alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Martha Bigger et al. v. John E. Jones & Son.

(No. 2420.)

Appeal from Rusk County.

Drury Field, counsel for appellant.

G. H. Gould, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*275§ 227. *Exempt property; exemption does not apply to debts secured by lien on property claimed as exempt; case stated.*Appellees sued Martha Bigger upon her promissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage on a wagon and two mules. He also sued out a writ of sequestration and had the wagon and mules seized thereunder. Martha Bigger replevied said property, giving a replevy bond with the other appellants herein as sureties. Upon a trial of the case appellee recovered judgment against Martha Bigger for his debt, interest and costs, and against her sureties on the replevy bond for $200, the value of the property replevied. Appellant claimed all of said property as exempt to her as the head of a family. *Held;*Her claim that said property is exempt from forced sale is fully met and answered by the statute, which expressly provides that the statute exempting personal property shall not apply to debts which are secured by a lien on such property. [R. S. art. 2342.]

§ 228. *Replevy bond; effect of; loss, etc., of property replevied; obligors on bond must bear such loss, etc.*Appellants pleaded and offered to prove that after said property was replevied one of the mules had died, anddhey claimed that they should be credited on said bond with the value of said mule. The court rejected evidence to prove the death and value of the mule. *Held*correct. The property was released from the custody of the law and restored to the possession of the owner under and by virtue of the replevy bond, and by the conditions of said bond the obligors bound themselves that said owner would have said property forthcoming to abide the decision of the court in said suit, or would pay the value thereof, etc. [R. S. art. 4499.] The statute in such case provides that, if the suit is decided against the defendant, final judgment shall be entered against all the obligors in such bond, jointly and severally, 'for the value of the property replevied, etc. [R. S. art. 4501.] It is further provided that the defendant shall have the right, within ten days after the rendition of such judgment, to *276deliver to the proper officer the property replevied, or any portion thereof, and shall receive credit on such judgment for the value of the property so delivered. [E. S. art. 4502.]. But if the property be not so delivered, execution shall issue upon such judgment as in other cases. [E. S. art. 4504.] It is clear from these provisions of the statute, that appellants were not entitled to any credit upon the judgment for the value of the mule which died. The obligors in the replevy bond were bound to return the property replevied to abide the decision in the cause, or to pay the value of such property. Whatever injury or loss may occur to property thus replevied must be borne by the obligors.

December 15, 1886.

Affirmed.
583 A.2d 322

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. J.J.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO LINEAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-21; 1:05-cv-97) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Linear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Linear seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Linear has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane l unani m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). K A D / R es ear ch 07- 71110 NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS F O RT H E N IN T H C IR C U IT B UD HY W AL UY O, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E RJ r., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71110 A ge nc y N o. A 095- 634- 674 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ardo f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efore: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcuitJu d g es. B udhy W a l uyo, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s (“ IJ ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n fo r a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, 

# FI L ED NOV 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALSK A D / R es ear ch 07- 71110 2 and pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tTortur e ( “CA T”) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on pu r suantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f or s ub st ant i alevi dence, H usye v v . Mukasey , 5 2 8 F .3 d1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dw e d e n y th e p e ti ti o n . Subst ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on because W aluy o’s i ni t i aldecl ar at i on om i tt ed the thre at s, att ac k, and i nj ury thatl ed to h is f li g h t f r o m I n d o n e s ia , s e e Alv a r ez - Sa n to s v . I NS , 3 3 2 F .3 d1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 4 (9 th C i r . 2003) ( pe t i t i one r ’ s om i s s i on of a“dr am a t i c pi vot a l e ve nt ” f r om hi s a s yl um appl i c a t i on s upport e d a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on) , and be c aus e W a l uyo te s ti f ie din c o n s is te n tl y ab o u t h is in ju ry du r in g th is in c id e n t, s e e L i v . A s h c r o ft , 378 F . 3 d9 5 9 , 9 6 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). In the ab sen ce o f cr ed i b l e t est i m o n y , W al u y o ’s a s y lu m an dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il . Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 348 F. 3d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . B e c aus e W a l uyo’ s C A T cl a i m i s ba s e d on the t e s t i m ony the I Jf ound not c r e di bl e , and W a l uyo poi nt s t o no othe re vi de nc e t o s how i ti s m or e l i ke l y than not h e w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif

r e tu rn e dto I n d o n e s ia , h is C A T c la im f a il s . Se e id . a t1156- 57. P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.
583 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TERRENCE BYRD.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Allvin Welcome Ceremony, Spouse Business Benefit, Childcare Subletting ExpandPublished Nov. 24, 2023
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Milton Hamilton
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, the new Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. David W. Allvin is welcomed by the force, a new benefit aids spouse-owned small businesses, and a new app helps military families find short-term childcare. (Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Vernon Young)



02:00


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV 



CSAF 



AFRC 



spouse 



readiness 



child care 



innovation 



Air Force Services Center Related Links
        Allvin formally welcomed as 23rd Air Force Chief of Staff
            
            Department of the Air Force reimburses spouse-owned small business costs accrued during PCS, PCA
            
            DAF expanding childcare subletting app to all child development centers
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1392 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to require, as a condition of receiving a homeland 

security grant, that a grant recipient submit reports on each expenditure 

made using grant funds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Mr. WEINER (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to require, as a 

condition of receiving a homeland security grant, that 

a grant recipient submit reports on each expenditure 

made using grant funds. 

