alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
416 A.2d 1130

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael ANDERSON, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Oct. 24, 1979.

Filed Dec. 21, 1979.

*143Robert I. Segal, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Division, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and ROBERTS * and LIPEZ, JJ.

*

 Justice Samuel J. Roberts of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from denial of relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act,** appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm.

On February 1, 1973, a jury convicted appellant of murder of the first degree. After denying post-verdict motions, the trial court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment. See *Commonwealth*v. *Anderson,*464 Pa. 541, 347 A.2d 674 (1975). Appellant obtained new counsel and filed a PCHA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After a hearing, the PCHA court denied the petition.

*144The indictment against appellant charged murder generally. At trial, the Commonwealth relied upon alternative theories of liability, arguing that appellant had committed a premeditated murder or a felony-murder. The trial court instructed the jury on both theories. Appellant argues that, where the indictment charged murder generally, he lacked notice, of the Commonwealth’s theories of the case and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this lack of notice. In his PCHA petition, however, appellant did not assign this failure as the basis for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the issue is not preserved for review, Cf. e. g., *Commonwealth*v. *Walls,*481 Pa. 1, 391 A.2d 1064 (1978) (sentencing hearing); *Commonwealth v. Blair,*460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975) (post-verdict motions); *Commonwealth v. Clair,*458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974) (trial); *Commonwealth v. Evans,*267 Pa.Super. 59, 405 A.2d 1302 (1979) (suppression hearing); *Commonwealth v. Felder,*266 Pa.Super. 489, 405 A.2d 925 (1979) (guilty plea hearing).

Order affirmed.

**

 Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Supp.1978-79), repealed, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, effective June 27, 1978.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from MovieFone,
Inc.'s condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the nine months
ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,723,801
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,509,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    313,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,118,525
<PP&E>                                       5,819,858
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,316,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,916,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,750,484
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,172
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,165,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,916,005
<SALES>                                        185,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,971,799
<CGS>                                          169,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,338,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,433,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,433,851)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,433,851)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1100 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National 

Historic Site in the State of North Carolina, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 1100 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Carl Sandburg Home 

3 National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 For the purposes of this Act: 

6 (1) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en7 titled ‘‘Sandburg Center Alternative’’ numbered 445/ 

8 80,017 and dated April 2007. 

9 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

10 the Secretary of the Interior. 

11 (3) HISTORIC SITE.—The term ‘‘Historic Site’’ 

12 means Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site. 

13 SEC. 3. CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

14 BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

15 (a) ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may 

16 acquire from willing sellers by donation, purchase with do17 nated or appropriated funds, or exchange not more than 

18 110 acres of land, water, or interests in land and water, 

19 within the area depicted on the map, to be added to the 

20 Historic Site. 

21 (b) VISITOR CENTER.—To preserve the historic char22 acter and landscape of the site, the Secretary may also 

23 acquire up to five acres for the development of a visitor 

24 center and visitor parking area adjacent to or in the gen25 eral vicinity of the Historic Site. 
3 

•HR 1100 EH

1 (c) BOUNDARY REVISION.—Upon acquisition of any 

2 land or interest in land under this section, the Secretary 

3 shall revise the boundary of the Historic Site to reflect 

4 the acquisition. 

5 (d) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file 

6 and available for public inspection in the appropriate of7 fices of the National Park Service. 

8 (e) ADMINISTRATION.—Land added to the Historic 

9 Site by this section shall be administered as part of the 

10 Historic Site in accordance with applicable laws and regu11 lations. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1100 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home 

Carolina, and for other purposes. National Historic Site in the State of North
News United States Air Force
 Cody reaches out to USAFE-AFAFRICA AirmenPublished June 26, 2015
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Jessica Hines
                        
