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

#### State *v.*Clifford Patterson

(No. 6804)

Submitted October 21, 1930.

Decided October 28, 1930.

*J. L. Wolfe,*for plaintiff in error.

*Howard B. Lee,*Attorney General, *W. Elliott Nefflen,*Assistant Attorney General, and *Oliver D. Kessel,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.

Litz, Judge:

The defendant, Clifford Patterson, was tried, convicted and sentenced to a term of two years in the state penitentiary, upon an indictment charging him and Wayford Rathbun, jointly, with breaking and entering, in the nighttime, a store building belonging to Joe Dunham, with intent to steal.

According to the evidence, the defendant, on the night of *589December 26, 1929, in company witb Rathbun, Paul Black, Carl Smith and Earnest Barnes, after visiting a number of places in or near the town of Ravenswood started toward his home in North Ravenswood. On the way, they met Hubert Cunningham who picked them up for a short ride in his automobile. After getting out of the car, they continued their course, on foot through North Ravenswood, Patterson and Barnes being intoxicated to such an extent that they were not able to get home alone. Rathbun was “leading’’ the former and Smith and Black were assisting the latter. On reaching the Dunham store, Rathbun and Patterson turned aside. The three others proceeded about thirty yards beyond when Barnes fell or lay down in the snow. Smith and Black, who testify for the state, say they heard a crash, and a short while later, Patterson and Rathbun came from the direction of the store; that Rathbun was carrying some overalls, shirts, a flashlight and a loaf of bread; that Patterson refused to carry any of the goods and threw down a pair of overalls which Rathbun handed him. They then proceeded to a railroad track where Rathbun, after examining the articles, selected a pair of overalls and left the rest on the ground. At this point the party separated, Black going with defendant to his home.

The evidence fails to show that Patterson actually participated in the burglary and proves at most only, that he was present in an intoxicated condition at the time of its commission. “Merely witnessing a crime, without intervention, does not make a person a party to its commission, unless his interference was a duty and his non-interference was one of the conditions of the commission of the crime; or unless his non-interference was designed by him and operated as- an encouragement to or protection of the perpetrator.” Wharton’s Criminal Law, (11th Ed.), page 316; *State*v. *Johnson,*104 W. Va. 586.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed, the verdict set aside and a new trial awarded defendant.

*Reversed and remanded.*
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5174 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent veterans’ contributions to education benefits from reducing Federal student financial assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself and Mr. EVANS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent 

veterans’ contributions to education benefits from reducing Federal student financial assistance. 

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 ‘‘Veterans’ Equity in 

5 Education Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VETERANS’ BENEFITS. 

7 Section 480(j) (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(j)) is amended by 

8 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5174 IH

1 ‘‘(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), for every 

2 year a student receives veterans’ education benefits 

3 under chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, 

4 the amount of such veterans’ education benefits that 

5 the student receives and that is treated as estimated 

6 financial assistance shall be reduced by the amount 

7 that the student’s basic pay was reduced under sec8 tion 3011(b) or 3012(c) of such title in order to be 

9 eligible to receive such benefits.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
CHARLESTON.

#### State *ex rel.*P. T. Jones *et al. v.*Luke Boyles, Justice, *et al.*

(No. 6809)

Submitted September 10, 1930.

Decided September 16, 1930.

*367
      *Wm. T. George,*for petitioners.

*Talbott & Talbott,*for respondents.

HatcheR, Judge:

Petitioners, P. T. Jones and Zora Jones, with one Walter Jones, were joint makers of a promissory note of $300.00, payable to John Jones, one of the respondents. John Jones instituted an action and obtained judgment against the ■ petitioners before Luke Boyles, a justice of Barbour County, the other respondent, for balance due upon the note. Petitioners pray that respondents may be prohibited from enforcing the judgment, on the main ground that the justice exceeded his power in rendering the judgment, due to the fact that only two of the three joint makers of the note sued upon were made defendants.

