alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Albert WINNING, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13835.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 14, 1975.

Jack W. Kunkler, Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice:

On the 26th day of November, 1973, the defendant was charged with the theft of an automobile, a felony of the second degree. Defendant was arrested on June 11, 1974, and booked in the county jail. Defendant, being unable to secure bail, remained in jail until August 30, 1974.

After a plea-bargaining session between the prosecutor and defense counsel, defendant was permitted to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense of a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant waived time for the pronouncement of sentence and the court sentenced him to be incarcer*1303ated in the county jail for a period of one year. At the time of sentencing the defendant requested the court that he be granted credit for the time he was confined awaiting disposition of his case. The court refused to grant credit for the time served, and defendant has appealed the sentence to this court.

Defendant relies upon the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of North Carolina v. Pearce.1 That case dealt with a different situation than we have here. In that case the defendant had been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and some years later he appealed and his conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Defendant was found guilty at the second trial and again sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The second sentence when added to the time the defendant had served under the first sentence exceeded the maximum imprisonment provided for by the statute. The court ruled that the defendant in that case was entitled to credit for the time served under the first sentence. In the case before us, the defendant was awaiting trial and disposition of his case rather than undergoing punishment.

In the case before us it appears that the judge of the district court who pronounced judgment was aware of the fact that the defendant had been in jail awaiting trial from June 11, 1974, until August 30, 1974. The judge was also aware of defendant’s background and prior convictions. We are of the opinion that the sentence pronounced was within the sound discretion of the court and the court did not abuse its discretion in pronouncing the sentence that it did.2 The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CROCKETT, ELLETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656.

2

. State v. Jaramillo, 25 Utah 2d 328, 481 P.2d 394.
H. Res. 806 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 6, 2016. 

Whereas, on June 16, 2016, British Member of Parliament 

Helen Joanne ‘‘Jo’’ Cox while traveling to meet with constituents in Birstall was attacked and sustained fatal injuries in an abhorrent act of terrorism; 

Whereas as a result of these injuries Cox passed away at the 

age of 41; 

Whereas Cox was a faithful servant who dedicated her life to 

helping those in need through a lifetime of advocacy and 

work for humanitarian causes; 

Whereas Cox was a faithful public servant who dedicated her 

life to serving the British people and expanded protections for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations, 

especially refugees; 

Whereas she was the first in her family to graduate from a 

university, Pembroke College at Cambridge, where she received a degree in social and political studies; 

Whereas Cox had just been elected in May 2015 for her first 

term as a Member of the Parliament for Bateley & Spen; 

Whereas when Cox was elected to Parliament she said that 

she had achieved her ‘‘dream’’; 
2 

•HRES 806 EH 

Whereas at the time of her death, Cox was about to meet 

with her constituents; 

Whereas President Barack Obama described Cox as ‘‘an effective public servant for her beloved Yorkshire’’ and 

made clear that ‘‘countless women, children and refugees 

around the world live with more dignity and home because they knew Jo Cox and were touched by her work 

on their behalf’’; 

Whereas British Prime Minister David Cameron described 

Cox as ‘‘a voice of compassion, whose irrepressible spirit 

and boundless energy lit up the lives of all who knew her 

and saved the lives of many she never, ever met’’; 

Whereas Cox was nominated as a Young Global Leader by 

the Davos World Economic Forum in 2009; 

Whereas Cox described herself as a ‘‘mum, proud Yorkshire 

lass, boat dweller, mountain climber and former aid 

worker’’; 

Whereas Cox truly sought to improve her community through 

public service; 

Whereas the British Parliament was recalled to pay tribute 

to Cox and flags were flown at half-staff over the Prime 

Minister’s residence, Number 10 Downing Street; 

Whereas the loss of innocent lives due to political violence in 

the United Kingdom is a threat to the United States and 

democratic governments across the world; and 

Whereas Cox leaves behind her husband, Brendan, and two 

children, Cuillin and Leijla: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) condemns in the strongest terms the killing of 

