alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN A. AVERITT v. ELIJAH MURRELL, JR.

Where a person working in his new ground, within twenty-five yards of woods, puts fire to log-heaps, when the weather is calm, but afterwards, ,the wind arose and drove the fire with irresistible violence into the woods, he is not guilty of negligence, so as to subject him for damages done by the fire.

This was an action on the case, tried before Bailey, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Onslow.

*324Tbe action was brought on the Statute, ch. 16, Rev. Code, for unlawfully bring the woods. The facts are as stated in the preceding case.

His Honor charged the jury, upon those facts, that every one had a right to use and exercise dominion over his property, in such manner as he thought best; but in the exercise of this right, he must take care not to do any injury to the property of another; that if he was guilty of negligence, either by his own act, or by the act of his servant, in the use of his property, and thereby damage was sustained by another, he would be liable for such damage ; that, in this case, if the defendant directed his negroes to put fire to the logs, and they did so when the wind was blowing in the direction of the plaintiff’s land, and by reason of the wind, the fire was carried to the plaintiff’s land and burnt his trees, the defendant would be responsible for the negligent conduct of his servants, and they ought to find a verdict for the plaintiff; that if, on the contrary, they should be satisfied that, when the fire was put to the logs, the weather was good and calm, and the wind arose afterwards, and blew with such violence as to carry the fire so that it could not be stopped or extinguished, the plaintiff could not recover.

The plaintiff’s counsel asked the Court to instruct the jury that, if the land set fire to by the defendant was wood-land, the defendant would be responsible. Which his Honor declined to do. Plaintiff excepted.

Yerdict for defendant. Judgment and appeal by plaintiff.

No counsel for plaintiff in this Court.

*W. A.*Wright, for defendant.

Battle, J.

We think the law applicable to the case was fairly and fully expounded by the presiding Judge; and, for the reasons given by his Honor, we affirm the judgment. The instruction prayed by the plaintiff’s counsel had no facts upon which to be based, and his Honor acted right in refusing it.

Pek Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 30, 2013

t0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147290

CAMILLE F. McMILLAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147290

COA: 311638

MCAC: 09-000110

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Service TM.                    

# 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 22, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 513 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-132, K2025-130.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25266 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 788

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to provide that a quality grade

label issued by the Secretary of Agriculture may not be used for imported

meat and meat food products.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 1999

Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. ENZI, and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to provide that

a quality grade label issued by the Secretary of Agriculture may not be used for imported meat and meat

food products.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘USDA Grade Recission

5 Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 788 IS

1 SEC. 2. QUALITY GRADE LABELING OF IMPORTED MEAT

2 AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS.

3 Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21

4 U.S.C. 601(n)) is amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

6 end;

7 (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

9 (3) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(13) if it is an imported carcass, part thereof,

11 meat, or meat food product (including any carcass,

12 part thereof, meat, or meat food product produced

13 from any cattle, sheep, or goats that have not been

14 fed in the United States for at least 90 days) and

15 bears a label that indicates a quality grade issued by

16 the Secretary.’’.

Æ
CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Jeffrey R. MistarzJeffrey R. MistarzExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer & Corporate Secretary This certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Connecticut Regional Haze Page 11-30 

State Implementation Plan November 2009 

Attachment A through GG are available on the CT DEP website at: 

http ://www.et.gov/dep/cwp/view .asp?a=2684&Q=432658&depNav GID=1619
#### Kissinger v. The City of Council Bluffs.

1. Appeal: abstract must show Name of trial judge. Sec. 117 of the rules of this court, 'adopte! December 16, 1886, is as follows: *“*In all appeals taken in causes tried after the 1st day of January, 1837, the abstract therein shall be so prepared as to show the name of the judge who presided at the trial.” The rule not having been complied with in this case, the decision of the court is withheld until an amended or additional abstract is filed showing the name of the trial judge.

*472
      *Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.*

Saturday, October 8.

Per Curiam.

The decision in this case in the district court was made since January 1, 1887. A rule of this court required the abstracts to show the name of the judge before whom the case was tried. This rule has not been complied with. It is ordered that the decision of the cause be withheld until an amended or additional abstract be filed, complying with the rule. Counsel of both parties will be advised by the clerk of this court.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 780

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996

to provide for the participation of the Secretary of the Interior in the

America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 1999

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill;

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

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to provide for the participation of

the Secretary of the Interior in the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘America’s Agricultural

5 Heritage Partnership Act Amendments of 1999’’.
2

S 780 IS

1 SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTE2 RIOR.

3 Section 702(5) of division II of the Public Law 104–

4 333 (110 Stat. 4265) is amended by striking ‘‘Secretary

5 of Agriculture’’ and inserting in lieu thereof, ‘‘Secretary

6 of the Interior’’.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS GONZALEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 203

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20120C1 0382 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until February 6

, 201 5

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma , the Appellant’s Attorney,

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 6 , 201 5

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of December, 2014

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, CJ , Rodriguez, and Hughes , JJ.
C HIEF J USTICE

C AROLYN W RIGH T

J USTICES

D AVID L. B RIDGES

M ICHAEL J. O'N EILL

K ERRY P. F ITZ G ERALD

M OLLY F RANCIS

D OUGLAS S. L ANG

E LIZABETH L ANG

- M IERS

R OBERT M. F ILLMORE

L ANA M YERS

D AVID E VANS

D AVID L EWIS

A DA B ROWN

C RAIG S TODDART L ISA M ATZ

C LERK OF TH E C OURT

(214) 712

- 3450

theclerk@5th.txcourts.gov

G AYLE H UMPA

B USINESS A DMINISTRATOR

(214) 712

- 3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

F ACSIMILE

(214) 745

- 1083

I NTERNET

WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV /5 THCOA

. ASPX 

# Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 C OM MERCE S TREET

, S UITE 200

D ALLAS

, T EXAS 75202

(214) 712

- 3400



## November 25, 2014

Mr. Odis Jones, Jr.

