alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State v. Jerome N. Black. The State v. G. W. Black. The State v. Lacy Lusk. The State v. Mill McMillan. The State v. LaFayette Newsom. The State v. William Newsom. The State v. T. Y. Carter. The State v. Coot Barnes.

In an indictment for theft, the description of the party whose property was stolen by the initials of his Christian name is sufficient. The question could only arise as a matter of variance, not upon the sufficiency of the indictment.

Appeal from Madison. The ease was tried before Hon. ¡N". H. Davis, one of the district judges.

Black and a number of others were indicted for stealing cotton. The indictments were quashed, on the ground that H. B. Munnerlyn was not a sufficient description of the person injured. The state appealed.

*JS. B. Turner, Attorney General,*for the state.

*561No brief for the appellees has been furnished to the Reporter.

Lindsay, J.

—In each of these cases the indictment was for the offense of stealing cotton, the property of “ H. BA Munnerlyn. Upon motions of defendants’ attorneys the indictments were quashed, upon the ground that “H. B.” was no Christian name of the alleged owner of the cotton.

We think the exceptions to the indictments in these cases were not well taken. Initials are a sufficient designation of the Christian names of third persons whose names it is necessary to introduce into indictments. The rigid rule of the common law is not required in naming an injured party whose name is used in indictments, as in the case of defendants. The defendant could take advantage of a misnomer by a plea in abatement which gives the true name. By the Criminal Code it is only necessary to suggest the true name by the party or his counsel, when the indictment is forthwith amended, and the cause proceeds. In the case of the name of the injured party the same rigor was never required. It must appear by proof that the initials of the Christian name of the party injured are not the initials of his Christian name, in order to constitute such a variance between the allegation and the proof as- would warrant an arrest of the judgment. Each of these cases is therefore

Reversed and remanded.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ADAM MICHAEL HARRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 10382

D.C. No. 2:13

- cr

- 00140

- APG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Adam Michael Harris appeals from the district court ’ s ju dgment and

challenges the 22

- month term of supervised release imposed upon re vocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harris contends that the term of supervised release is substantively

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication an d is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 10382

unreasonable in light of the fact that he is not amen able to supervision and has

largely met the goals of supervised release, committing only “technical” violations

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. S ee Unite d States v. Collins , 684

F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012)

. The 22

- month term of supervised release is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). Harris’s past failures to comply with the requirements of supervision, even

if “technical,” do not “obviate the need for further supervision,” but rather suggest

that additional supervision may be necessary to facilitate Harris’s rehabilitation

a nd protect the public. S ee United States v. Hurt , 345 F.3d 1033, 103 5

- 3 6 (9th

Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.
#### Sergei Chepilko, M.D., Ph.D., Appellant, v Cornell University et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 18, 2006;

decided February 15, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3; CPLR 5602). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Jones taking no part.
#### In re THOMPSON. In the matter of J. Walter Thompson.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 740.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 248 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 248

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the employer 
                       health insurance mandate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2015

 Mr. Boustany introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the employer 
                       health insurance mandate.

    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 ``American Job Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking section 4980H.
    (b) Repeal of Related Reporting Requirements.--Subpart D of part 
III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by striking 
section 6056.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 6724(d)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by 
        inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (xxiii), by striking 
        ``and'' at the end of clause (xxiv) and inserting ``or'', and 
        by striking clause (xxv).
            (2) Section 6724(d)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting 
        ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (FF), by striking ``, or'' at 
        the end of subparagraph (GG) and inserting a period, and by 
        striking subparagraph (HH).
            (3) The table of sections for chapter 43 of such Code is 
        amended by striking the item relating to section 4980H.
            (4) The table of sections for subpart D of part III of 
        subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by striking 
        the item relating to section 6056.
            (5) Section 1513 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
        Care Act is amended by striking subsection (c).
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
        subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
        months and other periods beginning after December 31, 2013.
            (2) Repeal of study and report.--The amendment made by 
        subsection (c)(5) shall take effect on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2487 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2487

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 
  Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery 
      Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