                        
                        USAFE-AFAFRICA Public Affairs
                **RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) --**
                Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force James A. Cody wrapped up his second visit to U.S. Air Forces in Europe-U.S. Air Forces Africa this year, tackling Airmen's questions surrounding changes to the new enlisted evaluation system, promotions, formal training and retirements.
"There's a lot going on in our Air Force, and rightly so. Our Airmen have a lot of questions,” Cody said during an interview here, June 23.
"My credibility in this position goes to what I know about our Airmen," Cody said. "I am not able to accurately reflect their views or how things are going with them unless I spend time with them."
In his ongoing efforts to engage with Airmen stationed across the globe, the Air Force’s top enlisted leader is making strides to offer personal answers to Airmen's questions and concerns.
"What we try to communicate when we're out visiting our Airmen, is our level of appreciation and gratitude for what they are doing every day," he said.
With many questions focusing on current changes in the Air Force, Cody stressed the need for agility across the entire scope of operations in the years to come.
"There has to be a level of agility that is probably unprecedented in the history of the military, if we're going to be successful against any adversaries," he noted also referencing the Air Force's 30-year Strategic Master Plan and the need to develop an agile force to meet future operations and capabilities.
Acknowledging the large scope of the Air Force's presence in Europe, Cody recognized the unique role Airmen play in representing the U.S. overseas.
"I think every time you go out and spend time with Airmen you learn a lot, and there is a lot going on in the USAFE-AFAFRICA theater,” the chief said. “We certainly have Airmen here providing airpower to our combatant commanders, but we also have a significant presence with Airmen here supporting the NATO alliance and our partners, whether it is through training or deployments."
The chief commended and praised all the hard work of Airmen across USAFE-AFAFRICA and encouraged them to continue to share their thoughts and concerns with leadership on ways to strengthen the force even more.
"I would describe the Airmen in USAFE-AFAFRICA just like I would anywhere else: They are the most dedicated, professional Airmen in the world,” he said. “They represent America with pride and they do their job exceptionally well, despite all the challenges it thrusts in front of them. They accomplish the mission. I get to enjoy the fact that I get to represent them; it's a great sense of pride for me just to see how they do their job."USAFE-AFAFRICA 



CMSAF
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,531,446
<SECURITIES>                                 1,496,410
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,125,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,736,748
<INVENTORY>                                    420,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,974,633
<PP&E>                                      11,600,989
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,208,682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,847,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,606,954
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,260
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,052,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,847,300
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,197,836
<CGS>                                        2,666,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,092,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (99,112)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,461,246
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-05-0088-CR

	NO. 07-05-0089-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MAY 10, 2005

	______________________________

	SHANNON DEWAYNE THOMPSON, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 49,282-B & 49,283-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Pending before this Court is a second request for an extension of time in which to file a reporter’s record in which the official court reporter indicates no designation has been filed.  The supplemental clerk’s record contains an order dated June 9, 2004, appointing attorney Greg Phifer to represent appellant Shannon Dewayne Thompson.  The record, however, reflects that on November 22, 2004, attorney Ronald T. Spriggs was retained to enter an appearance as attorney of record for appellant.  Also in the record is the trial court’s order of April 8, 2005, granting Spriggs’s motion to withdraw.  To promote judicial efficiency, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 35.3(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  

	Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:  

	1.  	whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and

	2.	whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel.	

The trial court shall cause a hearing to be transcribed.  Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and is indigent, then the trial court shall also take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant effective assistance of counsel, which measures may include the appointment of counsel.  If counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel.  Finally, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk's record.  A supplemental record of the hearing shall also be included in the appellate record.  Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental clerk's record and the supplemental reporter's record with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, June 10, 2005.

	The court reporter’s request for extension of time is held in abeyance pending the trial court’s findings and conclusions.

	It is so ordered.

		Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 7, 2018

No. 04-16-00831-CV

WONG GROCERY CO., LLC,

Appellant

v.

Patrick LAMBKIN, Felipe Valdez dba Raw Happiness Juice Bar,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-10644

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s motion for leave to extend time to file a petition for rehearing or motion 

for rehearing en banc is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 101 

Relating to the disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 

Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. POE, Mr. ISSA, Mr. LATTA, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CONAWAY, and Mr. 

MCCAUL of Texas) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Relating to the disapproval of obligations under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the obligation of any amount 

4 exceeding the amounts obligated as described in para5 graphs (1) and (2) of section 115(a) of the Emergency 

6 Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Anthony L. Pane, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my
knowledge:

(1)  The Report to which this certification is attached as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                         |  |     |  |                                                                                      | 
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: November 14, 2002 |  | By: |  | /s/ ANTHONY L. PANEAnthony L. Pane
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 17, 2007 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the periods presented therein.
  /s/   UMANG GUPTAUmang GuptaChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Jack A. GULLO, Appellant, v. Miriam Anne HIRST and Quin S. Elson, Appellees.

