alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. JOSEPH SAMUEL MILLER and LATTA SMITH.

(Filed 9 November, 1960.)

Criminal Law § 107—

Where defendants are not charged with conspiracy, an instruction to the effect that if the State had satisfied the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, or either of them, committed the offense, it would be the duty of the jury to return a verdict of guilty against the defendants, must be held for prejudicial error.

Appeal by defendant Smith from *Hooks, Special Judge,*April Criminal Term, 1960, of Wake.

This is a criminal action, tried upon a bill of indictment charging that the defendant Joseph Samuel Miller and Latta Smith did feloniously break and enter a building of Armour & Company (a corporation) with intent to steal, and further charging the aforesaid defendants with the larceny of 11,540.20 in checks and money of Armour & Company.

Both defendants'pleaded not guilty. A verdict of guilty as charged was returned by the jury.

From the judgments pronounced on the verdict, Miller did not appeal; Smith did appeal and assigns error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General H. Horton 'Roun-tree for the State.*

*Herman L. Taylor for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

The appellant’s first assignment of error is to the refusal of the court below to grant his motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the close of the State’s evidence and renewed after the defendants rested without offering any evidence.

The State’s evidence is sufficient, in our opinion, to take the case to the jury. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled.

However, the State confesses error in that the defendants not having been charged with a conspiracy to commit the offenses charged in the bill of indictment, nevertheless the court below charged the jury on the first count in the bill of indictment as follows: “So I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if the State has satisfied you by the evidence in this case, and beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden being upon the State to so satisfy you that the defendants, or either of them or both of them, entered the building and storehouse of Armour & Company and entered such building and storehouse with the felonious intent to take, steal and carry *335away goods and chattels of Armour & Company, of the value in excess of $100.00, it would be your duty to return a verdict upon the first count of guilty against the defendants in this case.”

The above instruction is erroneous"'in that the jury was instructed to bring in a verdict of guilty as to both defendants if the State had satisfied the jury by the evidencé and beyond a reasonable doubt that either one of the defendants entered the storehouse of Armour & Company with the intent to steal, and carry away the goods and chattels .of Armour & Company of the value in excess of $100.00.

This same error also appears in the charge on the larceny count.

The appellant is entitled to a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 1.20% 1.62% -0.49% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

July 16, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Coverage of Employment

Proposed Provision: Provide for OASDI payroll tax coverage of employer provided group hcost, starting in 2010. Specifically, any cost toward such group health insurance borne by ecease to be deductible, and the cost borne by employers would now be allocated to employbeen wages, for the purpose of payroll tax (and later, benefit) calculations. Both employee OASDI payroll taxes would be affected by this proposal.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
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

-1.70% -4.20% 1.31% 3.71% -0.39% -0.49%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social S

March 31, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly eligible for OASI benefits in 2012. Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earners. Maintain current-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors (3and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average wageDisability benefits are not affected by the proposal. Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining normretirement age, would be subject to a proportional reduction in benefits based on the worker's years of disability. In addition, the reduction to the upper 2 formula factors is suspended for any year in which sustainable solvency over the next 75 years is expected. With this provision taken alone, suspension is expected within the next 75 years.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL WOODMORE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE BAR CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL,

individual; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-55623

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01692-UA-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Michael Woodmore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his request to proceed without prepayment of the

filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

FILED

MAR 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DS/Research 2 09-55623

of discretion, Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.

1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Woodmore’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the

complaint that the action is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

487 (1994) (concluding that an action is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if

“a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence . . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction

or sentence has already been invalidated”); see also Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (“A

district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears

from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without

merit.”). 

Woodmore’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,001,583
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  935,215
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,294,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,288,031
<PP&E>                                         592,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                 244,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,656,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          465,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,887
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,138,142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,656,443
<SALES>                                      1,204,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,258,429
<CGS>                                          296,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  296,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               960,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,510
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Retirement Age | Description of Proposed Provision:      Shorten the hiatus in the normal retirement age (start increasing to age 67 for those age 62 in 2009) and then increase the NRA by 1 month every 2 years until the NRA reaches age 70 |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified July 16, 2008 |
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LAWHORN, JR.