Member of Parliament Jo Cox on June 16, 2016; 
3 

•HRES 806 EH 

(2) condemns in the strongest terms acts of terrorism; 

(3) expresses its deepest sympathies to the Cox 

family for their loss; and 

(4) stands with the British Parliament and the 

British people during this profound moment of sadness. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# C_2019363EN.01001501.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Athanasiadou and Soulantikas v Commission

(Case T-762/18 R)

(Application for interim relief - Financial provisions (budget, financial framework, own resources, combating fraud) - Enforcement - Application for suspension - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2019/C 363/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Sofia Athanasiadou (Athens, Greece), Konstantinos Soulantikas (Athens) (represented by: M. Lappa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 299 TFEU for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision C(2017) 5883 final of 22 August 2017, of the order to pay of 30 October 2018, affixed to the copy of the enforcement order issued on the basis of Commission Decision C(2017) 5883 final of 22 August 2017, and of any other related enforcement measure.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | Sofia Athanasiadou and Konstantinos Soulantikas shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sofia Athanasiadou and Konstantinos Soulantikas shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---
LIST OF CERTIFIED HORSE INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS

February 23, 2021

American Horse Services

Henryville, IN

DQP Services HIO 

Unionville, TN

Friends of Sound Horses, Inc.

Saint Louis, MO

Heart of America Walking Horse Association 

Bolivar, MO 

International Walking Horse Association

Morral, OH 

KY-HIO, LLC 

Flemingsburg, KY 

Missouri Fox Trotting Horse Breed Association 

Ava, MO 

National Walking Horse Association

Murfreesboro, TN

Racking Horse Breeders Association of America HIO 

Decatur, AL

Spotted Saddle Horse Breeders & Exhibitors 

Association

Shelbyville, TN

Walking Horse Owners’ Association, Inc.

Murfreesboro, TN

S.H.O.W., Inc.

Shelbyville, TN
#### Ham v. Tanaka

16896

10/03/94

Affirmed
NVSL Johne’s Milk ELISA Proficiency Test 2022

Approved Laboratories

State Laboratory Test

Colorado The Dairy Authority (The Dairy Authority, LLC)

8215 W. 20th Street

GreeleyCO 80634

ELISA

Iowa USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics – PEL

1920 Dayton Ave 

Ames IA 50010

ELISA

Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory 

1850 Christensen Dr

Ames IA 50011

ELISA

Idaho Northwest Labs, LLC

150 Bridon Way

Jerome ID 83338

ELISA

Kansas Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

1800 Dennison Ave. Mosier Hall

Manhattan KS 66506 

ELISA

Michigan Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health - Michigan 

State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

4125 Beaumont Rd, Ste 201H

Lansing MI 48910

ELISA

Antel Bio - Centralstar Laboratory 

1163 Comet Ln

Grand Ledge MI 48837

ELISA

Missouri Animal Health Laboratory – Jefferson City

101 North Chestnut St

Jefferson City MO 65101

ELISA

Missouri Department of Agriculture Veterinary Diagnostic 

Laboratory

701 North Miller Ave

Springfield MO 65802

ELISA

Ohio Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory

8995 E. Main St. Building 6

Reynoldsburg OH 43068

ELISA

Eastern Laboratory Services, Ltd - Eastern Laboratory Services

1035 Medina Road

Suite 500

MedinaOH 44256

ELISA

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Veterinary Laboratory

2305 N. Cameron St

Harrisburg PA 17110

ELISA

Tennessee University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine 

2407 river Drive, A239

Knoxville TN 37996

ELISA

Texas Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory – Canyon

3209 Russell Long Blvd

Canyon TX 79016

ELISA

Circle H Laboratory (Circle H Headquarters, LLC)

