alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

KERN, MORAN, and ALDYKIEWICZ 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist NEAL C. PELACCIO 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20130815 

Headquarters, Fort Bliss 

Timothy P. Hayes, Jr., Military Judge 

Colonel Edward K. Lawson IV, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain Michael A. Millios, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA (on brief). 

24 June 2014 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per curiam: 

 Upon review of the entire record pursuant to Article 66(c), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, we note that appellant was charged with and found guilty of, on 

divers occasions, without proper authority, selling military property of the United 

States of a value greater than $500.*

 The government alleged and appellant was 

found guilty of selling this military property of the United States “to persons who 

responded to his ads . . .” However, the evidence in the record does not establish 

that the value of the military property of the United States sold to the persons 

responding to appellant’s ads exceeded $500 in any instance. As such, we do not 

affirm “a value greater than $500.00” and instead affirm “some value.” Our action 

does not change the penalty landscape because appellant was tried at a special courtmartial. Our action also does not change the admissible aggravation evidence 

available to the sentencing authority. In addition, appellant was sentenced by a 

 

*

 Appellant personally raised this issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 

M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). His other Grostefon submissions do not warrant relief. 
PELACCIO—ARMY 20130815 

2

military judge and, as a matter of logic, we are more likely to be certain of what a 

military judge would have done as opposed to members. Lastly, we have the 

experience and familiarity with the offense to reliably determine what sentence 

would have been imposed at trial. See United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 

(C.A.A.F. 2013) (establishing a nonexhaustive framework to aid in reassessing 

sentences); United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986). 

Accordingly, we only affirm so much of the Specification of Charge II as 

finds that appellant: 

did, at or near Fort Bliss, Texas, between on or about 1 

December 2012 and on or about 12 February 2013, on 

divers occasions without proper authority, sell to persons 

who responded to his ads, M4 magazines of some value, 

military property of the United States. 

The finding of guilty of Charge II is AFFIRMED. Considering the modified finding, 

we find the sentence as approved by the convening authority is appropriate and is 

AFFIRMED. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been 

deprived by virtue of that portion of the finding set aside by this decision, are 

hereby ordered restored. 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT:
#### Mulhall & Scaling v. R. P. Dicks.

(No. 1907, Op. Book No. 2, p. 511.)

Error from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

-■§ 1206.- *Consideration; compromise of dispute a sufficient.*Appellee Dicks sold appellants-a Stock'of cattle-for $11,585. -■ After getting the-cattle, appellants- refused-*688to pay the full amount of the purchase money, alleging that the cattle received were inferior to those that were to be furnished them under the contract. They proposed to pay appellee $11,000 in full satisfaction of the purchase money, and to avoid delay and litigation appellee accepted the payment, and brought this suit to recover the balance of purchase money, $535. Appellee recovered judgment for the full amount of his demand. *Held:*A compromise between parties of matters in dispute between them is a valid consideration to support an agreement based upon it, and one which is highly favored by the law. [1 Pars, on Con. 303; 1 Watts, 216; Addison, 56; 2 Penn. 531.] The agreement in this case was with reference to the adjustment of a disputed debt, and w'as therefore upon sufficient consideration. It was not merely the payment of a portion of the purchase money due upon a promise of the payee to. release the balance, where there was no dispute as to what was due, but it was the payment of money in full satisfaction of a disputed claim. In the one case the promise would be without consideration, but in the other upon sufficient consideration. [2. Daniel’s Neg. Inst. § 1289.] The defense set up in this suit was a valid one, and should have prevailed.

November 2, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Francis Fendrick v. J. & M. Shea.

(No. 1500, Op. Book No. 2, p. 81.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

May 6, 1880.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 912. *County court; jurisdiction; injunction.*The county court has original jurisdiction only where the amount in controversy is $200 and does not exceed $1,000. It has no power to issue the writ of injunction except for the enforcement of its jurisdiction. It has appellate jurisdiction in appeals from the courts of justices of the peace, and in aid of such appellate jurisdiction might issue an injunction. [Grant v. Quinsell (Ct. App.), *ante,*p. 401.]

§ 913, *Void judgment; hoto annulled.*A void judgment may be annulled by a direct proceeding for that purpose in the court where it was rendered, and process issued upon it could by that court be set aside or quashed.

§ 914. *Voidable judgment; how annulled.*Avoidable judgment of a justice’s court can only be inquired into on appeal or by *certiorari*in accordance with the statute.'