 Mr. Jeffries introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 
  Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery 
      Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fry Scholarship Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF YELLOW RIBBON G.I. EDUCATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 3317(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``in paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and inserting ``in 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (9)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to academic years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

287 CAF 10-01473
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CATHERINE MYERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD J. TRACY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

SUSAN P. REINECKE, CLARENCE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PAUL R. DIDIO, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered June 1, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order confirmed the determination of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order confirming the Support Magistrate’s determination that he willfully failed to obey a child support order and imposing a suspended sentence of 90 days in jail. The Support Magistrate’s finding of a willful violation of the support order was based upon admissions made by the father in open court when the parties entered into a settlement agreement. Because the father consented to the order confirming the Support Magistrate’s determination, including his recommended sentence, the appeal must be dismissed. It is well settled that “[n]o appeal lies from an order entered by consent upon the stipulation of the appealing party” ( Matter of Starz v Tissiera , 206 AD2d 432; see Matter of Adney
v Morton , 68 AD3d 1742; Matter of Culton v Culton , 2 AD3d 1446). In any event, we note that the father’s sole contention on appeal that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is based largely on matters dehors the record and thus should be raised by way of a motion to vacate the order in Family Court ( see generally Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of Rensselaer County [Faresta] v Faresta , 11 AD3d 750).

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-944]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,869]


Lone Star Steel Company Including Workers of Martin Marietta 
Logan and Whaley Company Lone Star, Texas; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 2, 1998, applicable 
to all workers of Lone Star Steel Company, located in Lone Star, Texas. 
The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1998 
(63 FR 51605).
    At the request of the Company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that worker separations occurred at Logan and Whaley Company, Lone 
Star, Texas. The workers provide maintenance and operating supplies as 
well as material management services to support the production of steel 
slabs at Lone Star Steel Company, Lone Star, Texas. Worker separations 
occurred at Logan and Whaley Company as a result of worker separations 
at Lone Star Steel Company.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers of Logan and Whaley Company, Lone 
Star, Texas who were engaged in employment related to the production of 
steel slabs at Lone Star Steel Company, Lone Star, Texas.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Lone Star Steel Company adversely affected by increased 
imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-34,869 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Lone Star Company, Lone Star, Texas engaged in 
employment related to the production of steel slabs and all workers 
of Martin Marietta and Logan and Whaley Company, Lone Star, Texas 
engaged in employment related to support and maintenance services 
for the production of steel slabs for Lone Star Steel Company, Lone 
Star, Texas who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after August 6, 1997 through September 2, 2000 are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of December, 1999.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-944 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**Exhibit15**

 

 

 

 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, NWWashington D.C., 20549

 

 

Commissioner,

 

We are aware that our report dated August 2, 2006on our review of interim financial information of Southern Copper Corporationfor the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005 andincluded in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2006 is incorporated by reference in its RegistrationStatement No. 333-135170 dated June 20, 2006 on Form S-4, as amended.

 

 

Yours very truly,

 

 

 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

 

 

Mexico CityAugust 2, 2006
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Grant Thornton LLP ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W81XWH-08-D-0027 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60913 

Alexander J. Brittin, Esq. 

Brittin Law Group, PLLC 

McLean, VA 

Ellen Randel, Esq. 

Associate General Counsel 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Elinor J. Kim, JA 

MAJ Jason W. Allen, JA 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute which is the subject of this appeal having been settled, the appeal is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 17 April 2018 

LYNDA.O'SULLIVAN 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60913, Appeal of Grant Thornton 

LLP, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### BURBY, Respondent, v. ROOME, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Action by Sarah J. Burby against William J. Roome. Motion for reargument, 27 N. Y. Supp. 250.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BISCHOFF and PRYOR. JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The motion fails to comply with Rule 16 of this court Denied, with $10 costs.
# I53S-W ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 11-12-00318-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 

### Bruce Todd Benson v. 

## STYLE: The State ofTexas COUNTY: Stonewall COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIALCOURT: 39th District Court DATE: 10/16/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1885



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

### Bruce Todd Benson v. 

## style: The State ofTexas APPBlLANT^ Petition cca#: PD-1535-14 CCA Disposition: FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

## %£Fus£D JUDGE: 

# DATE: Oa-lotffjLO'r JUDGE: r<IH (Jua+4»— SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rick Humphrey, Appellant.