The return of the justice, as well as.that of John Jones, alleges that it was made to appear at the trial that Walter Jones was a resident of Taylor County and that prior thereto, John Jones had taken judgment on the note against Walter Jones in an action before a justice in Taylor County; and that the petitioners were residents of Barbour County. These allegations are not controverted. While it is the general rule that all the makers of a joint note should be made parties to an action on the note, yet that rule must be applied with reason. It does not require the joinder of one who is without the jurisdiction of the court, as was Walter Jones in this ease. 8 C. J., p. 850, see. 1110, and authorities cited under note 90.

The petition also alleges that there was no evidence before the justice establishing the amount of the judgment. As this allegation does not relate to the jurisdiction of the justice, it does not support the writ. Moreover, it was denied by the returns.

The writ will accordingly be denied.

*Writ denied.*
#### In the Matter of Hartford Insurance Company, Respondent, v Asmat Khan, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 872]

In a *525proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated May 9, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the determination of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly in cases resting in large part on the credibility of witnesses (see, *Thoreson v Penthouse Intl.,*80 NY2d 490; *Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Dabush,*264 AD2d 848; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v McMahon,*251 AD2d 571; *Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. v Gramazio,*242 AD2d 530). The determination that there was no physical contact between the appellant’s vehicle and an unidentified vehicle is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Gold-stein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5840]



[[Page 11629]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Notice of Petition for Approval; Railroad Safety Program Plan

    Although not required, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is 
providing notice that it has received a petition for approval of a 
Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP) submitted pursuant to Title 49 Code 
of Federal Regulations CFR 236.905, of subpart H. The petition is 
described below, including the party seeking approval and the requisite 
docket number where the petition and any related information may be 
found. This document is available for public inspection, however, FRA 
is not accepting public comment on the document as this notice is 
provided for information only.

Marquette Rail, LLC (Docket Number FRA-2009-0017)

    Marquette Rail, LLC submitted a petition for approval of an RSPP. 
The petition, the RSPP, and any related documents have been placed in 
the requisite docket and are available for public inspection.
    All documents in the public docket are available for inspection and 
copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 12, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
 [FR Doc. E9-5840 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                              PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

                            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 Pacific State Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her
knowledge, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements and 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: May 15, 2007


                                           /s/ Joanne Roberts
                                           -------------------------
                                           JoAnne Roberts
                                           Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

                                       30
Specimen Series A Convertible Preferred Stock Certificate.



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

									
	NUMBER	 		 		 		 	SHARES
					
	1	 		 	
 



	 		 	[1,000]

 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. 

 

					
	AUTHORIZED SHARES: 1,200,000	 	SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK	    	PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE

 CUSIP 619430 200 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT
                     IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF [one thousand (1,000)] Shares of the fully paid non-assessable shares of Series A Convertible
Preferred Stock of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not
valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Morton’s Restaurant
Group, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed this          day of
            , 20    . 
  

					
	  
	 	[SEAL]	 	  

	Scott D. Levin, Secretary	 		 	Christopher J. Artinian, President








 MORTON’S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. 
 The Corporation will furnish without charge to each shareholder who so requests a full statement of the designation, relative rights,
preferences and limitations of each class of stock of this Corporation authorized to be issued; the designation, relative rights, preferences, and limitations of each series thereof so far as the same have been prescribed; and the authority of the
Board of Directors of this Corporation to designate and prescribe the relative rights, preferences and limitations of other series. 
 For value
received,                                  hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
             Shares represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
                                 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books
of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated:
                 , 20     
  

					
		  		  	  
 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE
TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.


  

	
	  

	 WITNESS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Tony G. Holcombe, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

(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 theCompanies. 

