alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. B. Clendenning v. H. S. Mathews.

(No. 1562, Op. Book No. *2,*p. 70.)

Appeal from Cooke County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 904. *Judgment; legal result of facts.*It is a maxim of law that the judgment of the court must correspond with and be only the legal result of the facts found in the verdict. [Bledsoe v. Wills, 22 Tex. 650.]

*513§ 905. *Verdict; province and object of.*The province of a verdict is to declare the facts upon which the judgment is to be predicated. [May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 349.] Its object is to announce to the court the judgment of the jury as to how far the facts established by the evidence ■conform to those which are alleged and put in issue by the pleadings. [Darden v. Mathews, 22 Tex. 324.] As the facts thus declared constitute the basis of a judgment, which is but the legal consequence of the facts thus found, it follows that the verdict must either affirm or negative such of the disputed facts as will, in connection with those admitted, if any, support a legal judgment. [Barnett v. Caruth, 22 Tex. 173.]

§ 900. *Judgment; must be upon facts found.*A judgment in a court of record must be founded on facts legally ascertained. A decree enforcing the vendor’s lien is without foundation when the verdict does not ascertain that the note sued on was given in payment of the purchase money for the land upon which the lien is sought to be enforced. [McConkey v. Henderson, 24 Tex. 212.] Thus, in this case, which was a suit for the value of lumber sold and delivered, and the verdict was for the plaintiff, without finding the amount to which he was entitled, *held,*that the verdict did not authorize a judgment in favor of plaintiff for any amount. A general verdict for the plaintiff in a suit on account will not- authorize a judgment for the amount claimed. [Harrall v. Babb, 19 Tex. 148; 2 Rawls, 53.]

§ 907. *Verdict; must be certain.*Whenever a verdict is neither certain in itself, nor finds facts from which certainty can be attained, it ought to be set aside. [Mays v. Lewis, 4 Tex. 38.] When a verdict is thus deficient, no -aid can be given to it by looking out of tire record to the evidence given upon the trial, in order to support a judgment rendered upon it. [Smith v. Tucker, 25 Tex. 594.]

§ 908. *Statute of frauds; promise to pay debt of another.*If a promise to pay the debt of another is merely collateral — not the absolute and unconditional undertak*514ing of the promisor for himself, — if the promisor is the mere surety of another, unless the assumpsit is evidenced by a writing signed by him, it would fall within the statute of frauds and could not be recovered upon.

May 15, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.
762 A.2d 1083

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Eugene Dennis O’DONNELL, Respondent.

No. 631 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 17, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2000, there having been filed with this Court by Eugene Dennis O’Donnell his *518verified Statement of Resignation dated September 27, 2000, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Eugene Dennis O’Donnell be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                            8,625
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    97,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     106,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                223,821
<PP&E>                                          189,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  469,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            97,943
<BONDS>                                          10,285
<COMMON>                                        323,102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    469,068
<SALES>                                         248,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                248,593
<CGS>                                           168,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   229,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2,452
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  15,611
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.50
null

158.94301
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>                      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
                              STATEMENTS OF HEMASURE INC., FOR THE THREE MONTHS
                              ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                              ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                                 198
<SECURITIES>                         4,493
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                            145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     5,065
<PP&E>                               3,068
<DEPRECIATION>                       1,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       6,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                2,405
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                                90
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                           3,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         6,608
<SALES>                                 25
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        25
<CGS>                                  657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     2,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (36)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (3,429)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (3,429)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        (3,429)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        

</TABLE>
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

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 55805)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Initial Review Group, Biomedical Research and Research Training Review Subcommittee A.                    

*Date:*                         November 4-5, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carole H. Latker, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-2848.                         *latkerc@nigms.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 8, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-22842 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  OKINAWAN KARATE-DO IN MASSACHUSETTS

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Massachusetts is proud to be home to 
the North American Okinawan Karate-Do Association. Early in this 
century, Kanbum Uechi studied this ancient art on the mainland of China 
where it was first developed. Returning to his homeland of Okinawa, he 
introduced it there in 1910 and was the first master of the Okinawan 
Karate-Do system.
  In 1956, for the first time, American servicemen were accepted as 
students in the Okinawan Karate-Do schools. One of them settled in the 
Boston area after his military discharge and began teaching this art 
form to people in the area. Walter Mattson of Framingham, MA, is the 
senior American instructor.
  Over the years, there has been a continuing cultural exchange between 
the Masters on Okinawa and practitioners here in North America. Mr. 
Mattson is primarily responsible for this 35-year exchange program. 
This summer, Senior Instructor Peter McCrae from Plymouth, MA, will be 
studying on Okinawa with Master Shintoku Takara.
  Many Americans have found in Okinawan Karate-Do a physical and mental 
discipline which promotes positive attitudes, good health, and self-
mastery. Our young people have found in it an alternative to the 
streets and, in its instructors, positive role models. We are grateful 
for this Japanese import and we hope that this positive exchange 
between our two countries continues for many years.