The defendant was tried and convicted for the burglary of the Astoria Superette (hereinafter the store) during the early morning hours of October 15, 1982. He claims that the evidence, especially regarding his intent to commit a crime in the store, was insufficient. However, it is well established that the standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant’s guilt of the charged crimes had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319; *People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111, 1112; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621; *People v Bauer,*113 AD2d 543, 548; *People v Brensic,*119 AD2d 281).

In this case two officers testified to seeing the defendant, who had no permission to be in the store, exit the premises at 3:40 a.m. after it had been locked up for the night. We must assume the jury credited this testimony *(see, People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29, 32). Intent is usually proven by circumstantial evidence and competing inferences, if not unreasonable, are decided by the trier of fact *(People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381). Given the wrecked condition of the store and the officers’ testimony that the defendant carried an item out of the store, it was not unreasonable for the jury to find that the defendant intended to commit a crime in the store *(People v Barnes, supra,*at p 381).

The defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by using the phrase "if your minds are wavering or the scales are even” while charging the jury regarding reasonable doubt. However, the defendant failed to preserve this objection for this court’s review *(see, People v Contes, supra,*at p 621). Even if we were to reach the issue in the interest of justice, reversal would not be warranted because the charge as a whole was proper *(see, People v Stevenson,*104 AD2d 835).

The defendant also alleges reversible error for the failure of the trial court to give a missing witness instruction with respect to the People’s failure to present the arresting officer. However, the defendant made no showing that the arresting *823officer’s testimony was material or would have contradicted the People’s case *(see, People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126; *People v Jackson,*111 AD2d 412). Furthermore, the identity of the arresting officer had been revealed to the defendant, who could have called him as a witness had he chosen to do so.

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3061716-JUN-201109:56 AM
**EXHIBIT 3.2**

 

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**SPACEHAB, INCORPORATED**

 

SPACEHAB,Incorporated (the “***Corporation***”), a corporationorganized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, herebycertifies that:

 

1.             The name of the Corporation isSPACEHAB, Incorporated.

 

2.             This amendmenteffects a reverse stock split pursuant to which, at and as of the effectivedate of this amendment, every ten shares of common stock of the Corporationoutstanding immediately prior to the time this amendment becomes effectiveshall be converted into and constitute one share of fully paid andnonassessable common stock of the Corporation, without further action of anykind.  In addition, the Corporation’sauthorized but unissued shares of common stock shall simultaneously undergo areduction.  The Corporation’s authorizedshares of preferred stock will not be affected by the reverse stock split.  The reverse stock split will not change thepar value of the Corporation’s common stock.

 

The Restated Articles of Incorporation (the “***Articles***”)are hereby amended by amending and restating the first sentence of Article Fourto be and read in its entirety as follows:

 

FOURTH:  The totalnumber of shares of capital stock that the Corporation shall have authority toissue is 77,500,000 shares, consisting of 75,000,000 shares of common stock, nopar value per share (the “Common Stock”), and 2,500,000 shares of preferredstock, no par value per share (the “Preferred Stock”).

 

3.             This amendment to the Articles hasbeen duly approved by the shareholders of the Corporation on November 20,2007, in accordance with the provisions of the Washington Business CorporationAct, pursuant to RCW 23B.10.030 and RCW 23B.10.040.

 

4.             The manner in which this amendmentto the Articles effects a change in the Corporation’s authorized capital stockis to decrease the number of shares of authorized common stock.

 

5.             The effective date and time of thisamendment to the Articles shall be November 29, 2007 at 9:29 AM (EasternTime).

 

***[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.  Signature page follows.]***

 

----

 

 

TheseArticles of Amendment are executed on behalf of the Corporation by its dulyauthorized officer.

 

Datedas of November 27, 2007

 

 

|   | SPACEHAB,  Incorporated |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   | By:                     | /s/Brian  K. Harrington |
|   |                    | Brian  K. Harrington |
|   |                    | Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial   Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |

 

 

----

** **