alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Gates, Appellee.

(Decided November 13, 1939.)

*138
      *Mr. Alva J. Russell,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. George Fart,*for appellant.

*Mr. M. E. Snyder,*for appellee.

Washburn, P. J.

Under Section 6 of Article IV of the Constitution, Courts of Appeals are vested with jurisdiction to review, on behalf of the state, judgments and final orders of inferior courts of record in criminal cases wherein the- defendants are discharged, save and except in those cases in which the defendants who have been discharged have, in the proceedings sought to be reviewed, been put in legal jeopardy, which, under Section 10 of Article I, protects them against other trials for the same offenses.

In this case the defendant was brought before the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and placed •upon trial before the court and a jury upon an affidavit charging him with the commission of a criminal offense, to wit, contributing to the delinquency of one Sarah Nelson.

At the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the state, upon motion of the defendant, the jury was dismissed and the defendant discharged, for the reason that “the proof that has been submitted so far by the state could not, under the law, make Mr. Gates, tha. defendant in this case, guilty of any act against the laws 'ef'-this state. ’ ’

It therefore appears that- the defendant was placed in jeopardy, and that he was discharged because the state failed to offer evidence that he was guiity^of a crime under the laws of the state.

Thereafter, the state gave notice of appeal -on questions of law, and attempted to prosecute the appeal under the provisions of Section 13446-1 *et seq.,*General Code — not to affect the judgment of the trial court, but to procure a ruling to govern in similar cases.

The cause was submitted in this court upon a transcript of the evidence rather than a regular bill of *139exceptions. It does not appear therefrom, or from the transcript of the docket and journal entries, that théréTwas any objection made or exception taken_ to any act of the trial court.

' Under the circumstances presented, we hold that the Courts of Appeals are not vested with jurisdiction such as is referred to in said statutes, the exercise of which would not affect the judgment of not guilty entered by the Court of Common Pleas in the instant case, but would only determine the law to govern in similar eases.

Having reached the conclusion that the defendant was put in legal jeopardy, this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment finding him not guilty, and further, this court in this case is without jurisdiction to determine the law which should govern trial courts in similar cases.

The appeal is, *sua sponte,*dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Doyle and Stevens, JJ., concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 448 

To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new Form 1040SR. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. NELSON, Mr. LEE, and Mr. CARPER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new 

Form 1040SR. 

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 ‘‘Seniors’ Tax Sim5 plification Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FORM 1040SR FOR SENIORS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury (or 

8 the Secretary’s delegate) shall make available a form, to 

9 be known as ‘‘Form 1040SR’’, for use by individuals to 

10 file the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 448 IS

1 Revenue Code of 1986. Such form shall be as similar as 

2 practicable to Form 1040EZ, except that— 

3 (1) the form shall be available to individuals 

4 who have attained age 65 as of the close of the tax5 able year, 

6 (2) the form may be used even if income for the 

7 taxable year includes— 

8 (A) social security benefits (as defined in 

9 section 86(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

10 1986), 

11 (B) distributions from qualified retirement 

12 plans (as defined in section 4974(c) of such 

13 Code), annuities or other such deferred pay14 ment arrangements, 

15 (C) interest and dividends, or 

16 (D) capital gains and losses taken into ac17 count in determining adjusted net capital gain 

18 (as defined in section 1(h)(3) of such Code), 

19 and 

20 (3) the form shall be available without regard 

21 to the amount of any item of taxable income or the 

22 total amount of taxable income for the taxable year. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 448 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The form required by sub2 section (a) shall be made available for taxable years begin3 ning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[No. 42443-2-I.

Division One.

April 3, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jatinder Ahluwalia, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-08070-7, John M. Darrah, J., entered March 9, 1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Appelwick, J., concurred in by Grosse and Webster, JJ.
#### Schmidt & Zeigler v. John G. Rost & *Co.*

*(No.*321, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 243.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 684. *Beconvention; requisites and sufficiency of plea in.*Schmidt & Zeigler sued on two promissory notes for $250 each. Defendants pleaded specially in reconvention for $5,000 damages done them by plaintiffs by means of a circular letter which plaintiffs addressed to the creditors of defendants, advising said creditors not to accept an assignment or proposition of Eost & Co. for a composition of their debts at twenty cents on the dollar. The plaintiffs excepted to this plea in reconvention, and moved the court to strike it out as being irrelevant and insufficient in law. This motion was overruled by the court, and is the first error assigned.

The statute provides that “ where the. defendant may have a claim against the plaintiff, similar in its nature, but it need not be of the same degree, to that of the plaintiff’s, he shall be permitted to file in his answer a plea in reconvention, setting forth the amount due him, and judgment shall be given in favor of the party establishing the largest claim for the excess of his claim over that of his opponent, and for costs.” [Pas. Dig. art. 3446.]

