alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. CLARENCE PUGH.

(Filed 23 November, 1960.)

Appeal by defendant from *Burgwyn, E. J.,*at May-June 1960 Term, of Lee.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging defendant Clarence Pugh with murder in the first degree of one Charles Otis Nodine.

Plea: Not guilty.

Upon former trial, upon evidence offered by the State, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the felony and murder in the manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment, pursuant to which the court pronounced judgment of death by inhalation of lethal gas as provided by law. And on appeal to this Court the opinion recites that considering the evidence offered by the State in the light most favorable to the State, it appears sufficient to withstand motion for judgment as of nonsuit, — to the denial of which defendant excepted. However error in the trial was declared and a new trial granted. See *S. v. Pugh,*250 N.C. 278, 108 S.E. 2d 649.

Pursuant thereto, in due course, the case came on for hearing at the May-June 1960 Term, and again upon arraignment defendant pleaded not guilty. And upon re-trial both the State and defendant offered evidence on which the case was submitted to the jury under the charge of the court. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the felony and murder in the first degree, and recommended life *428imprisonment thereon. In accordance therewith the trial judge ordered and adjudged “that defendant Clarence Pugh be, andi he is hereby sentenced to State’s Prison for and during thb term of his natural life,” and ordered that he be forthwith conveyed to the State Penitentiary at Raleigh, North Carolina, and delivered to the warden of the State Penitentiary.

Defendant Clarence Pugh excepted thereto and prayed an appeal, and appeals *in forma pauperis*to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and assigns error.

*Attorney General Bruton, H. Horton Rountree, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*Clawson L. Williams, Jr., S. Ray Byerly for defendant, appellant.*

PeR CxjRiam.

The evidence shown in the record of the case on appeal here presented, taken in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to make out a case for consideration by the jury on the charge of which defendant Clarence Pugh stands convicted, and to support the verdict of the jury as hereinabove set forth. Indeed, careful consideration of the several exceptions assigned for error fails to reveal error of such prejudicial nature that the judgment below should be disturbed. Rather, it should be and it is affirmed.

Hence in the judgment there is

No error.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WAVERLY WINSTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 328 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00054

- CR

IN RE Martin Barron GALVAN

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

On January 30

, 2023, r elator filed a motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus

.

We grant the motion and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus . The stay imposed on January

13, 2023 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Ca use No. 12553CR , styled State of Texas v. Martin Barron Galvan , pending in the

County Court

, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9822-9823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4284]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Record of Decision (ROD) for the Disposal and Reuse Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for England Air Force Base (AFB), 
Louisiana

    On February 3, 1995, the Air Force issued a ROD for the disposal of 
England Air Force Base (AFB), Louisiana. The decisions included in this 
ROD have been made in consideration of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS), which was filed with the Environmental Protection 
Agency on November 13, 1992.
    England AFB was officially closed on December 15, 1992, pursuant to 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 101-510) and 
recommendations of the Defense Secretary's Commission on Base 
Realignment and Closure. This ROD documents certain disposal decisions 
which the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve 
Affairs, Installations and Environment has made regarding the disposal 
of England AFB.
    The Air Force has decided to dispose of 2279 acres of surplus 
property to the England Economic and Industrial Development Authority 
for public airport use and 0.69 acres to the City of Alexandria for 
continued use as a small arms pistol range and 2.91 acres to the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) [[Page 9823]] for support of 
airport activities and operation of their enroute radar facility.
    The uses proposed for the property by prospective recipients of 
property under the ROD are included in the proposed action in the FEIS 
and are consistent with the community's draft redevelopment plan for 
the base.
    Any questions regarding this matter should be directed to Mr. 
Charles R. Hatch, Program Manager, Southwest Division. Correspondence 
should be sent to AFBCA/SW, 1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 2300, 
Arlington, VA 22209-2802.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-4284 Filed 2-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4117]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the following Heart, Lung, and Blood Special Emphasis Panel.
    The meeting will be open to the public to provide concept review of 
proposed contract or grant solicitations.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Panel: NHLBI SEP on Dietary Protein and Blood Pressure.
    Dates of Meeting: April 20, 1995.
    Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m.
    Place of Meeting: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 
Building, Conference Room 8115, 8th Floor, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Agenda: The panel will review the current status of research in 
the designated areas, identify gaps and make recommendations 
regarding opportunities and priorities for future contract or grant 
solicitations.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jeffrey Cutler, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 
604C, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-2465.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.837, Heart 
and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; and 
93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes 
of Health.)

    Dated: February 14, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-4117 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 22-10266 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Jose Santos Perez-Gonzalez,

Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-282-1

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Jose Santos Perez-Gonzalez appeal s his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). Perez-Gonzalez contends that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitu tional because it permits a sentence

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10266 Document: 00516449337 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2022No. 22-10266

2 above the otherwise-applicable statutor y maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He thus argues that the imposition of a threeyear term of supervised release violates due process, and he maintains that he should be sentenced to no more than one year of supervised release. While Perez-Gonzalez acknowledges th is argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he ne vertheless seeks to preserve the issue for further revi ew. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.
This court has held that subseque nt Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See United States v.
Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Perez-Gonzalez is correct that his argument is forecl osed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED . The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED

. Case: 22-10266 Document: 00516449337 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
#### AGNES BROWN, Administratrix of the Estate of A. O. BROWN, Deceased, v. M. P. LIPE and PAUL WHITENER.

