alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OCTOBER TERM, 1749.

Lib. E. J. No. 11. fol. 560.

#### William Scott *against*Hannah Dobson.

THIS was an action of replevin for two negro boys named *Lewis*and Sampson, and two negro girls named *Kate*and *Phcebe.*Plea property.

At the trial of this cause at the Assises, the Jury found by their special verdict, that *Benjamin*Parrott, of *Talbot*County, deceased, on the 18th of May, 1724, made his last will and testament, in which was the following bequest: “ I leave unto my wife four negroes during her natural *£ life; that is to" say, Acte, Alice, *Moreah*and Rose, and <c after her death to be divided between my seven children, “ Benjamin, Mary, Hannah, Eliza, Jane, *Rebecca*and £C *William, ParrottP*That the defendant Hannah, is the same person mentioned in the will' as one of the legatees. That the plaintiff after the death of the said Benjamin, *161about the month of February, 1729, intermarried with *Jane,*the widow and devisee of Benjamin, and lived married to her till the month of *November,*1746, when she died. That negroes *Sampson*and Phcebe, in the declaration mentioned, are the issues of negro Moreah, mentioned in the will, and were born after the death of the said *Benjamin*and in the life-time of Jane, widow of said *Benjamin,*and during the marriage of the plaintiff and said *Jane.*

That negro Lewis, in the declaration mentioned, is the issue of negro *Alice,*mentioned in the *will;*and negro *Kate,*mentioned in the declaration, is the issue of negro Rose, mentioned in the will; and both *Lewis*and *Kate*were bom after the death of the said Benjamin, and during the life-time of the said *Jane,*his widow, and during the marriage of the plaintiff with her. That *Jane,*while she was sole and with the plaintiff her husband, from the death of the said *Benjamin*to the time of her death, held and possessed the negroes *Kate, Moreah*and *Rose,*(and likewise *Alice,*till the time that, the plaintiff sold her,) by-virtue of the devise made to her by the will. That *Benjamin*the devisor, besides the several negroes devised in the will, left a considerable personal estate, more and over and above, what was sufficient to pay and discharge all his debts. That the defendant *Hannah,*is one of the devisees mentioned in the will. That long before the defendant took and detained the negroes mentioned in the declaration, *Jane,*the widow of Benjamin, died.

That the defendant, one of the devisees, took and detained the negroes by virtue of the devise, and under the authority of the other children, devisees of the said Benjamin»

The Provincial Court gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals in *February*Term, 1752, reversed the judgment of the Provincial Court.

See the case of *Somerville v. Johnson, February*Term, 1770.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair ) ASBCA No. 62707

- ADR

)

Under Contract No. N00024

- 17

- C

- 4409 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq.

Brandon E. Dobyns, Esq.

Sean A. Graves, Esq.

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Indianapolis, IN

James A. Kelley, Esq.

James A. Kelley & Associates

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Devin Wolak, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: March 29, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62707

- ADR

, Appeal of BAE

Systems Norfolk Ship Repair , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 29, 2022 HEIDI L. OSTERHOUT

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Order entered October 29 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00705
- CR
BRENDA ISELA MONTOYA , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 22656
- W



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether app ellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial cou rt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effecti ve representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UDEIRIAN GRAYSON, 

#382893,

Plaintiff,

VS.

DALLAS COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT/DETECTIVES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0524-G-BK

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a 

Recommendation in this case. Objections were filed. The District Court reviewed de

novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to

which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the court

ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED.

August 11, 2023.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00524-G-BK Document 20 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28369]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-00-049]


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE:  November 13, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.

PLACE:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS:  Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Agenda for future meeting: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Preliminary)(Honey from 
Argentina and China)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently 
scheduled to transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on 
November 13, 2000; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to 
be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on November 20, 2000.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets:
    (1.) Document No. ID-00-019: Approval of final report in Inv. No. 
332-411 (Electric Power Services: Recent Reforms in Selected Foreign 
Markets).
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: November 1 , 2000.