Presiding Judge Ector cites and reviews the following cases in which the plea in reconvention was held good, viz.: Thomas v. Hill, 3 Tex. 270; Egery v. Power, 5 Tex. 501; Walcott v. Hendrick, 6 Tex. 406; Sterrett v. City of Houston, 14 Tex. 153; and the cases of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Tex. 358, and Pierson v. Kirsh, 46 Tex. 26, where the pleas were held bad; and he evolves from these cases the rule that the matter pleaded in reconvention must have grown out of, or be in some way connected with or incidental to, the main action. And as to the case at bar, he says: *“*We believe that the court should have sustained *376the plaintiff’s exceptions to defendant’s plea in reconvention. The damages claimed are too remote, and did not grow out of, or are connected in any way with or incidental to, the main action. Nor does it appear by the plea itself that these damages had any necessary connection or dependency upon the notes sued on and described in plaintiff’s petition.” .

February 27, 1878.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 33.11



|                |  |  |  |                                
|--------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------
|[Assurant Logo] |  |  |  | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE
|                |  |  |  | Atlanta, GA 30329-2210         
|                |  |  |  | T 770.763.1000                 
|                |  |  |  | F 770.859.4403                 
|                |  |  |  | www.assurant.com               

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH

§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)

of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD

JANUARY 1, 2014 TO DECEMBER 31, 2014

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the Asserting Party)
is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and
§1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the Applicable Servicing Criteria) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs
with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions). The Asserting
Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance Company

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company

TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc.



|                 |  |                                                                                                                                                     
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John Frobose
|By:              |  | John Frobose                                                                                                                                        
|                 |  | President of American Security Insurance Company and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

Date: February 3, 2015
News United States Air Force
 Readout of US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.’s travel to the PhilippinesPublished Aug. 11, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **MANILA, Philippines (AFNS) --**
                U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff **Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.** traveled to the Philippines Aug. 10 to discuss ways to deepen cooperation under the enduring U.S.-Philippines alliance.

During his visit, Brown met with Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Bartolome Vicente Bacarro and Philippine Air Force Command General Lt. Gen. Connor Anthony D. Canlas, Sr.

Throughout the meetings, Brown reaffirmed the great value the U.S. Air Force places on the bilateral alliance.

“The U.S.-Philippine alliance is strong; we support a resilient and independent Philippines with the capability to protect its sovereignty and defend its security interests on its own terms,” Brown said.

The leaders discussed the Philippines’ defense modernization efforts, with Brown underscoring the U.S. commitment to support Philippine Air Force requirements.

Brown highlighted the importance of combined exercises, noting how they advance operational concepts and capabilities. The leaders agreed that regular engagement and interoperability will continue to be a key part of the bilateral relationship.

The two sides further shared perspectives on Indo-Pacific security issues and discussed additional cooperative endeavors that would safeguard mutual interests in the region.

Earlier, Brown met with U.S. Ambassador MaryKay Loss Carlson and other members of the U.S. Embassy staff in Manila.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



CSAF 



CQ Brown Jr 



Philippines 



readout 



interoperability 



partner nations 



U.S.-Philippines alliance 



bilateral alliance 



combined exercises 



Indo-Pacific security 



cooperation 



One Air Force 



One Team One Fight 



cooperative endeavors
#### G. H. & S. A. R. R. Co. v. Don F. Turner.

(No. 114, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 57.)

Appeal from Colorado County.

February 17, 1877.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 641. *Damages recoverable for the hilling of two mules by railroad.*This was a suit brought by Turner to recover the value of two mules killed by defendant’s train, and also the further sum of $450 damages which plaintiff alleged were sustained by him by reason of the loss of his mules. Verdict and judgment were rendered for plaintiff for $250, the value of the mules, and $150 damages.

§ 642. *Measure of damages; erroneous charge as to.*The court charged the jury that plaintiff was entitled to damages over and above the value of' the mules, if the mules were killed by the negligence of the railroad company. This was error. In cases of contract, as well asof tort, where no question arises of fraud, malice or oppression, the direct pecuniary damage, with the cost of litigation, form the measure of relief. [Sedgwick on Damages, 58.] The matter of damages, other than the value of the property injured, could not be considered when there was no element of fraud, negligence or malice; and the compensation recoverable is limited solely with direct pecuniary loss. [Graham v. Roder, 5 Tex. 141.] “In all cases of civil suits, injury or breach of contract (except that of a promise of marriage), with the exception of those cases of trespasses or torts accompanied by oppression, fraud, malice, or negligence so gross as to raise a presumption of malice, where the jury have a discretion to award exemplary or vindictive damages, the jury are allowed to give *compensation*to the party injured for the loss sustained. [Sedgwick on Measure of Damages, §§ 26, 27; Smith v. Sherwood, 2 Tex. 464.] The charge referred to was improper, and the verdict of the jury was illegal.