§915. *Justification by officer acting under process.*An officer cannot justify under process issued upon a void judgment, but if the judgment is merely voidable he may justify under it.

Eeversed and remanded.
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

# AGENCY:

National Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

# ACTION:

Informational Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Beginning January 1, 2011 the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) will cease accepting data, all orders and classes, from triangulation and traverse geodetic surveys as they are described in the Federal Geodetic Control Committee September 1984 “Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks” for inclusion into the NGS Integrated Data Base (NGSIDB).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Requests for additional information should be directed to Mr. Mark Eckl, Observation and Analysis Division Chief, National Geodetic Survey (N/NGS4), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone: (301) 713-3176 x 117; E-mail:                         *mark.eckl@noaa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The National Geodetic Survey has not received a traditional (triangulation or traverse) survey for purely horizontal work since 2006. All horizontal surveys relevant to the mission of NGS performed by individuals external to NGS are now performed with GPS. The maintenance of computer software and hardware dedicated to traditional horizontal surveys requires use of resources that are limited and will be used more appropriately elsewhere.

Dated: September 1, 2010.

Juliana P. Blackwell,

Director, Office of National Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010-23356 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 71 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray:
  Almighty God, Creator, Sustainer, and Lord of all, You who have 
brought light out of darkness and have created us to know You, we 
praise You for Your guidance. As we begin the work of this Senate 
today, we acknowledge again our total dependence on You. Revelation of 
Your truth comes in relationship with You; Your inspiration is given 
when we are illuminated with Your spirit. Therefore, we prepare for the 
decisive decisions of this day by opening our minds to the inflow of 
Your spirit. We confess that we need Your divine intelligence to invade 
our thinking brains and flood us with Your light in the dimness of our 
limited understanding.
  Gracious Lord, You know what is ahead today for the women and men of 
this Senate. Crucial issues confront them. Votes will be cast and 
aspects of the future of our Nation will be shaped by what is decided. 
And so, we say with the Psalmist, ``Show me Your ways, O Lord; teach me 
Your paths. Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of 
my salvation; on You I wait all the day.''--Psalm 25: 4-5. ``I delight 
to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart.''--Psalm 
40:8.
  We praise You Lord, that when this day comes to an end we will have 
the deep inner peace of knowing that You heard and answered this prayer 
for guidance. In the name of Him who is Truth. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,435,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,140,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,260,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,164,664
<PP&E>                                      20,003,234
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,327,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,178,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,016,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        554
<COMMON>                                         9,419
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,138,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,178,975
<SALES>                                      5,281,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,282,736
<CGS>                                        4,284,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,324,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,072,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,999,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,999,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,999,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.39B

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC

2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

SUB-PLAN GOVERNING AWARDS TO PARTICIPANTS
IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND



|1 | General
|- | -------



|1.1 | In accordance with Rule 2(b)(xi) of the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the Plan) the Board has determined to establish this sub-plan (the Irish
Sub-Plan) for the purposes of Employees who are resident in the Republic of Ireland.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|1.2 | All terms that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Plan.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2 | Terms of Irish Sub-Plan
|- | -----------------------

The Plan shall
be amended as follows.



|2.1 | Transferability of Awards
|--- | -------------------------



|2.1.1 | The provisions of Rule 5(e) shall be deleted and replaced by the following:
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (e) | Transferability of Options and SARs. An Option or SAR shall not be transferable and shall not be capable of being assigned, transferred, sold, mortgaged, pledged
or encumbered in any way whatsoever by a Participant (other than upon the Participants death as provided by Section 5(j)).
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2.2 | Employment or Other Service Rights; Compensation
|--- | ------------------------------------------------

The provisions of Rule 8(d) shall be deleted and replaced by the following:

(d)        No Employment or Other Service Rights.Nothing in the Plan, any Stock Award
Agreement or other instrument executed thereunder or in connection with any Award granted pursuant thereto shall confer upon any Participant any right to continue to serve the Company or an Affiliate in the capacity in effect at the time the Award
was granted or shall affect any right that the Company or an Affiliate may have to terminate the employment of an Employee in accordance with applicable law. A Participant shall not be entitled to any compensation or damages whatsoever or howsoever
described, by reason of any termination, withdrawal or alteration of rights or expectations under the Plan whether such compensation is claimed by way of damages for wrongful dismissal or other breach of contract or by way of compensation for loss
of office or otherwise howsoever.
#### Turnley Bros. & Co. v. Weiss & Trigg.

