alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. George Silvers, Appellant. The Same v. John Hirschaner, Appellant. The Same v. Chas. Jones and James Enger, Appellants. The Same v. Malis Gallager, Appellant. The Same v. J. B. Sutton, Appellant.

Impaneling G-rarLd Jury: selection of bystander : stare decisis.

*Appeals from Wapello District Court.*— Hon. H. O. Traverse, Judge.

Wednesday, January 21, 1891.

The defendants were each indicted and convicted of the crime of keeping a nuisance by maintaining a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. They now appeal. The cases are submitted and tried together in this *court.*

Affimed*.*

*Burton & Jacques,*for appellants.

*John Y. Stone,*Attorney General, for appellee.

Beck, O. J.

I. When the grand jury which found the indictments in these cases was impaneled, twelve jurors answered to their names, of whom seven were selected, as prescribed by law. One of those was afterwards excused by the court. Thereupon the sheriff was directed by the court to select a juror from the bystanders, whereupon he summoned one of the five grand jurors who had appeared, and had not been selected, all of whom were then in the court. The defendant in each case moved to set aside the indictment on the ground that the grand jury had not been lawfully selected. The motion in each case was overruled.

*715II. The facts of these cases are identical with thoce of *State v. Gurlagh,*76 Iowa, 141, in which a motion to set aside the indictment upon the very grounds of the motion in this case was overruled. The decision in that case is assailed by counsel, and we are asked to overrule it. We think it was rightly decided, and we adhere to it.

III. Even did we regard the prior decision as doubtful, we would not disturb it, for there can be no safety in changing doubtful rules. The interest of the state, and the right administration of justice, demand that rules be settled, and because a rule is doubtful it must not be held open for change to another doubtful, rule. Stability in the administration of the law is demanded, and oscillations in the decisions of courts ought to be avoided. Changing decisions in doubtful cases does not remove doubt. Neither justice nor wisdom requires a court to go from one doubtful rule to another. We adhere to the rules of *State v.*Gurlagh, and, following it, we order the judgment of the district court in each of these cases to be affirmed.

Granger, J.

*(concurring).*— I concur in the affirmance of this case solely on the authority of *State v. Gurlagh.*If it were an original question, I should hold to the views expressed in the dissenting opinion in that case.

Robinson, J.

*(dissenting).*— I dissent for the reasons stated in dissenting opinion in *State v. Gurlagh.*
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 the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        This action was issued on October 24, 2024. See                         **Supplementary Information**                         section for relevant date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*OFAC:*                         Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or                         *https://ofac.treasury.gov/​contact-ofac.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:                     *https://ofac.treasury.gov.*

## Notice of OFAC Action

On October 24, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person is blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.

Lisa M. Palluconi,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

[FR Doc. 2024-25121 Filed 10-28-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 537 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-160, K2025-158.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25309 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-QSB for the nine months  ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such FInancial Statements and Notes, thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           832,611
<SECURITIES>                                   2,093,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,587,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                     106,900
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,834,767
<PP&E>                                           981,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                   238,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,738,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,240,465
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           5,139
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,101,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,738,025
<SALES>                                       19,577,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              19,577,335
<CGS>                                         14,978,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 18,329,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                28,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,346,358
<INCOME-TAX>                                     288,473
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,057,885
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,057,885
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .17
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Dr.
      John J. McGrath, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(i)  the
      Annual Report of EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. on Form 10-K/A for the
      year
      ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934* and





(ii)  information
      contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of EVCI Career Colleges Holding
      Corp.







Dated:
                August 10, 2007
            
            /s/
                Dr. John J. McGrathDr.
                John J. McGrath
              Chief
                Executive Officer and President
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Annual Report of Form 10-KSB for the year December 31, 2006 of the Company
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


/S/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
---------------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
APRIL 11, 2007
#### P. H. CAIN v. THOMAS A. NICHOLSON, Executor.

*Report of Referee*— Jurisdiction.

1. The evidence in writing upon which facts are found by a Referee must accompany his report.

*2.*Where the main purpose of an action is to have the defendant declared a trustee, and a statement of his account as executor is demanded as a necessary incident to the determination of the action, the Superior Court has jurisdiction and the Judge thereof may give full relief.

*(Mitchell*v. *Walker,*2 Ire. Eq. 621; *Fawcett*v. *Mangum,*5 Ire. Eq. 53 ; *Green*v. *Castlebwry,.'lO*N. C. 20 ; *Oliver*v. *Wiley,*75 N. C. 320, cited and approved.)

Civil ActioN tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Davie Superior Court, before *Kerr, J.*

The plaintiff is the assignee of the distributees and heirs-at-law of one Powell on whose estate Samuel Holman administered and sold the land of his intestate for assets, and it is alleged that he purchased said lands at bis sale through nn agent.

After action brought, Holman died and the defendant was •qualified as his executor, and made a party to this action, which was brought to ■ have said Holman declared a trustee of said land for the benefit of plaintiff, and for an account •of his said administration of the assets and of the rents and profits of said land since the sale, and it was referred to the ■Clerk to state these accounts and report to the Court, which he did. The plaintiff excepted to the same because the Eeferee failed to. report the evidence on which his report was based, and the exception was sustained, by His Honor, find the defendant appealed.