(Filed 12 June, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *McKinnon, J.,*March 2, 1959 Criminal Term of AlamaNCE.

*Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Bruton, for the State.*

*Major 8. High for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Cukiam.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of an attempt to bum the dwelling of his mother, Marcre L. Haith, in violation of G.S. 14-67.

As a witness in his own behalf he testified he started a fire on the porch of the dwelling in the nighttime. He explained that he built the fire to get warm and without any intent to bum the building.

The record has four assignments of error. The first three have not been brought forward and argued in the brief. They are deemed abandoned; and properly abandoned as they are patently without merit.

The remaining assignment of error is directed to the asserted failure of the court to fully state defendant’s contention that he started the fire merely as a protection against the extreme cold weather and *599not with the intent to burn the building. This, assignment is.likewise without merit. The court, in plain and explicit language, told the jury an intent to bum was necessary to convict and then stated de-defendant’s explanation for starting the fire as negativing the necessary criminal intent. He expressly stated that a mere careless or negligent act would not be sufficient to support a verdict of guilty.

Our examination of the record reveals

No Error.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly eligible for OASI benefits in 2013. Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earners. Maintain current-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors (32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average wages. Disability benefits are not affected by the proposal. Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportional reduction in benefits based on the worker's years of disability. In addition, the reduction to the upper 2 formula factors is suspended for any year in which sustainable solvency over the next 75 years is expected. With this provision taken alone, suspension is not expected within the next 75 years. |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 26, 2009 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02562]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration # 14581 and # 14582]


Texas Disaster Number TX-00462

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-
4245-DR), dated 12/24/2015.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-line Winds, and 
Flooding.
    Incident Period: 10/22/2015 through 10/31/2015.
    Effective Date: 01/29/2016.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/22/2016.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/26/2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of TEXAS, 
dated 12/24/2015, is hereby amended to include the following areas as 
adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Smith.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02562 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 

2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________ 

NO. 14-10-01141-CV

____________

DAWN JOHNSON WHATLEY, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of 

Perry Lee Whatley, and MICHAEL EASTON, Appellants

V.

MYLUS JAMES WALKER, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 355,095

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from an order approving the Guardian’s Final Accounting signed 

October 6, 2010. On October 27, 2011, appellants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss 

the appeal because the case has been settled. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is 

granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and McCally.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Trust Fund Investment in Equities | Description of Proposed Provision:      Invest 40 percent  of the Trust Funds in equities (phased in 2009-2023), assuming an ultimate 2.9 percent real rate of return on equities, the same as the assumed ultimate yield on the special-issue Social Security trust fund bonds |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified July 16, 2008 |
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DP16-004, Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration 2.0.

*Time and Date:*                     10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., EST, March 15-16, 2016 (Closed).                

*Place:*                     Teleconference.                

*Status:*                     The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                

*Matters for Discussion:*                     The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to FOA DP16-004, Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration 2.0.                          ( print page 7124)    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Jaya Raman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6511,                     *kva5@cdc.gov.*

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Catherine Ramadei,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2016-02582 Filed 2-9-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Ex Rel. WILBERT WOODARD, v. JACK L. HUNTER and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 9 October, 1940.)

Appeal by defendant, Great American Indemnity Company, a corporation, from *Thompson, J.,*at April Civil Term, 1940, of JohNstoN.

Civil action to recover of defendant, Jack L. Hunter, a North Carolina State Highway patrolman, and surety on his bond, damages for tort committed by him under color of his office, heard upon demurrer of surety. From judgment overruling demurrer, surety appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*E. J. Wellons for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Smith, Leach •& Anderson and John E. Lawrence for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The bond, under which plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant, Great American Indemnity Company, a corporation, as surety, for alleged tortious acts of defendant, Jack L. Hunter, a State Highway patrolman, and sued upon in this action, copy of which is attached to the complaint, is identical in number, terms and conditions with that considered in the case of *Midgett v. Nelson,*214 N. C., 396, 199 S. E., 393. The same question is involved here. By authority of the decision there, the judgment in the present case is

Eeversed.