Date: May 8, 2009 

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60075

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:98-CR-52-2-B-B

--------------------

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Johnson argues that the district court clearly erred

in holding him responsible for drugs seized from the residence of

codefendant Archie Moore Williams because the court did not make

a specific finding that Johnson and Williams were engaged in a

jointly undertaken criminal activity. It is implicit from the

record that the district court found that Johnson and Williams

engaged in a jointly undertaken criminal activity. Because

Johnson does not dispute that he sold cocaine base supplied by 
No. 99-60075

-2-

Williams from the porch of Williams’ house and that Williams

directed prospective purchasers to Johnson, he has failed to

establish that the district court’s determination is clearly

erroneous. United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272, 302 (5th Cir.

1999); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.

AFFIRMED.
#### A.C. Green Electrical Contractors, Inc., Appellant, v SMG Construction Inc., et al., Defendants, and Johnny Sau Liong Fu et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 226]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about November 5, 1999, which, in an action to foreclose on mechanic’s liens filed against, *inter alia,*the condominium units owned by the individual defendants, granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend its complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s mechanic’s liens terminated when the notices of pendency that it filed in conjunction with its commencement of this action to foreclose on the liens expired after three years without any extension of such notices having been obtained (Lien Law §§ 17, 19 [2]; CPLR 6513, 6514 [a]; *see, e.g., Luzon v Perlman,*255 AD2d 162; *L & M Plumbing v Decker,*219 AD2d 619, *lv denied*87 NY2d 806). In response to plaintiffs request, we hold that plaintiff may not commence a new action under CPLR 205, and raise the same claims against the individual defendants as are raised herein (first cause of action) because the IAS Court’s summary judgment decision constituted a “final judgment upon the merits” as concerned the individual defendants and, consequently, the first cause of action did not survive to permit a renewal of such cause of action. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments, including that it should have been granted leave to amend its complaint, and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAIME GARCIA-ONTIVEROS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10442

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-02134-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted June 12, 2014*** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jaime Garcia-Ontiveros appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for conspiracy to

FILED

JUN 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 

** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for

the District of Alaska, sitting by deisgnation.

 *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia-Ontiveros’s counsel

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Garcia-Ontiveros the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Garcia-Ontiveros has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

DISMISSED.

2 13-10442
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11364-11365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5701]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Changes to Public Hearings for the Revised Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 
Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New 
York Nuclear Service Center, DOE/EIS-0226D (Revised)

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of changes to public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces changes to the public hearings initially 
published in the December 5, 2008 Notice of Availability (73 FR 74160) 
for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 
Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the West Valley 
Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear Service Center [DOE/
EIS-0226-D (Revised)] (referred to as the ``Draft Decommissioning and/
or Long-Term Stewardship EIS'' or ``Draft EIS.''). An additional public 
hearing will be held in Albany, NY and the location for the Blasdell, 
NY hearing has been changed to Buffalo, NY.

DATES: Public hearings on the Draft EIS will be held on March 30, 2009; 
March 31, 2009; April 1, 2009; and April 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Public hearings will be held at the following locations: 
Monday, March 30, 2009, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Crowne Plaza 
Albany Hotel, State and Lodge Street, Albany, NY 12207; Tuesday, March 
31, 2009, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Seneca Nation of Indians, 
William Seneca Building, 12837 Route 438, Irving, NY 14081; Wednesday, 
April 1, 2009, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Ashford Office 
Complex, 9030 Route 219, West Valley, NY 14177; and Thursday, April 2, 
2009, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Erie Community College/City 
Campus Auditorium, 121 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, NY 14203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oral and written comments on the Draft 
EIS will be accepted at the public hearings, or written comments may be 
mailed to Catherine Bohan, EIS Document Manager, West Valley 
Demonstration Project, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 2368, 
Germantown, MD 20874. Comments must be received by June 8, 2009 to be 
considered in the Final EIS. Comments may also be submitted via e-mail 
at http://www.westvalleyeis.com or by faxing toll-free to 866-306-9094. 
Please mark all envelopes, faxes, and e-mail: ``Draft Decommissioning 
and/or

[[Page 11365]]

Long-Term Stewardship EIS Comments.''

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 11, 2009.
Michael C. Moore,
Acting Director, Office of Small Sites Projects.
[FR Doc. E9-5701 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P