alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hubbard, Respondent, vs. Hubbard, Appellant.

*October 16*

*November 5, 1889.*

*Divorce: Plaintiff’s adultery as a defense.*

In an action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery on the part of the plaintiff may be pleaded as a defense.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Fonddu Lao*County.

The following statement of the case was prepared by Mr. Justice Cassoday:

This is an action for a divorce. The cause of action alleged in the complaint is for cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of the defendant. The answer is lengthy, and consists of admissions and denials; and, as a separate answer and counterclaim, alleges numerous acts of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff; and among other things, and for a further answer, alleges, upon information and belief, several acts of adultery committed by the plaintiff *651with divers persons and at divers times and places particularly named therein. On motion of the plaintiff, the court struck out of the answer, as irrelevant, all that portion thereof relating to such adultery. From that order the defendant appeals.

For the appellant there was a brief by *G-érggheide &*McKenna, attorneys,.and *Wm. D. Oonlclin,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Maurice McKenna.*

To the point that the adultery of plaintiff is pleadable as a defense, they cited *Nagel v. Nagel,*12 Mo. 53; *Hale v. Hale,*47 Tex. 336, 342; *Shackett v. Shackett,*49 Yt. 195; *Johns v. Johns,*29 Ga. 718.

*A. M. Blair,*for the respondent.

Cassoday, *J.*

In support of the order, it is claimed that adultery is not pleadable as a *mere defense*or bar to the action, as it is said to be here pleaded. It has recently been held by this court that “ where it is shown that each party has been guilty of an offense which the statute has made a ground for divorce in favor of the other, the court will not grant relief to either.” *Pease v. Pease,*72 Wis. 136. In that case the wife was found guilty of adultery, and the husband was found guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment, which was alleged by the wife in her answer merely as a defense and bar to the action. The same principle has been sanctioned in a recent English case. *Otway v. Otway,*L. R. 13 Prob. Div. 141. This is on the theory that “ a judicial separation can only be granted where the petitioner comes to the court with a pure character, and is free from all matrimonial misconduct.” *Ibid.*

*By the*Court.— The order of the circuit court is reversed, without costs, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6320

CRAIG W. JACKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN

MCMASTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-03-1105)

Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig W. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Craig W. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). 

In his federal habeas petition, Jackson raised four

claims. With respect to the two claims the district court

dismissed as procedurally barred based upon the report of the

magistrate judge, we conclude that although they are not

procedurally barred, the claims are meritless. The district court

concluded that because Jackson raised these claims only in his

petition for post-conviction relief before a circuit court in South

Carolina (“PCR court”), Jackson’s claims were both unexhausted and

procedurally defaulted. While we conclude the claims were not

procedurally barred, State v. McKennedy, 559 S.E.2d 850, 852-54
- 3 -

(S.C. 2002), they were nevertheless properly subject to dismissal.

Jackson has failed to show that the state PCR court’s decision on

these claims was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,

federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or an unreasonable

application of the facts in light of the evidence. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d).

With respect to Jackson’s remaining claims, we have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not

made the requisite showing to be entitled to a certificate of

appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. 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
# C_2015066EN.01000501.xml

| 24.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 February 2015

(2015/C 66/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1298 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,50 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4637 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73520 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5656 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0727 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6405 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,444 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,09 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1746 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4483 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8037 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4510 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4256 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7631 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5041 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5384 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 253,43 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2311 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0686 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,7115 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 607,09 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1093 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,063 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,5628 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,786 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2729 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0685 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,4035 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1298

JPY

Japanese yen

134,50

DKK

Danish krone

7,4637

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73520

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5656

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0727

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6405

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,444

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,09

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1746

RON

Romanian leu

4,4483

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8037

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4510

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4256

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7631

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5041

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5384

KRW

South Korean won

1 253,43

ZAR

South African rand

13,2311

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0686

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,7115

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 607,09

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1093

PHP

Philippine peso

50,063

RUB

Russian rouble

72,5628

THB

Thai baht

36,786

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2729

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0685

INR

Indian rupee

70,4035

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 35,750

5 ADAM BUSTAMANTE,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM 

11 Jason Yamato, Assistant Attorney General

12 Albuquerque, NM 

13 for Appellee

14 The Law Offices of the Public Defender

15 Christopher Dodd

16 Albuquerque, NM 

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 {1} The State sought to appeal from an order by the district court entitled “order

2 granting Defendant’s motion to compel production of forensic copy.” [DS 2, 4; RP

3 11-12] We issued a notice proposing to dismiss for lack of a final, appealable order.