    By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28369 Filed 11-1-00; 1:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J E F F R Y I AN C OO K, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. T H O M A S C A R E Y , W a r de n; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T HE ST ATE OF C AL I F ORNI A, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16525 D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 8 6 9 - ALA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A rthurL . A L A R C Ó N , C i r c ui tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry17, 2012 ** B e f o r e : L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , a n dC A L L A H A N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C alifo rn ia state p riso n erJe ff ry Ia n C o o kap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 16525

C ook c ont e nds tha tthe B oa r d of P r i s on H e a r i ngs ’ s 2004 de c i s i on f i ndi ng h i m u n su i t ab l e fo r p aro l e i s n o tsup p o rt edb y so m e ev i d en ce an dw as o th erw i se im p r o p e r . T h e o n lyr ig h t a t is s u e in th e p a r o le c o n te x t is p r o c e du r a l, an dth e o n ly prop eri nq ui ryi s w hatproces s the i nm at e r ec ei ved, no tw hether the st at e c ou rt d e c id e dth e c a s e c o rr e c tly . See Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 131 S . C t . 859, 862- 63 ( 2011) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . B e c au s e C o o kr a is e s n o p r o c e du r a l c h a lle n g e s , w e a f f irm . AF F I RME D.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 120

Stating the disapproval of the Congress regarding the President’s unilateral

deployment of United States troops as peacekeepers to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 13, 1993

Mr. RAMSTAD submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Stating the disapproval of the Congress regarding the President’s unilateral deployment of United States troops as

peacekeepers to the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia.

Whereas on June 10, 1993, the Clinton Administration announced the United States would offer to send 300

United States troops to join United Nations peacekeeping

forces in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;

Whereas Secretary of State Warren Christopher has stated

that these troops are a ‘‘deterrent force’’ which will have

‘‘symbolic’’ value;

Whereas total United Nations peacekeeping forces in the

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will number approximately 1,000;
2

•HCON 120 IH

Whereas the deterrence strength of these peacekeeping forces

is highly questionable since such forces must monitor the

260-mile border that separates the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania;

Whereas the Clinton Administration has not sufficiently explained why United States troops should be inserted as

a ‘‘symbolic’’ tripwire into the complex civil war in the

former Yugoslavia;

Whereas the commitment of United States troops in the

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia opens the prospect of further escalation of United States military involvement in the Balkans;

Whereas 86 Members of the House of Representatives signed

a letter to President Clinton on June 24, 1993, expressing their ‘‘strong concerns and reservations about the

lack of a well-defined mission for the pending United

States troop deployment to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and

Whereas on July 5, 1993, the first contingent of United

States troops arrived in the Former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) disapproves of the unilateral deployment by

4 the President of United States troops as peace5 keepers to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedo6 nia; and

7 (2) urges the President to consult with the

8 Congress regarding the deployment and mission of
3

•HCON 120 IH

1 United States troops in the Former Yugoslav Re2 public of Macedonia.

Æ
APRIL TERM, 1705.

#### John Beale et Ux. Lessee *against*Edward Digges.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Durham*lying Jn *Charles*County.

At the trial of the cause, the following special verdict was found, to wit:

We find that *Cecelius*Lord Baltimore, on the 7th day of September, 1666, in pursuance of a certificate bearing date the 10th day of December, 1663, did grant the lands in question to *Walter*Bean, the father of Eleanor, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, who by his last will, bearing date the 12th day of April, 1670, did devise the same to the said *Eleanor*and her heirs. That *Charles*Lord *Baltimore*(the said *Eleanor*being under age, and after the decease of the said *Walter*Bean) did surmise and set forth, that the said land was a reserve formerly laid by his Lordship of the manor of *Panguya.*
      *(a)*
      **Whereupon he sent a *scire facias*out of the High Court of Chancery, returnable the 10th day of February, 1673, directed to the widow and heirs of the said Walter, to appear in the said Court of Chancery, to shew cause why the said patent should not be cancelled, as lying within that reserve. That the widow of the said *Walter*appeared in the said Court, by her son-in-law, *Matthezv*Hill, on the 10th of February, aforesaid, and without any defence on the behalf of the orphan. The said *Matthew Hill*delivered the said patent to the Court; whereupon the said Court decreed the same to be cancelled, and of no force. That the said *Eleanor,*or her mother on her behalf, preferred a petition to *Charles*
      *27Lord Baltimore, (the said *Eleanor*being then about twelve years old,) to grant her *400*acres in the manor of *Panguy a,*in lieu of the said *7SO*acres. Thatthe said Lord Baltimore, did granther 400 acres in consideration of the said surrender, by his patent bearing date the 5th day of *June,*1676, she being still a minor. And further we do not find any reserve land for the manor of *Panguy a,*before the 24th day of April, 1667, being four years after *Walter Bean’s*certificate, and above a year after his patent; so that upon the whole matter, if the Court do not think *Walter Beards*patent duly vacated, we find for the plaintiff, otherwise for the defendant.

