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

A Justice of the Peace has uo jurisdiction over the ofEence of larceny of growing corn. The act of 1873-’74, Chap. 176, does does not sufficiently express the intention to give a Justice jurisdiction in such cases.

This was an Istdictmeij't for stealing corn standing and remaining ungathered in a certain field, tried at the Pall Term, 1874, of Beetie Superior Court, before his Honor, *Hilliard, J.*

When the case was called in the Court below, the defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution, for the reason that the Court did not have jurisdiction ; and his Honor being of opinion with the defendant, allowed the motion. Prom this judgment, *Martin,*Solicitor for the State, appealed.

*Attorney General Hargrove,*for the State.

*Winston, Jr.,*for the defendant.

*124Rodman, J.

The defendant was indicted in the Superior Court for stealing corn standing in the field, of the value of five ceffta. lie moved to quash the indictment because a Justice of the Peace has exclusive jurisdiction of the ofience, and the Superior Court had none.

The Court allowed the motion and quashed the indictment, and the State appealed. The offence is created and made larceny by the Act of 1868-69, Chap. 251, found in Battle’s Re-visal, Chap. 82, Sec. 20. By an Act of 1873-74, Chap. 176, p. 259, the Legislature amended several sections of Chap. 32, above cited, by fixing the maximum punishment for the offence described in those sections at a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for one month, thereby giving a Justice final jurisdiction of them. But Sec. 20 is not one of those so amended, and the punishment for the larceny of standing corn remains like the punishment for other larcenies, fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court, thus excluding the final jurisdiction of a Justice. The Act of 1873-74, in Sec. 13, however, does say, Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction to hear, try, &c., criminal actions for the offences described in Sec. 20, of Chap. 32, of Battle’s Revisal. We are of the opinion that the apparently express grant of final jurisdiction over the offence in question to a Justice is ineffectual, because the possible punishment for the offence exceeds that which a Justice can adjudge under the Constitution, Art. IY, Sec. 5. Of course it is within the power of the Legislature so to limit the punishment as to give final jurisdiction to a Justice. But the Legislature has not expressly done so as to this offence, and we cannot imply such an intention from Sec. 13, of the Act of 1873-’74, with such certainty as to enable us to give it that effect. While such may have been the intention, it is possible, at least, that as the bill was drawn it fixed a maximum punishment for larceny, which provision was stricken from it before its passage, while by inadvertence, the language of Sec. 13, in reference to Sec. 20, of Chap. 32, of Battle’s Revisal, was left to stand unaltered. We think the Superior Court had juris*125diction of the offence charged in the indictment, and that the Judge erred in quashing the bill.

Judgment below reversed, and case remanded to be proceeded in, &c.

PeR CuRiAM. Judgment reversed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Airmen Learn Tactical Combat Casualty Care

By Senior Airman Zachary Heal36th Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### Wisconsin Granite Company, Respondent, vs. Industrial Commission and another as administratrix, Appellants.

*December 11, 1931*

June *20, 1932.*

For the appellants there were briefs by *Grotophorst, Quale & Langer*of Baraboo, attorneys for Matilda Swaf-ford individually and as administratrix, and the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, attorneys for the Industrial Commission, and oral argument by *Mr. Langer*and *Mr. Levitan.*

For the respondent there were briefs by *Richmond, Jack-man, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison and *Lowell A. Lawson*of Chicago, Illinois, and oral argument by *F. Halsey Kraege*of Madison and *Harold M. Wilkie.*

The following opinion was filed April 5, 1932 :

Owen, J.

This is a companion case of Wisconsin Granite Company, a corporation, respondent, v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and Matilda Swafford, appellants, decided herewith *(ante,*p. 270, 242 N. W. 191). All of the *283questions presented in this case .were considered and decided in that, and the disposition of this case must be the same.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment remanding the case to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings as indicated in the opinion in *Wisconsin Granite Co. v. Industrial Commission and Matilda Swafford.*

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 20, 1932.
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Million Dollar Saloon, Inc.
File No. 0-27006

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Million  Dollar  Saloon,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Nick
Mehmeti,  Chief  Executive and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: September 30, 2008                       By:       /s/ Nick Mehmeti
      ------------------                       --------------------------------
                                                                   Nick Mehmeti
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                        Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Million Dollar  Saloon,  Inc. and will be retained by Million Dollar
Saloon,  Inc. to be furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1207 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1207

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2017

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 306 River Street in Tilden, Texas, as the ``Tilden Veterans Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST TILDEN VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 306 River Street in Tilden, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Tilden Veterans Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tilden 
Veterans Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
----

| (1) The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of1934; |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:    November      16, 2009 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| /s/ Christopher G.      Payan                                           Christopher      G. PayanChief      Executive Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| /s/ Brian P.      Alessi                                           Brian      P. AlessiChief      Financial Officer           |

----
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

;rrrrr,c. “IPa 

,n-o.*s. QCIWBAL 
Hon. Rxnost Coke?, mge 8 

Article 9101, R%iia%4 divfl Statutes~ protl& 

ing for noratnetio~o by politiaal parttcln, r8aL in pati _ 

as followsr
June 25, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF L.E.R., A CHILD