(Filed 20 May, 1936.)

1. Death B b—

In an action for wrongful death it is error to allow the jury to consider the annuity tables set out in O. S., 1791, upon the question of damages.

2. Courts A c—

Where error has been committed in the county court in instructing the jury on the issue of damages, the Superior Court, on appeal, has the discretionary power to order a new trial of the case instead of restricting the new trial to the issue of damages.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Rousseau, J.,*at February Term, 1936, of Guilford.

Affirmed.

This was an action for wrongful death alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants in the operation of a motor vehicle.

The action was instituted in the municipal court of the city of High Point, and tried there upon the usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. Erom judgment on the verdict on each issue in favor of the plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Superior Court of Guilford County, assigning errors. Upon the hearing on the appeal in the Superior Court, the defendants’ assignments of error as to portions of the charge on the issue of damages were sustained, and the case remanded to the municipal court of High Point for a new trial.

Erom the judgment of the Superior Court awarding a new trial, plaintiff appealed to this Court.

*Gold, McAnally & Gold for plaintiff.*

*James R. Gay, Jr., and Sapp & Sapp for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

The charge of the judge of the municipal court as to the measure of damages in a case of wrongful death was erroneous under the rule laid down in *Poe v. R. R.,*141 N. C., 525, wherein *Walker, J.,*clearly drew the distinction between income and annuity, and it was held for error to permit the jury to consider the annuity tables set out in C. S., 1791, as was done in the instant case. *Ward v. R. R.,*161 N. C., 179; *Corner v. Winston-Salem,*178 N. C., 383.

The plaintiff, however, contends that even if the charge of the trial court on the issue of damages was properly held to be erroneous, the new trial should have been restricted to that issue. While this course is frequently pursued by appellate courts, when the error is confined to *200one issue, it has been repeatedly held and now firmly established with us that it is a matter of discretion. *Lumber Co. v. Branch,*158 N. C., 251; *Huffman v. Ingold,*181 N. C., 426; *Whedbee v. Ruffin,*191 N. C., 257.

The judgment of the court below remanding the case to the municipal court of the city of High Point for a new trial is

Affirmed.
1

Filed 6/16/2014 In re F.F. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re F.F.,

on Habeas Corpus.

 A141763

 (Superior Ct. of the City & County of

 San Francisco No. JW 13-6182)

BY THE COURT1:

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that the trial court 

improperly found him in violation of probation. We asked for and received informal 

opposition and reply. In the informal opposition, the Attorney General concedes error 

and asks that we vacate the offending order. Additionally, the parties have waived

issuance of an order to show cause, the filing of a return and traverse, and oral argument 

and stipulates to the immediate issuance of the remittitur. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules

8.272(c), 8.490.)

The concession by the Attorney General is appropriate. Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 7772 provides that “an order changing or modifying a previous order . . .

shall be made only after a noticed hearing.” In this case, without prior notice, the trial 

court changed its prior order of probation when it found petitioner in violation of 

 

1 Before Kline, P.J., Richman, J., and Brick, J.*

*Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

probation and removed him from his home. This was contrary to the plain dictates of 

section 777. Given that the proper procedure was not followed, the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is granted and the probation violation is hereby vacated.

The clerk of the court is instructed to issue the remittitur forthwith.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10859-10860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4843]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

 Peoples Independent Bancshares, Inc., et al.; Formations of; 
Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than March 24, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Peoples Independent Bancshares, Inc., Boaz, Alabama; to merge 
with Randolph Bancshares, Inc., Roanoke, Alabama, and thereby 
indirectly acquire First Bank, Wadley, Alabama.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Community Bancshares, Inc., Neosho, Missouri; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Seneca [[Page 10860]] Management 
Company, Seneca, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire State Bank of 
Seneca, Seneca, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 22, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-4843 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.16 0.18 4% 4%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: E3.13. Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wageindexed equivalent of $400,000 in 2017 (about $696,600 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 

2031. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0614

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GARY HANSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 29, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 24 2020

12/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0614
EXHIBIT 32.1

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David H. Hancock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.


July 19, 2011              By: /s/ David H. Hancock
                               David H. Hancock
                               Chairman and Chief
                                 Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.

<Page>
Order entered February 18 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01278

- CR

MIGUEL ALBERTO GUTIERREZ

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Cour t Cause No. 27,326



### O RDER

The court reporter initially filed a reporter’s record that omitted the exhibits offered at

trial. Consequently, on November 21, 2013, we ordered the court reporter to file, within ten days

of the date of that order, a supplemen tal record containing the trial exhibits

. On December 4,

2013, the court reporter filed a supplement al record containing some of the exhibits offered at

trial. Howev er, the supplemental record did not contain State’s exhibit 1A or State’s exhibit 21.

O n January 29, 2014, we ordered the court reporter to file the missing exhibits, which she did. It

has come to our attention that State’s exhibit 15A, “Suspect Interview,” also was not included in

the record. Additionally, testimony in the record suggests State’s exh i bit 13, “copy of year book

photos ” might be incomplete. Consequently, we ORDER the court report er to file, within fivedays of the date of this order, a supplement al record containing State’s exhibit 15A and any

pages from State’s exhibit 13 that may have been omitted

.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

PRESIDING JUSTICE