TDCJ No. 1384596

McConnell Unit

3001 S. Emily Drive

Beeville, Texas 78102

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 05

- 06

- 01252

- CR

Trial Court Case Number: 2

- 06

- 84

Style: Jones, Odis

v.

The State of Texas

We are in re ceipt of your correspondence regarding the record

. The mandate in the above

listed case issued on August 21, 2007. Thus, we no longer have jurisdiction over the case.

However, if you would like copies of the record, the cost is ten cents ($0.10) per pag e. Both the

clerk’s and reporter’s records total 477 pages. The total cost, payable in advance, is $47.70.

Respectfully,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court
#### *DILLIN AND*CHERRY *against*JOHN W. SESSOMS.

A motion to dissolve an injunction may be continued for any cause the Court may deem sufficient, even without a written affidavit.

Appeal from the Court of Equity of Washington county, Pall Term, 1861.

The bill, in this case, was filed for an injunction to restrain, in part, the collection of a judgment at law, alleging a failure of consideration and other matters; an answer was filed by' the defendant, but the merits of neither the bill nor answer *257are material to the questions Considered by this Court. These arise altogether upon the following transcript from the Court below:

“ Cherry and Dillin *)*

vs. >• Inj unction.

John *W.*Sessoms. )

“ This cause being called, the complainant moved for a continuance, for cause shown; pending which, the defendant . moved to dissove the injunction. • Ordered by the Court, that the cause be continued till the next term. Appeal by the defendant.”

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.

Winston, *Jr.,*for the defendant.

Manly, J.

The record does not state, with distinctness, the ground of appeal in this case, and wó are not quite sure that it is properly apprehended. It is set forth that, on the calling of the case, the complainant moved a continuance for cause shown, and pending this motion, the defendant moved to dissolve the injunction. The Court continued the cause, and the defendant appealed.

If the matter of complaint be that a motion to dissolve an injunction must be heard at the first term when it is made, wre do not think it is sustained by any rule of law or of practice. Such questions, like all others, arising either upon the final hearing, or in earlier stages of cases, are subject to be continued by the Judge for any cause which he may consider, in the exercise of a sound, legal discretion, to be sufficient.

If the complaint be that there should have been an affidavit filed, setting forth the cause for continuance, we think it equally untenable. The Eev. Code, chap. 31, sec. *51.,*pi. 13, applies exclusively to actions at law, as is manifest from the language of the clause and from the subject-matter of the whole chapter. ¥e are not, indeed, aware of any restriction upon the power of a Judge sitting as a court of equity, to continue a cause before him in any stage, or pending any mo*258tion in it, when be may deem it expedient for the porposes of justice. It is a power subject, only, to his sound discretion..

We have not called to our aid the'statute of 1861,2nd extra session, chap. 10, sec. 4; for the reason, that it is not necessary to derive the power, exercised in this ease, from any other source than the general discretionary powers of a court of equity ; and for the additional reason, that it seems to be uncertain whether the law of 1861, was in force at the time of the making of the order of continuance in question.

The appeal should be dismissed with costs against the appellant, and the same certified to the court of equity for Washington county, to the end, that the said Court may proceed in the cause.

Pee, Curiam, Appeal dismissed.
June 25, 2015

Mr. Timothy Wood 5085 Copper Bar Road Las Cruces, NM 88011

Dear Mr. Wood:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 15, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2257), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7824
ANGEL SANCHEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES S. WALTERS, III, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-257-1) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Angel Sanchez seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Sanchez has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Sanchez v. Walters , No. CA-02-257-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Kevin  Monson,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of  Ecological  Services,  Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the  quarterly  period
ended December 31, 2000 fully complies within the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained
in such Form 10-QSB  fairly  represents  in all material  respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Ecological Services, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Kevin Monson
                                           ----------------------------
                                        Name: Kevin Monson
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer


I,  Kevin  Monson,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report of  Ecological  Services,  Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the  quarterly  period
ended December 31, 2000 fully complies within the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained
in such Form 10-QSB  fairly  represents  in all material  respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Ecological Services, Inc.



                                          By: /s/ Kevin Monson
                                             --------------------------
                                          Name: Kevin Monson
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
Abatement Order filed February 7, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_____________

NO. 14-13-00037-CR

____________

CHARLES ROBERT WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 9406948

ABATEMENT ORDER

In this appeal from unfavorable findings after DNA testing, appellant was 

represented by appointed counsel, Kelly Smith, in the trial court. At the conclusion 

of the DNA hearing on December 6, 2012, counsel indicated that she would file an 

appeal on behalf of appellant. On January 31, 2013, appellant advised this court 

that he is not represented by counsel at this time, but that he is indigent and cannot 

afford an attorney. Our record does not contain an order appointing counsel for 
2

appeal. Appellant’s brief is currently due on or before March 4, 2013. Accordingly, 

we issue the following order:

The appeal is ordered ABATED so that the trial court may appoint appellate 

counsel for appellant, if the court has not already done so. The court is directed to 

have a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order appointing appellate 

counsel filed with the clerk of this court, along with a record of any hearing that 

the trial court may deem necessary. Those records shall be filed with the clerk of 

this court on or before March 7, 2013.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

supplemental record is filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may 

reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM