alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 18309.

Department Two.

September 13, 1894.]

#### MRS. M. WILLIAMS et al., Respondents, *v.*JOHN M. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants.

Judgment — Findings—Mining Partnership — Accounting.—In an action by tenants in common of a mining claim against their cotenants for a partition of the claim and a settlement of the mining copartnership, a finding that each of the defendants is indebted, in a stated amount, to the partnership, will not support a judgment that each of the defendants is indebted to the plaintiffs in such amount, and decreeing its payment to them.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*A. J. Ridge,*for Appellants.

*J. M. Walling,*for Respondents.

McFarland, J.

This is an action brought by five tenants in common of a mining claim against four other tenants in common in said claim, for a partition of the mining claim and the settlement of a mining copartnership. Judgment was rendered generally for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal_from the judgment on the judgment-roll alone.

We do not see any thing necessary to be noticed in any of the points made by appellants except the last one, to wit, that the findings do not support the judg*86ment, because the former shows that each of the defendants is indebted in a stated amount to the *partnership,*while the judgment declares that each defendant is indebted to the *plaintiffs*in the said amount of money, and decrees that the said amount of money owing by each defendant to the partnership be paid to the plaintiffs. It is quite probable that the words “ to the partnership” in the findings were placed there inadvertently; but we must take the record as we find it. Of course, a finding that certain copartners are each indebted in a stated amount to the copartnership does not warrant a judgment that the same amount be paid to the other partners. For this reason, the judgment must be reversed.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the judgment was satisfied before the appeal was taken; but the affidavit on file does not show that fact. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

The judgment is reversed.

Fitzgekald, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jorge Luis Valeriano Bonilla, * From the 358th District Court

 of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. D-39,784.

Vs. No. 11-16-00185-CR * December 8, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
#### The State vs. Felner.

Under ch. 274, Laws of 1861, a defendant indicted for an assault with intent to murder, is not entitled to testify on his own behalf. That chapter relates to criminal trials where the only charge against the defendant is assault, or assault and battery.

Where the indictment is for an assault with intent to murder, and the defendant is found guilty of an assault and battery, and not guilty of an intent to murder, the court may sentence him (under sec. 10, ch. 179, R. S.) to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.

CERTIFIED from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

The *Attorney*General, for the state.

*By the Court,*

Downer, J,

This cause is certified to this *562court pursuant to ,the provisions of chapter 180, R. S. Two questions are presented'for our consideration :

1. Was the defendant entitled to be sworn as a witness on bis own behalf?

2. Whether the court below, when a defendant is indicted for an assault with intent to murder, and is at the trial found guilty of an assault and battery, and not guilty of the intent to murder, has power to sentence the defendant.

' As to the first point, we are of opinion that the defendant had no right to be sworn as a witness in his own behalf. Chapter 274, Laws of 1861, applies to criminal trials where the only charge against the defendant is assault, or assault and battery.

As to the second question, section 10, ch. 179, R. S., expressly gives the power to sentence the defendant so convicted to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.

We advise the circuit court to proceed and sentence the defendant.

The cause is remanded for further proceedings.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 18443)    
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                     Committee of Visitors for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), #1373.                

*Dates/Time:*                     June 9-10, 2015; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.                

*Place:*                     National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Stafford I Room 920.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Closed.                

*Contact Persons:*                     Denise Barnes, Section Head, Uma Venkateswaran, Program Director, Beth Strausser, Associate Program Manager (Detail), and Elizabeth Lawrence, Program Analyst. Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR); Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8683.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer comments, and other privileged materials.                

*Agenda:*                     To provide a balanced assessment of NSF EPSCoR's performance in the integrity and efficiency of processes related to proposal review.                

*Reason for Closing:*                     The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: March 31, 2015.

Suzanne Plimpton,

Acting, Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-07726 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Transit Administration

          - [FTA Docket No. FTA-2015-0004]

# AGENCY:

Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a 30-Day Notice of Request for Comments in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 17, 2015 Vol. 80 No. 51 entitled; “49 U.S.C. 5335(a) and (b) National Transit Database Program.” The notice contained an incorrect estimated total annual burden on respondents. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tia Swain, Office of Administration, Office of Management Planning, (202) 366-0354.

## Correction

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 302,400 hours.

Matthew M. Crouch,

Associate Administrator for Administration.

[FR Doc. 2015-07604 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
TAVORIS SIMMONS,

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. 1D16-4609

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Tavoris Simmons, pro se, Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Marquis Jamal Reed, Appellant

No. 06-17-00203-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 354th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 31,323). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Marquis Jamal Reed, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 22, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2019

MARIA LOURDES BARBARA FLORES, a/k/a Maria

Lourdes Barbara Fury,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney

General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A97-346-529)

Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 2, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jon Eric Garde, LAW OFFICES OF JON ERIC GARDE, Las Vegas, Nevada,

for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,

James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, OFFICE

OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a native and citizen of the

Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) order denying relief from removal. Flores asserts

that the IJ abused her discretion in denying Flores’ motion to

continue for adjudication of an I-130 petition for adjustment of

status. 

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of

discretion in the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.

