alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8264-8265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4468]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items in the Possession 
of the Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ

AGENCY: National Park Service.


[[Page 8265]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice is hereby given under the Native American Graves Protection 
and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3005 (a)(2), of the intent to 
repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Heard Museum, 
Phoenix, AZ, which meet the definition of ``sacred objects'' under 
Section 2 of the Act.
    The cultural items are two painted rawhide rattles with wood and 
rawhide handles. Prior to 1954, these rattles were purchased by the 
Heard Museum and are identified as Oglala from South Dakota.
    Consultation evidence presented by representatives of the Cheyenne 
River Sioux Tribe, Devil's Lake Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 
and Three Affiliated Tribes indicate these rattles are part of a Yuwipi 
ceremony, and are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional 
religious leaders for the practice of Native American religion by 
present day adherents. 
    Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the Heard 
Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(C), these 
cultural items are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional 
Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional 
Native American religions by their present-day adherents. Officials of 
the Heard Museum have also determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 
(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be 
reasonably traced between these items and the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
    This notice has been sent to officials of the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe, Devil's Lake Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux 
Tribe, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. 
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be 
culturally affiliated with these objects should contact Martin 
Sullivan, Director, The Heard Museum, 22 E. Monte Vista Rd., Phoenix, 
AZ 85004-1480, telephone (602) 252-8840 before March 26, 1997. 
Repatriation of these objects to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe on 
behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe may begin after that date if no 
additional claimants come forward.
Dated: February 14, 1997.
Francis P. McManamon,
Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
Manager, Archeology and Ethnography Program.
[FR Doc. 97-4468 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-F
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Yevgeniy Struts, Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 425]

Cardona, P. J.

*656Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), entered August 24, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

Defendant was indicted on two counts of rape in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law § 130.25 (2), based on two separate instances of alleged sexual intercourse with a female victim immediately before and after her sixteenth birthday. As pertinent to this case, the crime of rape in the third degree is perpetrated when a defendant, “[b]eing twenty-one years old or more * * * engages in sexual intercourse with another person *to whom the actor is not married*[and who is] less than seventeen years old” (Penal Law § 130.25 [2] [emphasis supplied]). Significantly, neither count of the indictment alleges that defendant and the victim were not married to each other as required by the statute. Defendant moved to dismiss both counts of the indictment based on, *inter alia,*the People’s failure to allege that the victim was not defendant’s wife. County Court granted that motion and the People appeal.

We affirm. An indictment must contain a factual allegation of every element of a crime charged (CPL 200.50 [7]) and we have held that “ ‘[i]t is bright line law that if the offense charged has an exception contained within the statute, the indictment must contain an allegation that defendant’s conduct does not come within the reach of the exception’ ” *(People v Hogabone,*278 AD2d 525, 525-526, quoting *People v Bingham,*263 AD2d 611, *lv denied*93 NY2d 1014; *see, People v Kohut,*30 NY2d 183, 187). Since both counts of the indictment herein fail to state that defendant’s alleged conduct does not come within the exception for married couples, County Court properly dismissed the indictment as facially invalid. Thus, even if it could be successfully argued that evidence of marital status was presented to the Grand Jury, that proof would not cure this facially defective indictment.

Furthermore, we do not agree with the People’s contention that this critical omission from the indictment “was merely a typographical error rather than a substantive defect.” The failure to allege such an element is a fatal defect of the charging document *(see, People v Kohut,*supra;*People v Hogabone, supra).*We are similarly unpersuaded by the People’s argument that they should have been allowed to amend the indictment to include the fact that “the actor was not married to the victim” since such an amendment would be one of “form, time, place, names of persons and the like” as permitted by CPL 200.70 (1). In our view, such an amendment, even if properly requested before County Court in this case, would be barred by *657statute, since it would be “for the purpose of curing * * * [a] failure thereof to charge or state an offense” (CPL 200.70 [2]; *see, People v Bingham, supra).*Thus, dismissal of both counts of the indictment was proper.

Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 31, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JULY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          4,274,825
<SECURITIES>                                      574,129
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,230,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,397,254
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,683,821
<PP&E>                                         26,937,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,850,270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,597,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,393,626
<BONDS>                                           695,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          474,196
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,801,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,597,399
<SALES>                                        65,900,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               65,900,505
<CGS>                                          55,794,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  55,794,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12,253,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  863,821
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 56,355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,010,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (65,676)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,880,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,880,315)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.40)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4394]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-177; RM-8853]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Galena and Baxter Springs, KS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Acorn Broadcasting Company, 
allots Channel 282A to Galena, Kansas. See 61 FR 47471, September 9, 
1996. Channel 282A can be allotted to Galena in compliance with the 
Commission's distance separation requirements with a site restriction 
of 6.5 kilometers (4.0 miles) west to avoid short-spacing conflicts 
with Stations KBEQ(FM), Channel 282C, Kansas City, Missouri; KBCN(FM), 
Channel 282C, Marshall, Arkansas; and KQMO(FM), Channel 281C3, Ash 
Grove, Missouri. The coordinates for Channel 282A at Galena are 37-03-
24 and 94-42-11. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective March 31, 1997. The window period for filing 
applications will open on March 31, 1997, and close on May 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-177, adopted February 7, 1997, and 
released February 14, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307.

Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kansas, is 
amended by adding Galena, Channel 282A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-4394 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ricky Earl WILSON.

No. 61012.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Ricky Earl Wilson, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and review. Parish of Grant.

Denied.
#### Michael MUNDAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

*34Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of an aggravated assault upon Donald E. Hunt by running an automobile against Hunt. He was adjudicated guilty by the court and sentenced to eighteen months in prison.

On this appeal the appellant who was the defendant urges that the evidence was insufficient to show an intent to assault Hunt. The crime of aggravated assault requires a general intent. McCullers v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 30.

 The testimony of the complaining witness, who alone testified that he was assaulted, was that he was attempting to keep the appellant from moving the car. The car was partially blocked in by the complaining witness. The evidence as a whole is as susceptible of the conclusion that appellant was trying to extricate the car, as it is of an intent to assault the witness. An assault is committed by an unlawful offer to injure another with apparent present ability to effectuate the offer under circumstances creating a fear of imminent peril. Motley v. State, 155 Fla.545, 20 So.2d 798 (Fla.1945); Albright v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 887; Bass v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 25.

The judgment is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.

Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7453 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7453

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit members of the Armed 
 Forces to continue to participate in Skillbridge programs after their 
 date of discharge or separation from active duty in the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2020

Mrs. Fletcher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit members of the Armed 
 Forces to continue to participate in Skillbridge programs after their 
 date of discharge or separation from active duty in the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUED PARTICIPATION OF SEPARATED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES IN SKILLBRIDGE PROGRAMS.

    Section 1143(e) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
        paragraph (3):
            ``(3) In the case of an eligible member who enrolls in a 
        program under this subsection and who is discharged or released 
        from active duty in the armed forces before the completion of 
        the program, such member may continue to participate in the 
        program until the completion of the program. The continued 
        participation of such a member in such a program shall have no 
        effect on the discharge or separation date of the member or the 
        eligibility of the member for any pay or benefits.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HINES TRUCK STOP, INC., Appellant, v. CAPE FEAR MOTOR LINES, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., and Edward Stack, as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Appellees.

No. 70-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 23, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1971.

Norman D. Zimmerman, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

James E. Tribble, of Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for Great Dane.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Hines Truck Stop, Inc., appeals a summary final judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., in an action of replevin to recover possession of a trailer. We reverse.

We do so because we find disputed issues of critical fact as to the validity of Great Dane Trailers’ Inc., retained title contract against the trailer in question. This issue was not decided in the prior order of the court which instructed the sheriff to sell the trailer subject to appellee’s lien. Such circumstances bar the use of summary judgment procedure. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Brinkley v. Freedom National Bank of New York, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 465.

Reversed and remanded.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge

(dissenting).

I would affirm because the appellant failed to properly bring to this court the whole record used by the trial court in making the contested ruling. Geiger v. City of Leesburg, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So.2d 260. The appellant is further precluded from obtaining appellate relief by its failure to assign as error the trial court order of October 22, 1969, which order established the amount and validity of the lien claimed by Great Dane.

Finding no error demonstrated and no worthwhile purpose to be served by a remand, I do respectfully dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures fund III L.P. and is qualified in its
entirety by references to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      62,384,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,230<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              73,774,146<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                73,774,146<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,870,923<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,141,556
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,729,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,729,367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,729,367
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $230,391 and receivables
from DWR of $3,839.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $11,155,386.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $1,237,455, accrued brokerage
commissions of 0, accrued management fees of $185,798, accrued
administrative expenses of $91,265 and accrued transaction fees and
costs of 0.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $3,815,795, net
change in unrealized of $10,037,069 and interest income of $3,018,059.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OF REGISTRANT AS OF JUNE 30, 1997
(UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF REGISTRANT FOR THE
THREE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,275,000
<SECURITIES>                                21,307,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,421,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,812,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 813,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,654,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,835,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,015,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,654,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,512,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,420,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,092,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   445,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            633,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   633,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRANDON SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 296 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of October, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 22, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 22, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0252. JONATHAN W. KERR v. STACEY WILSON .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: CE1901062