3216 US Highway 54

ELISA
NVSL Johne’s Milk ELISA Proficiency Test 2022

Approved Laboratories

Dalhart TX 79022

Utah Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

950 East 1400 North

Logan UT 84341

ELISA

Washington Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory

100 Dairy Rd, 155 N Bustad Hall

Pullman WA 99174

ELISA

Wisconsin Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

445 Easterday Ln

Madison, WI 53706

ELISA

Dodge County Dairy Testing Association COOP (Dodge Country 

Dairy Herd Information Association)

ELISA

NorthStar Cooperative - CentralStar Cooperative Incorporated

200 E Kelso Rd

Kaukauna WI 54130

ELISA

AgSource - AgSource Laboratories

403 Cedar Avenue West

Menomonie WI 54751

ELISA

East Wisconsin Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative - Eastern WI 

DHIC

718 West First Street

Waldo WI 53093

ELISA
#### Bateman Const., Inc. v. Haitsuka Brothers, Limited

17745

2/24/95

Denied

889 P.2d 58
# C_2021019EN.01007102.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/71

---

Order of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Grange Backup Power v Commission

(Case T-110/18) (1)

(2021/C 19/78)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
NO. 07-01-0320-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	APRIL 12, 2002

	______________________________

	DESA WELLS,

			Appellant

	V.

	BRETON MILL APARTMENTS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 749,853; HON. CYNTHIA CROWE, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ABATE AND REMAND

	________________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, J.J.

	By motion, appellant, Desa Wells, requests that this Court correct the trial court record.   For the reasons which follow, we abate and remand the cause for additional proceedings. 

	The appellant claims that she has “conducted a careful review of the Record of Testimonies submitted in this case . . . and discovered that the Record is tainted and bombarded with fused and incorrect testimonies.”  In addition to alleging that some testimony was changed or deleted, she also states that in some instances “objections, questions and answers . . . [were] fused and misplaced in the Record.”  This “inaccurate manner in which the Record of Testimonies [has] been recorded or reported by the Court Reporter is misleading and false as to the true testimonies that were given during the trial . . . .”  This  “makes it impossible for [her] to prepare an effective Brief which will properly represent the issues and facts submitted to the Trial of Facts.”  

	Since the appellant’s objections arose after the reporter’s record was filed in the appellate court, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(e)(3) is applicable.  The rule states that we “may submit the dispute to the trial court for resolution.  The trial court must then ensure that the reporter’s record is made to conform to what occurred in the trial court.”   We now abate and remand the cause to the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County and order the court to immediately notice and conduct a hearing to determine whether the reporter’s record contains errors in those areas specified by the appellant, whether the errors, if any, are substantive or consequential, and if substantive and consequential, correct same and state in findings filed with the clerk of this court on or before May 13, 2002, that it has reviewed the complained-of portions of the record, setting them out in detail.  Stafford v. State, 63 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2001, no pet.)(finding the above procedure to be adequate in resolving a dispute regarding alleged errors in the reporter’s record).  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the county court may request same on or before May 13, 2002.  

	It is so ordered. 

									Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### Manu v. State

21092, 21138, 21257

12/21/98

Affirmed
V&M Photo LLC

2370 Ramblewood Rd

Harrisonburg, VA 22801

vandmphoto@outlook.com

Specific sections in which V&M Photo LLC is seeking exemption:

In the matter of the petition for exemption of: V&M Photo LLC

For an exemption seeking relief from the requirements of title 14 of the code of federal

regulations sections 61.113(a) & (b),91.7(a), 91.121,91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2),

91.417(a) & (b) Concerning Commercial operation of DJI Phantom 3 Advanced unmanned

aircraft systems pursuant to section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of (2012)

(Public Law 112­95)

Extent of relief and our reason for seeking relief:

In order to use our unmanned Aircraft systems for commercial use. We are seeking this

exemption in order to legally conduct business and comply with all federal regulations and

standards put forth by the FAA while operating our Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

How our request would benefit the public as a whole:

Granting the petition for V&M Photo LLC would allow for us to be able to efficiently, legally,

economically, and safely perform aerial video and photography of special events, land

surveillance, real estate, commercial inspections, and commercial maintenance over certain

areas of the United States. Using Unmanned Aircraft Systems such as drone technology would

greatly reduce negative impacts on the environment and also provide a safer alternative for

businesses to conduct land and equipment inspections.

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would

provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule:

By adhering to guidelines set forth by the FAA we would not be going above the recommended

altitude not flying at night therefore avoiding any hazardous accidents such as colliding with a

manned aircraft. We will be giving notification to the FAA 72 hours prior to any commercial use.

Also we will be regularly test flying and doing daily maintenance logs to ensure the quads are in

proper working order for each job or event as to prevent damage or bodily injury.

Summary to publish in the federal register stating:

1. Seeking relief from the requirements of title 14 of the code of federal regulations sections 14

CFR:

61.113(a) and (b), Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors

91.7 (a), Airworthiness required for operation

91.121, Altimeter settings

91.151, Fuel requirements for flights in VFR conditions

91.405 (a), Maintenance required
91.409 (a) (2), Inspections

91.417 (a) and (b), Maintenance records

CONCERNING COMMERCIAL operation of DJI Phantom 3 Advanced UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM

ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112­95)

2. We are seeking exemption in order to use our UAS for commercial use.

Thank you for your consideration.

V&M Photo LLC

2370 Ramblewood Rd

Harrisonburg, VA 22801

vandmphoto@outlook.com
# C_2018399EN.01002301.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-498/18)

(2018/C 399/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: ZW

Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the period of two years in which to bring an action, laid down in Article 35(1) of the Montreal Convention, be interrupted or suspended? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the period of two years in which to bring an action, laid down in Article 35(1) of the Montreal Convention, be interrupted or suspended?

| 2. | Does the provision contained in Article 35(2) of the Montreal Convention, [...] [according to which] ... ‘[t]he method for calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case’, allow it to be considered that a national legal provision on when the limitation period begins to run can prevail over the general provision contained in Article 35(1) whereby the limitation period begins with the arrival at the destination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the provision contained in Article 35(2) of the Montreal Convention, [...] [according to which] ... ‘[t]he method for calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case’, allow it to be considered that a national legal provision on when the limitation period begins to run can prevail over the general provision contained in Article 35(1) whereby the limitation period begins with the arrival at the destination?

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 744 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 744

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 25, 2016.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the 
energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-55 shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) 
one motion to commit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  If S. 2012, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order for 
the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee to move that 
the House insist on its amendment to S. 2012 and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
    Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House the bill (H.R. 5233) to repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment 
Act of 2012, to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the 
respective roles of the District government and Congress in the local budget 
process of the District government, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion 
to recommit.
    Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from May 27, 2016, through 
June 6, 2016--
     (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 
as approved; and
    (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date 
and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
    Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Woodrow W. GAINEY, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 30369.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1963.

*732Woodrow W. Gainey, Jr., in pro. per.

Allen L. Chancey, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate Appellant’s sentence imposed following his conviction of voluntary manslaughter committed within and at the United States Penitentiary in Fulton County, Georgia. The sole ground of attack is that Georgia, not the United States, alone had power to prohibit or convict for this action. As the offense was committed on lands purchased by the United States by the consent of the legislature of the State of Georgia, and the United States Penitentiary in Fulton County, Georgia, is a “needful building” within the meaning of U.S.Const, art. I, § 8, el. 17, the United States has legislative jurisdiction over those lands, United States v. Unzeuta, 1930, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761; Battle v. United States, 1908, 209 U.S. 36, 28 S.Ct. 422, 52 L.Ed. 670. Consequently the District Judge did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to vacate sentence.

Affirmed.
#### C. H. Tillman and Ella Tillman, his wife, Appellants, v. E. J. Blume, doing business as E. J. Blume & Company, Appellee.

*713An Appeal from a Decree of the Circuit Court within and for the County of Suwannee.

R. T. Boozer, for Appellants;

John F. Harrell, for Appellee.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee at costs of appellants.
June 3, 1997

19844

#### State v. Ariz

Affirmed