*Mr. J. M. Clement,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. J. M. MeCorkle,*for defendant.

*412Eaircloth, J.

(After stating the facts as above.) It has been frequently decided that the evidence in writing should accompany the report, so that the appellant may have the findings of the Neferee reviewed, or that he may file exceptions before the Court if they have not been taken before the Referee. *Mitchell*v. *Walker,*2 Ire. Eq., 621; *Faucett*v. *Mangum,*5 Ire. Eq., 53; *Green*v. *Castlebury,*70 N. C., 20.

On the argument in this Court the defendant raises the question of jurisdiction, and says this proceeding should commence before the Probate Court where legacies and distributive shares are recoverable. This would be so if nothing more was intended, but the main purpose of this action ■ is to have the defendant declared a trustee of said land, which cannot be done before the Clerk, and the secondary purpose is the account as a necessary incident to the determination of the first question, and the Judge having jurisdiction over the main question may retain the case and give full relief. *Oliver*v. *Wiley,*75 N. C. 320.

We therefore refuse the motion made in this Court and sustain the ruling of Ilis Honor on the exception, and as the ease goes back, we will suggest, whether or not the heirs-at law and devisees of defendant’s testator are necessary parties.

No error.

Pee, Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 11, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00780-CV

IN RE DANA WAYNE ANDREA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-46720

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 7, 2018, relator Dana Wayne Andrea filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. The underlying action is a contested divorce proceeding. In 

the mandamus petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable David Farr, 

presiding judge of the 312th District Court of Harris County, to vacate his August 
2

29, 2018 order awarding $45,000 in interim attorney’s fees to be paid by relator to 

the real party in interest Ramona Charisse Andrea within ten days of the order.

Relator also has filed a motion asking this court to stay the trial court’s August 

29, 2018 order. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.

With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both 

that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate 

remedy at law, such as an appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 

135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). When the trial court awards interim 

attorney’s fees, generally there is an adequate remedy at law, so mandamus will not 

lie to alter the trial court’s award of interim attorney’s fees. In re Bennett, No. 12-

18-00149-CV, 2018 WL 4199995, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 31, 2018, orig. 

proceeding); In re Chu, 134 S.W.3d 459, 468 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, orig. 

proceeding); In re Bissell, 109 S.W.3d 87, 89 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, orig. 

proceeding). Id. “Generally, orders awarding attorney’s fees, even those imposed as 

sanctions, are reviewable on appeal and mandamus will not issue.” Baluch v. 

O'Donnell, 763 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, no writ) (citing Street v. 

Second Court of Appeals, 715 S.W.2d 638, 639 (Tex.1986) (orig. proceeding)). 

“Mandamus lies to correct the award of interim fees only in extreme cases in which 

a ‘party’s ability to prosecute the case further is jeopardized’ by the party’s payment 

of, or inability to pay, the fees.” In re Chu, 134 S.W.3d at 468. See In re Bennett, 

2018 WL 4199995, at *5. See also c.f. In re RH White Oak, LLC, 442 S.W.3d 492, 

503 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus 

relief because relators have not explained why the sanctions are so severe as to 

threaten their ability to continue litigation).
3

The trial court ordered relator to pay real party in interest $45,000 in interim 

attorney fees. Relator has not asserted that the payment of this amount would

jeopardize his ability to continue the litigation. Relator therefore has not shown that 

he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. Accordingly, we deny 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 626

To provide relief from unfair interest and penalties on refunds retroactively

ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 16, 1999

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide relief from unfair interest and penalties on refunds retroactively ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF CERTAIN NATURAL GAS PRO4 DUCERS.

5 The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3301

6 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
2

•S 626 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 603. LIABILITY OF CERTAIN NATURAL GAS PRO2 DUCERS.

3 ‘‘If the Commission orders any refund of any rate or

4 charge made, demanded, or received for reimbursement of

5 State ad valorem taxes in connection with the sale of nat6 ural gas before 1989, the refund shall be ordered to be

7 made without interest or penalty of any kind.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 703 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 703

  To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 1999

Mr. Smith of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. 
Helms) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

    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 ``Brady Act Amendments of 1999''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF COVERAGE OF BRADY ACT HANDGUNS.

    Subsection (t) of section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``firearm'' in paragraphs (1), (2), 
(4), (5), and (6), and the first time it appears in paragraph (3), and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``handgun''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25344]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 01/01-0426]


Long River Ventures III, L.P.; Surrender of License of Small 
Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, under section 309 of the Act and section 107.1900 of 
the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the 
Small Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0426 issued to Long 
River Ventures III, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and 
void.

Thomas Morris,
Director, Patient Capital Investments, Office of Investment and 
Innovation, United States Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024-25344 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                       416
<INVENTORY>                                     14,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,556
<PP&E>                                          35,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,329
<BONDS>                                          5,148
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               86
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,122
<SALES>                                         48,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,221
<CGS>                                           40,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                       339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>