Reversed and remanded.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 17, 2009



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

J OHN L. C OFFEY

, Circuit Judge

J OEL M. F LAUM

, Circuit Judge



### No. 09

- 3213

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

W ILLIAM L. C URTIS

, Defendant

- Appellant. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Southern District of Illinois.

No. 99 CR 40026

- JPG

J. Phil Gilbert, Judge

.

Order

The order in this case issued on December 14, 2009

, is amended as follows:

Page 2, first paragraph, third line from bottom: “since the Curtis’s

sentencing” should read “since Curtis’s sentencing”.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACINTO VELA

- FLORES,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 71926 Agency No. A200

- 150

- 228

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 12, 2021 * *
Before: TALLMAN , RAWLINSON , and BUMATAY , Circuit Judges. Jacinto Vela

- Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and 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

OCT 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 71926

of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factua l findings. Id . at 1241. We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in concluding that Vela

- Flores failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014) )). We reject as unsupported by the record Vela

- Flores’ contentions that the agency erred in the particular social group analysis. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vela

- Flores otherwise failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground

. S

ee Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an appl icant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a prot ected ground”)

. Thus, Vela

- Flores’ withholding of removal claim fail s.3 20

- 71926

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Vela

- Flores failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We reject as unsupported by the record Vela

- Flores’ contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his C AT claim

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The mo tion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1023-E1024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       TRIBUTE TO ALLEN C. MARTIN

                                 ______

                          HON. DONALD M. PAYNE

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 12, 1995
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 1995, a 
distinguished public servant, Mr. Allen C. Martin, retired from his 
position as undersheriff in the Union County Sheriff's Office. Mr. 
Martin, a lifelong resident of Elizabeth, had a 37-year career in law 
enforcement which was distinguished by his decency, commitment to the 
principles of justice, and his concern for his community.
  Mr. Martin began his law enforcement career in 1953 when he joined 
the Elizabeth Police Department, where he was assigned to the Elizabeth 
Port area. In 1962, Mr. Martin joined the New Jersey Department of 
Corrections as a corrections officer. In 1968 he transferred to the 
Union County Sheriff's Office where he served as a sheriff's officer 
assigned to the warrant squad.
  In 1978, Ralph Froehlich, a man who has since distinguished himself 
with his service and commitment to the ideals of justice, was elected 
sheriff of Union County. Sheriff Froehlich appointed Mr. Martin as 
undersheriff and placed him in charge of the process unit and warrant 
squad. Undersheriff Martin computerized the office and increased its 
capacity.
  [[Page E1024]] Councilman Martin has four grown children, a loving 
wife, and he continued to be active in his church and several social 
and political organizations, including the N.A.A.C.P.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute 
to a fine American, a family man, and a devoted public servant, Mr. 
Allen C. Martin.

                          ____________________
```
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 13, 2015 520080 

________________________________

In the Matter of TYRONE WALKER,

Petitioner,

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 8, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Tyrone Walker, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent. 

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
-2- 520080 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### W. O. Deball v. R. L. James.

(No. 773, Op. Book No. 3, p. 449.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 91. *Work and labor done; measure of recovery.*In a suit for work and labor done, ordinarily the measure of *39the plaintiff’s recovery will be the value of such work and labor. If the price of the same had been agreed by the parties, then such price would be the measure of recovery.

February 2, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3423

___________________________

Elroy L. Wabashaw

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Michael L. Kenny, Dir, NDCS

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Brian Gage, Warden TSCI - in their individual and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Robert Houston, Former Dir, NDCS; Fred Britten, Former Warden TSCI

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

Lt. Tremain, Officers - in their individual and official capacities; Ofc. Horn, in

their individual and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Sgt. Thein

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Sgt. Lanlez, in their individual and official capacities; Stranberg, TSCI

Caseworkers - in their individual and official capacities; Zweig, TSCI Caseworkers

- in their individual and official capacities; Scott Frakes, in their individual and

official capacities; Michele Capps, in their individual and official capacities;
 Holley, in their individual and official capacities; Theimann, in their individual

and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: May 31, 2016

Filed: June 9, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nebraska inmate Elroy L. Wabashaw, formerly incarcerated at the Tecumseh

State Correctional Institution, appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court conducted de novo review of the record and carefully considered

Wabashaw’s arguments for reversal. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th

Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-