No. 9285.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 24, 1964.

Decided April 29, 1964.

*179Joe S. Gullo, Arlington, Va., for appellant.

Bruce E. Lambert, Arlington, Va., Thomas O. Lawson, Fairfax, Va., on brief, for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, BRYAN, and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We approve the ultimate disposition of this case made by the district court. Not only is the matter which the plaintiff sought to litigate in the district court *res judicata,*but it is also true that the federal courts have never assumed to exercise jurisdiction over domestic relations causes. Finally, the cause is not a proper subject for declaratory judgment.

 The background of this case raises serious questions of abuse of process. While we must be careful to assure that the courts are always open to complaining parties, we have an equal obligation to see that its processes are not abused by harassing, or by recklessly invoking court action in frivolous causes or by foot dragging and delaying in order to deny or postpone the enjoyment of unquestioned rights. Lawyers have an obligation as officers of the court not to indulge in any of these practices. Vexatious litigation and the law’s delays have brought the courts in low repute in many instances, and when the responsibility can be fixed, remedial action should be taken.

We remand this case to the district court with instructions that it tax the plaintiff with reasonable counsel fees for the defendants’ attorneys and that it visit a proper sanction upon the plaintiff’s counsel.

Remanded.
#### St. Louis, I. M. & S. R’y Co. v. Henderson Edwards.

(No. 2604.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for appellant.

Vaughan & Leary, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 316. *Bes adjudicata; rules as to; case stated.*Appellee brought this suit to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by his wife, at the same time and place and under the same circumstances mentioned in cause No. 2617 *[ante,*§ 342], which was a suit for damages for personal injuries sustained by himself. In this suit he recovered a judgment for §1,000 and costs. At the time of the trial of this suit the judgment in the other cause had been rendered and entered, and appellant pleaded said judgment in bar of a recovery in this suit. The trial court instructed the jury to find against said plea. *Held:*It is well settled that for personal injuries to the wife the damages recovered are community property, and, generally, are only recoverable at the suit of the husband. [Gallagher v. Bowie, 66 Tex. 265; Ezell v. Dodson, 60 Tex. 331; Nickerson v. Nickerson, 65 Tex. 281.] It is clear, therefore, that appellee might have embraced in his other suit the claim which is involved in this suit. But he was not compelled to do so. He had his election to bring separate suits or a single suit. The rule is, that where claims constitute a single cause of action, though arising on different transactions, or at different periods, as, for instance, a running account, or successive instalments of rent actually accrued, a judgment for a part bars another action for the rest; but if they are such that, although they might be joined, they must be separately stated as separate causes of action, even though they arose at the same time, or on the same contract, a judgment on one does not bar an action on *416the other, unless by establishing some matter fatal to both. [1 App. C. C. § 807; 2 App. C. C. § 521.] In this case the plea of *res adjudícala*is not applicable. Appellee’s causes of action were separate and distinct, though arising at the same time and resulting from the same negligence. He could not sue thereon jointly without stating them separately, and in some particulars the evidence to sustain them would not be the same. If the suits had been in a court having jurisdiction of the aggregate amount of damages claimed in both, they might properly have been consolidated by order of the court; but the aggregate amount of the damages claimed not being within the jurisdiction of the court, the suits could not properly be consolidated. [2 App. C. C. § 323.]

November 9, 1887.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-37385, 333-24941, 333-66445, 333-69241, 333-77725, 333-77723, 333-87301, 333-92257, 333-36278, 333-36286, 333-60010, 333-67646 and 333-86772) pertaining to the 1995 Flexible Stock Incentive Plan, the 1997Stock Incentive Plan, the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the WebLogic, Inc. 1996 Stock Plan, The Theory Center, Inc. Amended, Restated 1999 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, the 2000 Non-Qualified Stock Incentive Plan and the CrossGain Corp.Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Plan and the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-58439, 333-63117, 333-66443, 333-34956, 333-92085, 333-32348, 333-40582, 333-67644 and 333-83642) of BEA Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 19,2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of BEA Systems, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2003. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

April 29, 2003