1998). The remaining claims set forth in Flores’ brief were not

raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals. As such, they have

not been administratively exhausted and we lack jurisdiction to

review them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). With regard to

Flores’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we note that she

has also failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of

Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0693. THOMAS CORY STARK v. FANCY P. STARK.

Thomas Cory Stark and Fancy P. Stark were divorced in 2013. Fancy Stark

filed motions for contempt to enforce provisions of the divorce decree, both parties

filed motions to modify child support, and Thomas Stark filed a motion to modify

custody and a counterclaim seeking modification of child support and elimination of

alimony. The trial court entered its final order addressing the various motions. 

Thomas Stark appeals from the order.

 Although the Court of Appeals may review cases relating solely to child

custody, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll divorce and alimony

cases.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6). In Georgia, when the

obligation to pay child support arises from a prior divorce proceeding, child support

is a form of alimony. See Spurlock v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. 512, 513

(1) (690 SE2d 378) (2010); Jones v. Jones, 280 Ga. 712, 715-716 (2) (632 SE2d 121)

(2006). Because Stark’s appeals of the child support and alimony orders fall within

the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the

Supreme Court for resolution. 

December 06, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/06/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2857 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2857

To prohibit any Federal agency from requiring financial institutions to 
        report on the financial transactions of their customers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2021

Mr. Tuberville introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit any Federal agency from requiring financial institutions to 
        report on the financial transactions of their customers.

    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 ``Protecting Financial Privacy Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM REQUIRING FINANCIAL 
              INSTITUTIONS TO REPORT ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF 
              CUSTOMERS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the Bank Secrecy Act or any 
regulations promulgated under such Act (as in effect on September 1, 
2021), no Federal agency (including the Department of the Treasury) 
shall be permitted to create, implement, or administer any financial 
account information reporting program that would require financial 
institutions or individuals to report data on financial accounts in an 
information return listing balances, transactions, transfers, or 
inflows or outflows of any kind.
    (b) Bank Secrecy Act.--The term ``Bank Secrecy Act'' means--
            (1) section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
        U.S.C. 1829b),
            (2) chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 
        1951 et seq.), and
            (3) subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States 
        Code.
                                 <all>
```
NANOMYTE® PT-60

Chromate-Free Self-Healing Pretreatment for Magnesium

400 APGAR DRIVE, UNIT E | SOMERSET, NJ 08873 | (732) 868-3141 | sales@neicorporation.com

www.neicorporation.com

FEATURES OF PT-60

• Single component, waterborne 

solution

• Contains no chromate or VOCs

• Ambient temperature bath 

preparation

• One-step immersion process and 

air dry

• Excellent paint adhesion

• Versatile self-healing technology

BENEFITS

• Eliminate chromate from the 

coating process

• Inhibit general and galvanic 

corrosion of cast and wrought 

magnesium alloys

• Standalone treatment or 

pretreatment used in conjunction 

with other primers or paints

Magnesium is of increasing interest to industries such as automotive,

construction, medical devices and electronics, as well as the military. The light

weight and high strength of magnesium are attractive features, but Mg alloys also

have the tendency to rapidly corrode. Traditional coatings made with chromate

(hexavalent chromium) provide sufficient corrosion resistance, but are no longer

acceptable due to their adverse environmental, health, and safety affects.

NANOMYTE® PT-60 is a chromate-free, self-healing conversion coating for

magnesium that is a drop-in replacement for chromate. It can be applied as a thin

(~5 μm) conversion coating that protects the metal from corrosion, or as a

pretreatment that improves adhesion with overlying paint.

Scratch or crack forms 

through the paint layers

and reaches metal

Mg Substrate

Pretreatment

Primer

Top Coat

Self-healing actively 

protects metal from 

corrosion

Scratch or crack forms 

through the paint layers

and reaches metal

Mg Substrate

Pretreatment

Primer

Top Coat

Scratch or crack forms 

through the paint layers

and reaches metal

Mg Substrate

Pretreatment

Primer

Top Coat

Self-healing actively 

protects metal from 

corrosion

Salt Fog Exposure

ASTM B117, 100 hours

Minimal pitting corrosion observed

Non-Chromate Pretreatments

 NANOMYTE PT-60 Chromate

Galvanic Corrosion

ASTM B117, 100 hours

Bolts are zinc-plated steel

Bare Mg Non-Chromate

NANOMYTE PT-60 Chromate

Minimal blistering 

around steel bolt
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed fee increase.

# SUMMARY:

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger District is proposing to increase the fee for Christmas tree permits from $5.00 to $10.00 per tag (ie. an individual Christmas tree). This is a proposed fee, and a final determination will be based upon further analysis of the proposal and public comment. Funds from fees would be used for the continued operation, visitor services, maps, and law enforcement while issuing and enforcing Christmas Tree permits.

# DATES:

Comments will be accepted through May 30, 2015. Increased fees would likely begin in November 2015.

# ADDRESSES:

Jamie Fields, Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks Nevada 89431.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jamie Fields, Recreation Fee Coordinator, 775-352-1254. Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Web site:                         *http://www.fs.usda.gov/​htnf.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     whenever new recreation fee areas are established.                

Once public involvement is complete, the fee increases will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.  

 Dated: March 3, 2015.

Bill Dunkelberger,  

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2015-05618 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3410-11-P