                          ____________________
```
#### E. Lullamire v. Kaufman County.

(No. 2353.)

Error from Kaufman County.

*(Transferred from Tyler to Galveston and decided at Galveston.)*

J. S. Woods, counsel for plaintiff in error.

No counsel appeared for defendant in error.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

*393March 7, 1888.

§ 325. *Condemnation of land for a public roacl; notice of proceeding to owner, etc.; case slated.*Lullamire was the owner of a tract of land in Kaufman county over which the commissioners’ court of said county desired to establish a public road. Lullamire was a nonresident of said county, and the notice required by article 1370 of the Eevised Statutes was served upon one Titlo, and the land was condemned by order of said court, allowing Lullamire $15 as his damages. Lullamire appealed to the county court, where, upon a trial had, the judgment was the same. It appeared from the evidence that Titlo, upon whom the notice had been served, had been looking after the land for Lullamire and preventing persons from cutting the timber on it, and had contracted with said owner to fence said land and dig a tank on it. He had no other connection with, or control over, the land. When he was served with said notice he notified the jury of view that he was not authorized to attend to such matters, but that J. S. Woods, an attorney at law, who resided in said county, was specially employed as the agent of said Lullamire to represent him in said business, and it was shown that said Woods was in fact the agent of said owner at that time. Held, that Titlo was not the agent or attorney of Lullamire, and that the service of the notice upon him was not such service as is required by article 1370, Eevised Statutes.

§ 326. *Damages for condemnation of land for a road; illegal evidence as to.*It was error to admit testimony, over the objection of plaintiff in error, that his land would become more valuable if people settled on it, and that the road over the land would induce settlements. Such evidence was uncertain and speculative, and, in view of the conflict in the evidence as to the damage which the owner would sustain by reason of the condemnation of his land, it was calculated to injuriously affect his rights, and its admission was therefore material error.

Eeversed and remanded.
416 A.2d 1116

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James ALLEN, a/k/a Darnell Hutchinson, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted June 29, 1979.

Filed Dec. 21, 1979.

*116Eugene H. Clarke, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, HOFFMAN and CATANIA, JJ.*

*

 President Judge Francis J. Catania of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(f). The lower court determined that the filing of a Commonwealth petition to extend prior to the Rule 1100 run date tolled the. running of the Rule 1100 period until the court acted on the petition. We held in the case of appellant’s co-defendant that the filing of the petition did not toll the 180-day period. *Commonwealth v. Favors,*273 Pa.Super. 109, 416 A.2d 1113 (1979). Accordingly, based upon our decision in *Favors,*we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant acquiesced in the Commonwealth’s motion for continuance of trial beyond the Rule 1100 run date.

*117Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HESTER, J., files a dissenting opinion.

HESTER, Judge,

dissenting:

At 1:30 on the morning of March 12, 1977, appellant, in the company of James Monroe and Percy Favors, by the use of subterfuge, gained admission to the apartment of Eleanor McKeever. The three were armed with guns. She was forced to lie on the floor where she was tied up. Appellant placed a gun to her head and told her, “Pm going to ask you one more time, where is the money and where is the reefer.” Ms. McKeever’s four year-old daughter and another four year-old girl were sleeping in the adjoining bedroom. Favors opened the bedroom door and stated, “if somebody don’t tell where it’s at, one of these kids is going to get hurt.” Monroe forced Ms. McKeever to reveal the location of her money which was taken by Monroe and Favors. Monroe then forced her to perform oral sex upon him following which he proceeded to rape her. She was also raped by Favors.

The trio were apprehended by the Philadelphia police as they fled from the McKeever apartment building. They were immediately returned to the McKeever apartment where they were identified ten to twenty minutes following the conclusion of the incident. Monroe gave a confession to the police. It was read into evidence during the trial. Appellant was convicted of burglary, criminal conspiracy, and possession of instrument of crime.

Appellant received a fair trial. There can be no serious question as to his guilt. The majority would now reverse the conviction and remand for an evidentiary hearing based upon a technical Rule 1100 question.

I vigorously dissent.

I would affirm on the comprehensive well-structured Opinion of Judge Anderson of the court below.
News United States Air Force
 AFRL researchers recognized for STEM contributionsPublished Sept. 17, 2015
                        
                        By Tiffany A. Ferrell
                        
                        