4 In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss, wherein the State does not oppose our

5 proposed disposition and indicates its intent not to pursue the appeal. Defendant filed

6 a response, requesting that this Court issue an opinion to ensure “a full and complete

7 record in this case.”

8 {2} For the reasons stated above and set forth in our notice of proposed disposition,

9 we dismiss the State’s appeal.

10 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 __________________________________

12 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

13 WE CONCUR:

14 _________________________________

15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge

16 _________________________________

17 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
# C_2015150EN.01000301.xml

| 7.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 150/03)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Malta

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Republic of Malta 1974

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The coin is the last in a series of five commemorating Maltese constitutional milestones. Malta was declared a republic on 13 December 1974 following constitutional changes which were agreed upon by a great majority in Malta’s Parliament. The design reproduces a marble tablet affixed to the façade of the Presidential Palace in Valletta to mark Malta’s change from a monarchy to a republic. At the top right, in semi-circle, the inscription ‘MALTA — Republic 1974’. At the bottom, the year ‘2015’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : September 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
# C_2015138EN.01000101.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 138/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 127, 20.4.2015

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015

OJ C 107, 30.3.2015

OJ C 96, 23.3.2015

OJ C 89, 16.3.2015

OJ C 81, 9.3.2015

OJ C 73, 2.3.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2197

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the Federal 
medical assistance percentage for States that provide Medicaid coverage 
                        for telehealth services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2021

  Ms. Rosen (for herself, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Lujan, and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the Federal 
medical assistance percentage for States that provide Medicaid coverage 
                        for telehealth services.

    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 ``Rural and Frontier Telehealth 
Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED FMAP FOR STATES PROVIDING MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR 
              TELEHEALTH SERVICES.

    Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
amended, in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``and (5)'' and inserting ``(5)''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, and (6) in the case of a frontier 
        State (as defined in section 1886(d)(3)(E)(iii)(II)) or a State 
        where less than 90 percent of the total population has access 
        to fixed terrestrial broadband service with at least 25 
        megabits per second (Mbps) download speed and 3 Mbps upload 
        speed (according to the most recently available annual 
        Broadband Deployment Report of the Federal Communications 
        Commission) that, as determined by the Secretary, provides 
        medical assistance for telehealth services (including audio-
        only telehealth services) for a majority of the services for 
        which medical assistance is available under the State plan (or 
        a waiver of such plan) and for which telehealth is appropriate 
        and provides such services at a level that is not less than the 
        level at which the State provided such services on January 1, 
        2021, the Federal medical assistance percentage, as determined 
        under this subsection and subsection (y), shall be increased by 
        5 percentage points with respect to medical assistance for 
        telehealth services'' before the period.
                                 <all>
```
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00830- CV

Trisun Healthcare , LLC and Brian Th readgill, Appellan ts
v. Michael Kum ets, P avel K um ets, and Strul Kum ets, Individ ually an d as n ext friend f or Yevge niya Kum ets, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 10- 139- C368, HO NORAB LE B URT CARNES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants T ri s u n Hea lthcare , L L C and Br ian Threa dg ill have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss as moot their acc eler ated interlocutory appea l ag ainst appellee s Michae l Kumets, Pavel Kumets, and Strul Kumets, Individually and as next friend for Yevg eniy a Kumets. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: May

5, 2011
# C_2015214EN.01001001.xml

| 30.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/10

---

Call for proposals under the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of the trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for period 2014-2020

(Commission Decision C(2015) 1363)

(2015/C 214/06)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy, is hereby launching a call for proposals in order to award grants in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the multiannual work programme in the field of the trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.

Proposals are invited for the following call:

CEF-Energy-2015-2

The indicative amount available for the selected proposals under this call for proposals is EUR 550 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 30 September 2015.

The complete text of the call for proposals is available on:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-energy/apply-funding/cef-energy-second-call-proposals-2015

---
LIGHTPATH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 10-K/A

Exhibit 23.1

 

Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

LightPathTechnologies, Inc.

Orlando,Florida

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-23515, 333-23511, 333-41705, 333-92017, 333-121389, 333-121385, 333-96083, 333-50976, 333-50974, 333-155044, 333-188482, 333-201871and 333-201872) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113814, 333-37443, 333-39641, 333-47905, 333-86185,333-93179, 333-94303, 333-31014, 333-37622, 333-47992, 333-51474, 333-75528, 333-127053, 333-133772, 333-146550, 333-153743, 333-159603,333-162342, 333-163416, 333-166633 and 333-182240) of LightPath Technologies, Inc. of our report dated September 4, 2014,relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated byreference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended.

 

Cross,Fernandez & Riley, LLP

Orlando,Florida

December17, 2015
REF ID:A40326 

___ .,...L.j.___,~~~~~ ...... ~ .-(J.eL_k_ N~~ r-Al.l8/I 7- __ ------..--1-~!l!ldSo-L-.Jl!l.L:.._JtdL.-L.., .AlJA M! ,,,.. .. ,-<-<"-Ml"-~ ...Ml' /l!!!'R,,,,_rc1A,,. ~ 

,......,} ~ ~ A/ICdL.!L .... n~ L'-ll. 

~JI ~~.&d dld .. <L. .. ,... Jl.;st!l.d -~ e.---! 

4 •• 4.;. p~...:...T- ~.....6' ~' __ 

,----.---i------~- ~t ,,,._. ~Ill'- ~ d•Mu-: . ..., ... -/*- """~ ~ 

------..--t--~-(ilf4L.> ;/ ~ ~--"" ...,e•~~ ~ -~~d'f.u .e~ -p" 

---r---+----r~IN ~~ ~~· .... &.'.f..-~,, ~ ~~,,;.-+:;,.A.!"Jti.. 

-...---+-~~,u..,SIA--;?--r~ gM_M /-~~~ l ~ - ._-r-.Mlffc!'. j" ~~-?/ ~-IA~~ 

~-o----4 ~ ~~ - t+\~ ~ ~"' .. ~'114 r ~ ~ 

___ ____;__ --£¥~ ~--"~ / .P~ ~ .. g.~? ~r-r~4 

- --- _.du., - --"-"', d:2. f ""? ~ / ~- dZ ~ ~,, /c4, 

4' 4¥~ ~-~ ~~/ --

-4t-~d'I F '4'tlfrt&• «<~ t:fr..p;&<rp-~ l!o .,.)( -

----.---i--~'.£M.~IL-; ~ tdA,.&,~ -~ hLe,.,,,_..!'.,,..;e, ! 

-~-.+---.;<.,<-.... .,....,..~ ~ ~---'4;r-f'-r-'1r "-~ ~ 

~-~-r~ 41 ~~~~/ 

--1 

---~~A~~ 

--!--,-------.---~---------------------- --- ~T 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-26-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
REF ID:A40326 

_ __..1.-=-. £_...~k,, ~-(/"~ ~ .. _____ _ 

"1_.t ~~.,..~-~~,c,~ ~ ,. ,,., ... tUdo.J •• ,,,,,~~ ? 7 ft1' ffAf•1 

/} a.,_(1' ____ ~~ ~ ~ J_ d_ .~~~ rtl..~O~t"h:!;, I T ~ -- - ~ ~ -F ~ 

' l.~, ~,&KM ... _.,,. ... _ .... ~~;_-~ 

_ t:t'.Ht.-tyJ ~ .S-/1/P~t A.At1" II' '1HL',~~I' ~ ~IJl'.C4u~~ 

----1--~;o«Al-~Jo 

-------+~ ~,~ 

'17' ~ ~ 

.d~~~ 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ ~ &.#V~-

-~t_ - _&~ ..... ,~"'"~~ ;tf-e:~ "'4 7-~~ ,4 _ 

-----I-ti~~~~-~---~~ .lt!!:..f'?J,, - ---

---------.--...------------- ~' •' ,z,,,_,,. Co•n11M'~~!.Co~ilololr!.~M--~"1!!2. ______ _ 

~-I---.-~~~~-~-~~ 

~~----~~--~~~~-

.. _ 

. 

I 

- T - - - - --------~------~-------,,.....-.----.
----

| Name                         |   |                             | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |   |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |                             |
| Suite Speed, Inc.            |   | State of Delaware, United States |
|                         |   |                             |
| Canadian Communications, LLC |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                         |   |                             |
| Cardinal Broadband, LLC      |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                         |   |                             |
| Cardinal Connect, LLC        |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                         |   |                             |
| Arista Communications, LLC   |   | State of Colorado, United States |
|                         |   |                             |
| Cardinal Hospitality, Ltd.   |   | British Columbia, Canada         |
GARY GIVENS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4683

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Rachael E. Bushey of O'Brien Hatfield, PA, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.