NO. 14-15-00205-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed 

February 24, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court 

below AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1039 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend section 3606 of title 18, United States Code, 

to grant probation officers authority to arrest hostile 

third parties who obstruct or impede a probation officer 

in the performance of official duties. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1039 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Probation Officer Pro3 tection Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF PROBATION OFFICERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3606 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘and return 

8 of a probationer’’ and by inserting ‘‘authority 

9 of probation officers’’; 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘If there’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) If 

11 there’’; and 

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

13 ‘‘(b) A probation officer, while in the performance of 

14 his or her official duties, may arrest a person without a 

15 warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the per16 son has forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, in17 timidated, or interfered with the probation officer, or a 

18 fellow probation officer, in violation of section 111. The 

19 arrest authority described in this subsection shall be exer20 cised under such rules and regulations as the Director of 

21 the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

22 shall prescribe.’’. 

23 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for 

24 subchapter A of chapter 229 of title 18, United States 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1039 RFS

1 Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 

2 3606 and inserting the following: 

‘‘3606. Arrest authority of probation officers.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
### Tribal NSR Overview Meeting **Tribal NSR Overview Meeting -**  **Powerpoint presentation Powerpoint presentation**  **Jessica Montanez Jessica Montanez**  **to: King, Heidi R.**  **10/21/2010 09:12 AM Cc:**  **Raj Rao Heidi,**  **The presentation for today's Tribal NSR Overview meeting is attached. Please let me know if you have any questions.** 
**Jessica**

**FinalTribalNSRRuleOverviewOct2010.ppt Jessica Montañez**  **Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy Division**  **New Source Review Group 109 TW Alexander Drive MD: C504-03 RTP, NC 27711**  **Phone: 919-541-3407, Fax: 919-541-5509 Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy .**  **Looking for a speaker for your school or community event? http://www.epa.gov/rtpspeakers/**
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of request to release Airport Development Aid Program and Airport Improvement Program Property.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Port of Portland, Oregon to waive the ADAP and AIP property requirements and dispose of approximately 15.7 acres of airport property located at Hillsboro Airport, in Hillsboro, Oregon.

# DATES:

                        Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        . Emailed comments can be provided to Mr. Tim House, Lead Planner, Seattle Airports District Office,                         *timothy.a.house@faa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Tim House, Lead Planner, Seattle Airports District Office, 2200 S 216 St., Des Moines, WA 98198,                         *timothy.a.house@faa.gov,*                         (206) 231-4248. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above locations.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The subject property is located north of the airport and separated from the aeronautical area by Evergreen Road. This release will allow the Port of Portland to sell 15.7 acres. The proceeds generated from the proposed release will be utilized for maintenance and capital improvements that support aeronautical activities. The Port of Portland, Oregon will receive not less than fair market value for the property. It has been determined through study that the subject 15.7 acres will not be needed for aeronautical purposes.

*Authority:*                     49.U.S.C. 47153(c).                

Issued in Des Moines, Washington on November 14, 2024.

Manson Wong,

Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.

[FR Doc. 2024-27031 Filed 11-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Robert Dale et al., Respondents, v Emerson Electric Company et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 47]

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: In this personal injury action, defendants moved to compel plaintiff to demonstrate on a videotape the manner in which he was using a radial arm saw at the time he was injured. Supreme Court denied the motion without comment. The trial court is vested with broad discretionary powers in supervising disclosure, and absent an abuse of discretion, the court’s control of disclosure should not be disturbed *(see, Dunlap v United Health Servs.,*189 AD2d 1072, 1073). Nevertheless, where, as here, the court failed to set forth any reasons for its denial, we are unable to discern whether it exercised its discretionary authority on a proper basis *(see, American Sec. Ins. Co. v Williams,*176 AD2d 1094, 1095). Exercising our authority to review questions of fact as well as questions of law *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]), we conclude that defendants’ motion should have been granted. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Discovery.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1286 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1286

    To require the Secretary of Education to use the excess revenue 
generated from the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program to carry 
                  out the Federal Pell Grant Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2017

   Mr. Kind introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Secretary of Education to use the excess revenue 
generated from the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program to carry 
                  out the Federal Pell Grant Program.

    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 ``Pell Grant Funding Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLYING EXCESS REVENUE TO FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

    The Secretary of Education shall--
            (1) as soon as practicable after the end of a fiscal year, 
        determine whether during such fiscal year the William D. Ford 
        Federal Direct Loan Program under part D of title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) 
        generated any revenue in excess of the amount that was 
        necessary to cover the costs of carrying out such Program for 
        such fiscal year; and
            (2) if such excess revenue was generated, use such excess 
        revenue to carry out the Federal Pell Grant Program under 
        subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 
        1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) for the succeeding fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Vincent Kissel et al., Appellants, v Charles V. Zimmermann et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 524]

Appeal by the petitioners from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated December 14,1993.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, for reasons stated by Justice Murphy at the Supreme *603Court. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.