The defendant obtained an injunction from Chancery to stay all proceedings, as well to judgment as to execution. The injunction alleging among other things, that the plaintiff had offered in evidence upon the trial, a patent for the land mentioned in the declaration, which had been vacated in' the Court of Chancery, and that the defendant demurred to the evidence, which was nevertheless admitted by the Court.

Lib. T. B. No. 2. folio 40.

MAY TERM, 1706.

RULED by the Court, that upon an appeal on writ of error, in this Court, the plaintiff in such appeal or writ of error, shall recover his costs of reversal against the defendant therein.

**For an account of the nature of *reserve lands, vide post*the cases of *JJigges*y. *Beale, October*Term, 1726, and of *Daniel Dulany*v. *Edward Jennings, February*Term, 1738. See also *Kilty's Landholder's Assistant,*c. *5.*p. 91.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13444-13445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending February 
26, 2011

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0037.
    Date Filed: February 25, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference, 
Geneva, 22 October 2010, Composite Resolutions 012, 026, 047a, 076xx, 
076z, 087aa, Intended Effective Date: 1 April 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0038.
    Date Filed: February 25, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference, 
Geneva, 22 October 2010, Composite Resolutions 017a, 017c, Intended 
Effective Date: 1 April 2011.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0039.
    Date Filed: February 25, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference, 
Geneva, 22

[[Page 13445]]

October 2010, Composite Resolution 024c, Intended Effective Date: 1 
April 2011.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-5596 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 STATEMENT
OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,
 SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Edward
W. Wilhelm, certify that the Form 10-K for the year ended January 23, 2005, of
Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that
the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Borders
Group, Inc.
 
 Date: May
26, 2005
 
 /s/
EDWARD W. WILHELM
 Edward W.
Wilhelm
 Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 Borders
Group, Inc.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THIS FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,776
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,522
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,660
<PP&E>                                          85,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,137
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,079
<SALES>                                         60,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,662
<CGS>                                           36,359
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,287)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,622
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,173
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
Pursuant to section 254(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 904(b)), the Congressional Budget Office hereby reports that it has submitted its                     *Sequestration Preview Report for Fiscal Year 2001*                     to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget                

Dan L. Crippen,

Director, Congressional Budget Office.

[FR Doc. 00-2843  Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0070-02-M
LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DTVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-030-01-H

JOSHUA JAMES WHITFIELD,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNTNG PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636OXl), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magisuate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated June 23,2022

JAME WESLEY HENDRIX

D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:22-cr-00030-H-BQ Document 24 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 41
Case 4:22-cr-00105-P Document 16 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17
Case 4:22-cr-00105-P Document 16 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18
#### TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO. v. DAVIS et al.

No. 25496.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 19, 1941.

A. L. Lowery, of Nacogdoches, and Lightfoot, Robertson & Gano, of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.

Collins, Williams & Garrison and Sumner VVilliams, Jr., all of Lufkin, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

A careful examination of the application for writ of error filed herein by plaintiff in error discloses that it contains no assignment attacking the rulings of the Court of Civil Appeals on the issues of good cause. We dismiss this application “W. O. J. — Correct Judgment,” but in doing so we are not approving the holdings of the Court of Civil Appeals on the question as to whether or not the defendants in error plead or proved good cause for not filing their claim with the Industrial Accident Board within the time required by law, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8307, § 4a.
#### Cecil ADDISON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27230.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No appearance for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully selling beer on Sunday, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $500.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence •of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.