alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE *v.*GEORGE EVANS.

Where, upon a mistrial, the defendant moves for his discharge, which, motion is refused, and he is required to give bail for his appearance at the next term, the Judge presiding at such next term, has no right to entertain the motion and° discharge the defendant. It is *res aá¿u~ dicata.*

CRIMINAL Action, tried before *'Moore, J.,*at December (Special) Term, 1875, of tbe Superior Court of Halifax county.

The defendant was indicted for larceny and pleaded not guilty. A jury was empannelled and #fter bearing the evidence, argument of counsel and tbe charge of bis Honor, Judge Watts, announced in open court that they could not agree upon a verdict. Tbe counsel for tbe State and for tbe prisoner were both present. The prisoner was absent, being, tben in jail.

TTis Honor, witbont having consulted the counsel for tbe:. prisoner, ordered a juror to be withdrawn and a mistrial entered. Prisoner’s counsel said nothing either for or against tbe order.

After the order was made and tbe jury discharged, his counsel moved tbe court, upon affidavit, to discharge tbe prisoner upon the ground:

1. That having once been put in jeopardy, be could not. again be tried for the same offence.

2. That tbe defendant was not in court when tbe order was. made.

Tbe motion was overruled and tbe defendant appealed.

At December (Special) Term, Moore, J., presiding, bis. counsel again moved tbe conrtto discharge tbe prisonerupon tbe «ame ground. The motion war allowed and the State appealed.

*325*Attorney General*Hargrove, for tbe State.

*Burton dk Burton*and *Busbee <&*Busbee, for the prisoner.

Re ARSON, C. J.

On a trial for larceny, the jury, after deliberation for some eighteen hours, announces to the court that they cannot agree, whereupon his Honor, Judge "Watts, in the absence of the prisoner, who was confined in the jail of the county, but in the presence of his counsel, who neither assented to nor objected to his action, directed a juror to be withdrawn, and the jury was discharged. The prisoner’s counsel then moved for his discharge on the ground that he could not be again put on trial. This motion was overruled by Judge Watts. At the next term, the same motion on the same ground was made and was allowed by his Honor, Judge Mooee. So we have the conflicting rulings of two of the Judges of the Superior Courts in the very same case — in fact, one Judge reverses the decision of, the other Judge! How is this unseemly conflict of decision to be prevented ? It can only be done by enforcing the rule, *res adjudieata.*

Without entering into the question, was the decision of Judge Watts right or wrong, it is sufficient to say he had jurisdiction and decided the motion against the defendant. That, decision until reversed on appeal, or by writ of *certiorari*to this court, must stand as a thing settled.

It follows Judge Mooee erred in entertaining the motion. His ruling, by which the defendant was discharged, being a final detennination of the case, the Solicitor had a right to appeal.

This will be certified, to the end that the defendant may be again put on trial.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENTS  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925666
<NAME> WOODLAKE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          891
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,712)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  30
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)




</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.1

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP INC.  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                                                                                    |                     | Year Ended December 31,
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------- | -----------------------
|
|
|Pretax income from continuing operations, excluding equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |                     | $                      
|Interest expense                                                                                    |                     |                        
|Portion of rents representative of an appropriate interest factor                                   |                     |                        
|Distributed earnings of less than 50% owned affiliates                                              |                     |                        
|                                                                                                    |                     |                        
|                                                                                                    | Income as adjusted  |                        
|                                                                                                    |                     |                        
|Fixed charges:                                                                                      |                     |                        
|Interest expense on indebtedness                                                                    |                     | $                      
|Amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtness                        |                     |                        
|Portion of rents representative of an appropriate interest factor                                   |                     |                        
|                                                                                                    |                     |                        
|                                                                                                    | Total fixed charges |                        
|                                                                                                    |                     |                        
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                                  |                     |                        
|                                                                                                    |                     |                        

---



QuickLinks
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-10829

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00978-RBD-JBT

MOBILE SHELTER SYSTEMS USA, INC., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GRATE PALLET SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Jacksonville, Florida, 

THOMAS R. BUCK, 

Individually, Jacksonville, Florida, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 1, 2013)

Before HULL, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-10829 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

After thoroughly reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, and with the 

benefit of oral argument, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s grant 

of summary judgment in favor of Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC. Mobile Shelter 

System USA, Inc.’s product features are functional; therefore, they do not receive 

trade-dress protection under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

See Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC, 369 F.3d 1197, 1202 

(11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the features of a product’s design must be primarily 

non-functional to receive trade-dress protection). The judgment of the district 

court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-10829 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DARNELL GARCIA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50161

D.C. No. 2:88-cr-00983-TJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Darnell Garcia appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-50161

Garcia contends that he has served more time than is necessary because the

district court did not modify his presentence investigation report (“PSR”), or order

a supplemental report, to reflect the sentence reduction that he received on direct

appeal. Garcia’s petition challenges the legality, rather than the execution, of his

sentence, and his claims do not qualify for the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

whereby a prisoner may challenge his sentence in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We

therefore construe this appeal as a successive § 2255 motion, which must be

certified by this court before it can be presented to the district court. See Harrison

v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956, 959-960 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court therefore

lacked jurisdiction to consider this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); see also United

States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998). 