(No. 2376, Op. Book No. 2, p. 645.)

Appeal from Williamson County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1280. *Pleading; insufficient petition for damages for breach of contract; measure of damage in such case, and necessary allegations.*Appellants sued appellees for damages for breach of a contract in failing to deliver at Round Rock two carloads of oats. The petition alleged as follows: “On the 21th day of August, 188Í, by a certain agreement then and there made between plaintiffs and defendants, it was agreed that defendants, on *742said 24th day of August, 1881, or within a reasonable time thereafter, should deliver to plaintiffs, at the railroad depot of the International & Great Northern Company, in the town of Round Rock, in said Williamson county, sacked, free, and on board the cars of said railroad company, two carloads of oats, containing each six hundred and twenty-five bushels, and aggregating the amount of twelve hundred and fifty bushels, and that plaintiffs should pay to defendants the sum of forty-five cents per bushel for said oats. ” An amended petition alleged that plaintiffs had been compelled to purchase the same quantity of oats at seventy-two cents per bushel, but the date of this purchase is not stated; also that appellees failed to notify them that they would not deliver the oats until there had been an advance in the price, and that oats could not be had except at a price greatly in advance of that agreed upon. General and special exceptions to the petition were sustained. Plaintiffs declined to amend, and judgment was rendered against them accordingly. *Held:*The measure of damage in such case would be the difference between the contract price and the market value of the oats at the time that they should have been delivered under the contract. The fact that appellants had at some time thereafter purchased oats, for which they were compelled to pay seventy-two cents per bushel, would not afford any rule for the measure of damages in the case. To authorize a recovery, the burden was upon appellants to show by their pleading, and establish by evidence, the time in which the delivery of the oats should have been made, under the contract, and that there had been an advance in the price of oats when that time had expired, and also what that advance was. Appellants would not be authorized to wait for some indefinite time, and then go upon the market, purchase oats, and recover the difference between the original contract price and that which they were compelled to pay. Nor is the allegation that there had been an advance in the value of oats during the time in which the deliv*743ery ought to have been made, without alleging what that advance was, any sufficient legal basis for a recovery. Appellants must, by their pleading, show that they have been injured by the non-delivery of the oats, and the amount of that injury. The petition in this case is wanting in the essential allegations which are necessary as a legal basis for recovery.

June 21, 1882.

Affirmed.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 476 

AN ACT 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act 

to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 

Historical Park Commission. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 476 ES

1 SECTION 1. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HIS2 TORICAL PARK COMMISSION. 

3 The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical 

4 Park Commission (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Commis5 sion’’) is authorized in accordance with the provisions of 

6 section 6 of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development 

7 Act (16 U.S.C. 410y–4), except that the Commission shall 

8 terminate 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the Senate July 9, 2014. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 476 

AN ACT 

To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal DevelopCanal National Historical Park Commission. ment Act to extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 15-3423

___________________________ Elroy L. Wabashaw lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v. Michael L. Kenny, Dir, NDCS lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Brian Gage, Warden TSCI - in their individual and official capacities lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee Robert Houston, Former Dir, NDCS; Fred Britten, Former Warden TSCI lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant s Lt. Tremain, Officers - in their individua l and official capacities; Ofc. Horn, in their individual and official capacities lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees Sgt. Thein lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant Sgt. Lanlez, in their individual and official capacities; Stranberg, TSCI Caseworkers - in their individual and offi cial capacities; Zweig, TSCI Caseworkers - in their individual and official capacitie s; 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 incarceratedat the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court conducted de no vo 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 St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
News United States Air Force
 AF selects 471 for promotion to captainPublished April 7, 2017
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force selected 471 first lieutenants for promotion to captain during the 2016D Captain Line of the Air Force, chaplain, Line of the Air Force-judge advocate, nurse corps, medical service corps and biomedical service corps quarterly selection process.
To view the lists, go to the Air Force Portal and select the promotion link, or log in to myPers, select “Active Duty Officer” from the drop down menu, search “Promotions Home” and scroll down to the promotion select lists.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, visit myPers. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following these instructions.promotion 



AFPC 



captain 



officer 



CY16D 



first lieutenants 



MyPers 



quarterly selection process 



RIP 



JB San Antonio-Randolph