alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Richmond

#### J. O. Hubbard v. Commonwealth of Virginia.

January 8, 1940.

Record No. 2224.

Present, All the Justices.

*S. R. Price,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Abram P. Staples, Attorney-General,*and *Edwin H. Gibson, Assistant Attorney-General,*for the Commonwealth.

Per Curiam.

We think it unnecessary to state in detail the facts in this case.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of rape committed upon a child of eight years and the verdict of *494the jury fixing his term of confinement in the penitentiary at twenty-eight years was confirmed by the court.

The defendant alleges the commission of prejudicial error by the court in the admission of the testimony of two witnesses, Ann Patterson and Dorothy Montgomery, the former twelve years old and the latter an infant under the age of twenty-one years, to corroborate the sworn statements of the prosecutrix, by proving, by the said witnesses, that the prosecutrix had, on previous occasions, made the same, or substantially the same, statements to them as to her relations with the accused, that she made at the trial of the case.

Thát this is prejudicial error is made plain by the holding of this court in the cases of *Brogy*v. *Commonwealth,*10 Gratt. (51 Va.) 722, 725; *Crowson*v. *Swan,*164 Va. 82, 178 S. E. 898; and *Meadows*v. *McClaugherty,*167 Va. 41, 187 S. E. 475.

The admission of testimony to prove declarations made by a witness out of court in corroboration of testimony given by him on the trial of the case is error, except under certain circumstances, which are not present in this case.

The Supreme Court of the State of West Virginia, in the case of *State*v. *Straight,*102 W. Va. 361, 135 S. E. 163, a case involving a similar crime to the one in judgment, under similar circumstances, said:

> “It is with extreme reluctance that we have decided to reverse the judgment complained of, and do so only under constraint of a salutary rule of evidence invoked by the defendant.”

We must reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case, for to do otherwise would be to do violence to a fundamental principle of the law of evidence.

There are other assignments of error which do not need to be discussed.

For reasons given, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case.

*Reversed and remanded.*
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		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Airmen, family members conduct a memorial ruck march at Kadena Air Base, Japan 

U.S. Airmen with the 320th Special Tactics Squadron and the 31st Rescue Squadron carry a 200-lb. litter loaded with equipment and a training dummy during a memorial ruck march at Kadena Air Base, Japan, Oct. 25, 2019. The memorial honored Tech. Sgts. Peter Kraines and Sean Barnes who both died after sustaining injuries during training incidents in 2014 and 2019.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
© 201 5 DJI. All Rights Reserved. 

### 70 | Specification s 

## Aircraft S upported Battery DJI 52 00mAh Li

- P o Battery PHANTOM 2 VISION Weight 116 0g Recommend payload ≤ 1300g Maximum payload 1350g Hovering Accuracy ( Ready to Fly ) Vertical : 0.8m ; Horizontal : 2.5m Max Yaw Angular Velocity 200°/s Max Tilt Angle 35° Max Ascent / Descent Speed Ascent: 6m/s; Descent: 2 m/s Max Flight Speed 1 5 m/s (Not Recommended) W heelbase 350mm Tilt Range of the Camera 0 °

- 60 ° 

## Remote Controller Operating Frequency 5.728 GHz

- 5.8 5 GHz Communication Distance ( open area ) CE Compliance: 3 00m; FCC Compliance: 500m Receiver Sensitivity ( 1%PER )

- 93dBm Transmitting Power ( EIRP ) CE Compliance: 25mW; FCC Compliance: 125mW W orking Current/Voltage 8 0mA@ 6 V Battery 4 AA Batteries 

## Camera Resolution 14 Mega p ixels FOV 12 0 ° / 11 0 ° / 85 ° S ensor S ize 1/2.3 ”

Functions S upport s multi

- capture, continuous capture and timed capture S upport s HD R ecord ing (1080p30,1080i60) S upport s both RAW and JPEG photo format s 

## Range Extender Operating Frequency 2412MHz

- 2462MHz Communication Distance ( open area ) 300m Transmitting Power 17dBm Power Consumption 1.5W 

## DJI VISION App

Support ed M obile D evice s Recommended: iPhone4s , iPhone5 , iPhone5s , iPhone5 C, iPhone6, iPhone6 Plus, iPod Touch4 , iPod Touch5 ; Available but not recommended: i P ad 3 , iP ad 4 , iP ad mini

.
NETEZZA CORPORATION
 Third Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement
      COMPANY:
NETEZZA CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Patrick J. Scannell, Jr.Name:
    Patrick J. Scannell, Jr.Title:
    Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer




---



##### 



PURCHASERS:
MATRIX PARTNERS VI, L.P.By:
    Matrix VI Management Co., L.L.C.,
its General PartnerBy:
    /s/ Paul J. FerriName:
    Paul J. FerriManaging MemberMATRIX VI PARALLEL PARTNERSHIP-A, L.P.By:
    Matrix VI Management Co., L.L.C.,
its General PartnerBy:
    /s/ Paul J. FerriName:
    Paul J. FerriManaging MemberMATRIX VI PARALLEL PARTNERSHIP-B, L.P.By:
    Matrix VI Management Co., L.L.C.,
its General PartnerBy:
    /s/ Paul J. FerriName:
    Paul J. FerriManaging MemberWESTON & CO. VI LLC, as NomineeBy:
    Matrix Partners Management Services, L.P.Sole MemberBy:
    Matrix Partners Management Services,
GP, LLC, its General PartnerBy:
    /s/ Paul J. FerriName:
    Paul J. FerriAuthorized Member Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement




---



##### 



CHARLES RIVER PARTNERSHIP XI, LPBy:

    Charles River XI GP, LP
Its General Partner
By:   Charles River XI GP, LLC
Its:    General Partner By:
    /s/ Ted R. DintersmithAuthorized ManagerAddress:

    1000 Winter Street, Suite 3300
Waltham, MA 02451 CHARLES RIVER FRIENDS XI-A, LPBy:

    Charles River XI GP, LLC
  Its:   General Partner By:
    /s/ Ted R. DintersmithAuthorized ManagerAddress:

    1000 Winter Street, Suite 3300
Waltham, MA 02451 CHARLES RIVER FRIENDS XI-B, LPBy:
    Charles River XI GP, LLC
Its: General Partner By:
    /s/ Ted R. DintersmithAuthorized ManagerAddress:

    1000 Winter Street, Suite 3300
Waltham, MA 02451 Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement




---



##### 



BATTERY VENTURES VI, L.P.
By:  Battery Partners VI, LLCBy:
    /s/ Scott R. TobinMember ManagerBATTERY INVESTMENT PARTNERS VI, LLCBy:
    /s/ Scott R. TobinMember Manager Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement




---



##### 



Sequoia Capital X
Sequoia Technology Partners X
Sequoia Capital X Principals FundBy:
    SC X Management, L.L.C.
A Delaware Limited Liability Company
General Partner of EachBy:
    /s/ Douglas M. LeoneManaging Member Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement




---



##### 



MERITECH CAPITAL PARTNERS II L.P.By:
    Meritech Capital Associates II L.L.C.
its General PartnerBy:
    Meritech Management Associates II L.L.C.
a managing memberBy:
    /s/ Michael B. GordonMichael B. Gordon, a managing memberMERITECH CAPITAL AFFILIATES II L.P.By:
    Meritech Capital Associates II L.L.C.
its General PartnerBy:
    Meritech Management Associates II L.L.C.
a managing memberBy:
    /s/ Michael B. GordonMichael B. Gordon, a managing memberMCP ENTREPRENEUR PARTNERS II L.P.By:
    Meritech Capital Associates II L.L.C.
its General PartnerBy:
    Meritech Management Associates II L.L.C.
a managing memberBy:
    /s/ Michael B. GordonMichael B. Gordon, a managing member Amendment No. 2 to Third Amended and Restated Investor Rights Agreement
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



## O RDER

Cause No 01

- 13

- 00 238

- CV, Esmeralda Thurman v. Buy George Resale, L.L.C. d/b/a

Riverbridge Resale & Consignment and Kim Bolt

On appeal from the 240 th District Court of Fort Bend County , Texas, Trial Court

Case No. 10

- DCV

- 181877

.

On September 9, 2013, appellant filed a document in this court entitled “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment.” This document is not part of the clerk’s record that has been presented to this court. On March 6, 2014, this court ordered the district clerk to supplement the clerk’ s record with a copy of the document. The

district clerk ’s office responded with an affidavit denying that it had such a document in its

records.

If the parties agree that the document was filed in the trial court, they are ordered to utilize the procedur es of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e) to supplement the clerk’s

record and to inform this court when they have done so. Otherwise, the parties are to inform this court if they contend that the document was not actually filed. In either case, t he parties are ordered to file a status report in the First Court of Appeals no later than March 24 , 2014

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting individually

Date: March 19 , 2014
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.54


                             PHARMACOPEIA, INC.
                          1994 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN

                              AMENDMENT NO. 8

Pursuant to the power reserved to it in Section 14 of the Pharmacopeia, Inc.
1994 Incentive Stock Plan, as amended (the "PLAN"), the Board of Directors of
Pharmacopeia, Inc. hereby amends the Plan, effective June 30, 2000, as
follows:

1.     A new Section 8(b)(vii) is hereby added to the Plan to read as follows:

       "RETIREMENT.  At any time after May 1, 2001, the Plan Administrator
shall have the ability and authority at the time an Option is granted to an
Employee to provide that if the Optionee's employment is terminated for
reasons other than Misconduct after the Optionee has attained age 55 and
completed five years of service with the Company and/or a Parent or a
Subsidiary:

       (A)  the Option shall continue to vest for up to three years following
such termination of employment according to the same vesting schedule as is
then in effect under the Option, provided that such continued vesting will
not extend beyond the original date of expiration of the Option, and/or

       (B)  The Optionee will have a period of up to three years after such
termination of employment to exercise the Option, provided such exercise
period will not extend beyond the original date of expiration of the Option.

       Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Plan Administrator implements
this retirement vesting provision in an Option after May 1, 2001, the Plan
Administrator shall implement such retirement vesting provision in all
Options granted to Employees thereafter.

       To record the adoption of this Amendment No. 8, Pharmacopeia has
caused its authorized officers to affix its corporation name and seal as of
this 30th day of June, 2000.

CORPORATE SEAL                             PHARMACOPEIA, INC.



Attest: /s/ Thomas M. Carney                 By: /s/ Joseph A. Mollica
        ----------------------------            ----------------------------
        Thomas M. Carney,                       Joseph A. Mollica,
        Secretary                               Chairman of the Board, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer
[639 NYS2d 763]

#### In the Matter of Raymond J. Bowie, an Attorney, Resignor.

Fourth Department,

March 8, 1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Raymond J. Bowie,*Naples, Florida, resignor *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The above-named attorney was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 22, 1977 and is currently in good standing. He has submitted an affidavit requesting that this Court accept his resignation from the practice of law in New York State. He states in his affidavit that he has not resided in New York State since 1977 and that he is currently applying for admission to the practice of law in Florida, where he intends to relocate after his admission. He further states *7that he has no intention of returning to New York to practice law.

We grant the application and direct that his name be removed from the roll of attorneys.

Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Balio, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1209 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mission, Texas, as the ‘‘Mission Veterans 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 21, 2017 

Mr. CUELLAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mission, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Mission Veterans Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MISSION VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 901 N. Francisco Avenue, Mis6 sion, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Mis7 sion Veterans Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1209 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Mission Veterans Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
## us.Departmentof 

### Transportation Officeofthe Secretary ofTransportation ·;::.:.·.f, : '·)\1 

## a 0 

## I- 53 '-·'.';i - t. .. MEMORANDUM TO DOCKET 2009-0155 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

On September 15, 2010, the Secretary ofTransportation received a call from Senator Klobuchar on several transportation issues. One ofthe issues was the application of Delta Air Lines and the Virgin Blue group for antitrust immunity. Senator Klobuchar expressed her support for Delta's application and encouraged the Secretary to grant the antitrust immunity requested. The Secretary listened to Senator Klobuchar and thanked her for the call.
No. 82-1043.

#### Kelsaw *v.*Union Pacific Railroad Co.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

PHARMACOPEIA, INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Pharmacopeia, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, John J. Hanlon, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss. 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ John J.  Hanlon                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John J.  Hanlon                                        |
| Executive  Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                   |
| August 8,  2003                                        |

 

----
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 7 /2 9 /1 5 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR
– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the GA AWMA Regulatory Update Conference

March 25, 2015
**SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the Georgia AWMA

Regulatory Update Conference in Atlanta, GA, on March 25, 2015 . The Clea n Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was p roposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES :**  **EPA** Beverly Banister/EPA R4 Several additional Region 4 staff **External Stakeholders** Approximately 75 p articipants **ATTACHMENT**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            1057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1057
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         63154
<OTHER-SE>                                      (76540)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1057
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (6118)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (6118)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,385
<SECURITIES>                                    56,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (563)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,436
<PP&E>                                          20,610
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,098)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,495
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,843
<SALES>                                         38,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,942
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,795
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 01-20110

_____________________
EARL VAN JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
GUY WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Sheriff of Montgomery County, Texas; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

_____________________
No. 01-20355

_____________________
MICHAEL ROGER SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
GUY WILLIAMS, Individually, and as Sheriff of Montgomery County, Texas; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas H-99-CV-972 & H-99-CV-2590

_________________________________________________________________ August 29, 2002 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After review of the record, we find that we must remand these

cases for further proceedings, including a trial if necessary. Our

opinion today, however, should not prejudice the right of the

district c ourt, after hearing the evidence, to grant a directed2

verdict, or a judgment as a matter of law, nor should it prejudice

the right of this court on any subsequent review of the evidence to

find it insufficient to support a finding in favor of the

plaintiff.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.