We construe Garcia’s notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of

appealability on the issue of whether his motion was properly dismissed as second

or successive without authorization. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th

Cir. R. 22-1(d); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-85 (2000).

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

October 9, 2019

Order 

Clerk

October 9, 2019

160297(77)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 160297

v COA: 338359

Wayne CC: 16-010785 -FC

KEVIN JAMAL LANG,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a pro per 

supplement to his application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The supplement submitted 

on October 4, 2019, is accepted for filing.
#### STATE *on rel. of*J. R. SILER *et al. vs.*ELI McKEE *et al.*

To render a Sheriff liable for the escape of an insolvent, surrendered in open Court, it is necessary to show that such insolvent was committed to the Sheriff’s custody by an order of the Court. A mere prayer to that effect will not be sufficient.

AotioN of debt on the official bond of the Sheriff, tried before his Honor, Judge SauNdees, at the Superior Court of *380Macon county, Spring Term, 1855. Judgment for tbe plaintiff and appeal.

The facts are recited in the opinion of the Court.

*JV. W. Woodfin*and *J. W. Woodfin,*for plaintiff.

*Baxter*and Gaither, for defendants.

Battle, J.

Upon the trial, the defendants urged several objections against the right of the plaintiff to recover: but upon which of them his Honor gave judgment, the record does not show. There is one, which is so plainly fatal to the action, that it is unnecessary to consider any other. The record of the proceedings against J. M. Angel, does not exhibit any order of the County Court committing him to the custody of the sheriff, and without such order, the sheriff certainly had no authority to arrest or detain him. The only entry which is relied upon as an order, is, that *“*John M. Angel came into Court and surrendered himself in open court, in discharge of his security, and was prayed into custody of the sheriff.”' A prayer made, is by no means a prayer answered, and where the liberty of the citizen is concerned, we cannot infer that the court did what it was asked to do. As without such order, the sheriff had- no right to arrest and detain the party, his subsequent arrest and discharge of him, after taking a bond with an insolvent surety from him, could not alter his resjmnsi-bility, and make him and his sureties liable for an escape. The debtor was never lawfully in his custody, and in such a case, no act, or admission, of his, could make him liable to an action for an escape. If an officer seize a debtor upon a-defective precept, intended to be a *ea. sa.,*and afterwards permit him to go at large, he cannot be held responsible for an escape, as was decided many years ago in the case of *Walker*v. *Vick,*2 Dev. and Bat. Rep. 99, much less can he be made liable where there is no precept or order of the Court to authorize the arrest and detention of the debtor.

Per CuRiAM. The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 631 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 631

 To amend the Social Security Act to eliminate the time limitation on 
  benefits for immunosuppressive drugs under the Medicare Program, to 
     provide for continued entitlement for such drugs for certain 
individuals after Medicare benefits end, and to extend certain Medicare 
                     secondary payer requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 16, 1999

 Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
  Levin, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Social Security Act to eliminate the time limitation on 
  benefits for immunosuppressive drugs under the Medicare Program, to 
     provide for continued entitlement for such drugs for certain 
individuals after Medicare benefits end, and to extend certain Medicare 
                     secondary payer requirements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Immunosuppressive Drugs Coverage Act 
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMITATION ON MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR 
              IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended by striking ``, but only'' and 
all that follows through the semicolon at the end thereof.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 3. CONTINUED ENTITLEMENT FOR IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS FOR CERTAIN 
              INDIVIDUALS AFTER MEDICARE BENEFITS END.

    (a) In General.--Section 226A(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 426-1(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``(except for the provision 
of immunosuppressive drugs pursuant to section 1861(s)(2)(J))'' after 
``shall end''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN SECONDARY PAYER REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395y(b)(1)(C), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``With 
regard to immunosuppressive drugs furnished on or after the date of 
enactment of the Immunosuppressive Drugs Coverage Act of 1999, this 
subparagraph shall be applied without regard to any time limitation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### AUGUSTUS MAGGETT v. E. E. ROBERTS.

*Practice■*— -Case *on Appeal, absence of*— Affirmation *of Judgment.*

Where no case on appeal accompanies the record and no error is apparent on the face of the latter, the judgment below will be affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from judgment in favor of plaintiff, rendered in an action tried before *Whitaker, J;*at December Special Term, 1893, of Northamptok Superior Court.

No-case on appeal accompanies the record.

*Mr. P. B. Peebles,*for plaintiff.

No counsel *contra.*

Per Curiam :

Because there is in the record no case on appeal and no error appears on the record proper, the judgment is Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters with an incident start date on or after October 1, 2024, will be increased.

# DATES:

This adjustment applies to major disasters with an incident start date on or after October 1, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance program to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor.

FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator will be increased to $1.89 for all disasters with an incident start date on or after October 1, 2024.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 2.5 percent for the 12-month period that ended in August 2024. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 11, 2024.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters).

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-24696 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P