the samples to see if they’re full of soil. The arm then turns and scans the three pistons at the soil compaction station to see if they are open. The arm swivels back to grab a sample on the mobile platform and places it in an open slot on the soil compaction station. While the arm is scanning the soil samples, a secondary video appears in the lower right corner to give a closer view of the procedure.
Page 37.1.682

 

 

 

NORMANDIN CHRYSLER 

Page 37.1.684

 

Page 37.1.686
Page 37.1.687

NOVATO AUTO CENTER 

Page 37.1.689
Page 37.1.690
Page 37.1.691
Page 37.1.692
Page 37.1.693

PACIFIC AUTO REPAIR 

Page 37.1.695

Page 37.1.697
 

 

Page 37.1.698

 

PALM AVENUE MOTORS, INC. 

Page 37.1.700