                        Air Force Research Laboratory
                **WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --**
                Five Air Force Research Laboratory researchers were recently honored for their efforts in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.The Air Force STEM Awards recognize scientists and engineers who make noteworthy contributions to technology and engineering, solving technical problems in development, sustainment, testing, training or advancement of Air Force systems.In response to announcement of the awards, Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello, the AFRL commander, said, "We are proud to see these exceptional individuals, whose continual efforts in the lab provide innovative contributions to our warfighting technologies, be recognized among their peers on a national level for their achievements in STEM research."The 2015 STEM Award winners are:-- Maj. Lorraine M. Walowsky, whose work as the chief of rapid technology integration within the AFRL Sensors Directorate earned her the Air Force Outstanding Scientist Award in the Senior Military category.-- Capt. Donald A. Barrett is presented the Dr. Paul G. Kaminski Most Promising Systems Engineer of the Year Award for his efforts in leading multiple successful demonstration programs, including: Blue Devil, Blue Guardian, and Project SHEPHERD.-- Todd R. Jenkins who leads various teams of engineers in developing sensor data exploitation technologies is being honored with the Air Force Outstanding Scientist Award in the category of Research Management.-- Dr. Juan R. Vasquez takes the Air Force Science and Engineering Award in Engineering Achievement for his contributions in target detection and tracking for the Layering Sensing Exploitation Division of the Sensors Directorate.-- Jamie L. Hoff, assigned to the AFRL Materials & Manufacturing Directorate, whose leadership in the strategy, planning, and execution of the Air Force ManTech Transparent Ceramics roadmap, along with several other successful materials and manufacturing programs, earns him the Air Force Manufacturing Technology Award.Air Force STEM awards 



stem
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7379

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK CHRISTOPHER POE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-144, CA-97-933-2)

Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Christopher Poe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Christopher Poe seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Poe, Nos. CR-93-

144; CA-97-933-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
583 A.2d 321

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LUIS A. DIAZ.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 A-10C accident report releasedPublished Aug. 6, 2013
                **ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                Poor judgment and a lapse in flight discipline caused an A-10C Thunderbolt IIto strike two cables over Stockton Lake in Missouri, according to the Air Force Reserve Command Accident Investigation Board report released Aug. 6. 
According to the report, the aircraft from the 442nd Fighter Wing, Whiteman AFB, Mo., was on a two-plane low altitude tactical navigation training mission at the time of the mishap. The lake is about 90 miles south of the base. 
The accident board president found convincing evidence that the cause of the mishap was the pilot's poor judgment and lapse in flight discipline that resulted in violation of flight rules and operating procedures relating to minimum altitudes. 
As the flight flew over the southeast branch of the lake, the mishap pilot descended below the approved minimum altitude of 300 feet above ground level and maneuvered toward a boat that was traveling southeast on the lake. 
The flight leader radioed the mishap pilot and told him that the flight was approaching power lines that cross the lake. The mishap pilot acknowledged the call but continued his descent. At about 140 feet above ground level, the mishap aircraft struck two protective cables that run above the power lines crossing the lake. 
The accident board determined that the following three factors contributed to the mishap: 
- Mishap pilot focused his attention on the boat in the lake and did not see the cables his plane hit. 
- Mishap pilot demonstrated complacency immediately prior to mishap by descending aircraft rather than climbing as a response to altitude advisories. 
- Mishap pilot failed to acknowledge confirmation he saw cables after mishap flight leader identified threat to navigation presented by cables over the lake.
The mishap pilot was able to land the aircraft at Whiteman AFB, and the plane was towed to the base's aircraft parking ramp. 
The aircraft sustained extensive damage to the right horizontal stabilizer, vertical tail and rudder; the left wing tip; and weapons and suspension equipment mounted under the left wing. 
The total repair cost for the plane was $698,858.69. The cost to repair the cables was not known at the time of the report.
*(Courtesy Air Force Reserve Command Public Affairs)*AFRC 



accident 



report 



Robins 



Whiteman 



investigation 



A-10-C