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 ‘‘Homeland Security 

5 Transparency Act of 2007’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1392 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE REPORTS AS A CONDITION OF 

2 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle H of title VIII of the 

4 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 890A. EXPENDITURE REPORTS AS A CONDITION OF 

7 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) QUARTERLY REPORTS REQUIRED AS A CONDI9 TION OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) EXPENDITURE REPORTS REQUIRED.—As a 

11 condition of receiving a grant administered by the 

12 Secretary, the Secretary shall require the grant re13 cipient to submit quarterly reports to the Secretary 

14 describing the nature and amount of each expendi15 ture made by the recipient using grant funds. 

16 ‘‘(2) DEADLINE FOR REPORTS.—Each report 

17 required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted not 

18 later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quar19 ter and shall cover expenditures made during that 

20 fiscal quarter. 

21 ‘‘(b) PUBLICATION OF EXPENDITURES.—Not later 

22 than one week after receiving a report under subsection 

23 (a), the Secretary shall publish and make publicly avail24 able on the Internet website of the Department a descrip25 tion of the nature and amount of each expenditure covered 

26 by the report.’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1392 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

2 in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the 

3 end of the items relating to such subtitle the following: 

‘‘Sec. 890A. Expenditure reports as a condition of homeland security grants.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Joe OLIVER, et al. v. MAGNOLIA CLINIC, et al.

No. 2010-C-2782.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

ORDER

Vacated and remanded. La. Const. Art. V, § 8(B) provides that a “majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment.” The court of appeal’s decree does not reflect a majority judgment on the principal issues considered in the instant case.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, the ruling of the court of appeal is vacated. It is further ordered that this matter be considered *en banc*so that a decree can be rendered reflecting a majority vote on each of the issues presented.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          EXTENSION OF REMARKS

  By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Mrs. Schroeder) and to 
include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Serrano in three instances.
  Mrs. Schroeder.
  Mr. Stark.
  Mr. Lantos.
  Mr. Owens.
  Ms. Kaptur.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Goss) and to include 
extraneous material:)
  Mr. Talent.
  Mr. Martini.
  Mr. Portman.
  Mr. Shays.
  Mr. Shuster.
  Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE ex rel. Robbie DANIEL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2679.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 10, 2010.

In re Daniel, Robbie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 71-123; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1639.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.

CLARK, J., would deny.
News United States Air Force
 New chief of Air Force Safety takes commandPublished Aug. 5, 2015
                        
                        
                        Air Force Safety Center Public Affairs
                **KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) --**
                Maj. Gen. Andrew M. Mueller assumed the duties of Air Force chief of safety, Headquarters Air Force, in Washington, D.C., July 24. In that capacity, he also serves as the commander of the Air Force Safety Center at Kirtland Air Force Base.
As the chief of safety, Mueller oversees the development, execution and evaluation of Air Force aviation, ground, weapons, space and system mishap prevention and nuclear surety programs.
The general previously served as the commander of the NATO E-3A Component at Geilenkirchen, Germany, the only operational flying organization within the NATO force structure. He is a master air battle manager with more than 4,000 hours flying on the E-3 Sentry (AWACS).
His career includes a variety of operational and staff positions, including commander of the 964th Airborne Air Control Squadron at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; commander of the 505th Training Group at Hurlburt Field, Florida; and commander of the 81st Training Wing at Keesler AFB, Mississippi. While on the staff of U.S. Pacific Command at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, Mueller was responsible for the integration of command and control systems, missile defense and space operations. He also served as the deputy commander of the Combined Air Operations Center 6, Allied Air Forces Southern Europe, NATO in Eskisehir, Turkey.
"Safety is integral to every task necessary for the Air Force to fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace," Mueller said. "Not only does safety touch every task -- from maintaining and operating aircraft and vehicles to taking care of ourselves and our fellow Airmen -- safety is key to the combat readiness of our Air Force. Safety enables our Air Force to succeed in every mission, and I'm pleased to be part of this team that drives the 24/7 safety mindset." 
Mueller succeeds Maj. Gen. Kurt Neubauer, who retires in September.Kirtland AFB 



safety
News United States Air Force
 20th CES wins conservation awardPublished Feb. 5, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Diana M. Cossaboom
                        
                        
                        20th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (AFNS) --**
                The 20th Civil Engineer Squadron installation management flight at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina,  was awarded the General Thomas D. White Natural Resources Conservation Award in the large base installation category.
The Air Force-level award recognizes the team’s dedication and excellence in the conservation of natural resources.
"It's a great honor to win this prestigious award and receive recognition by the Air Force," said Nicholas Muszynski, the 20th CES chief of environmental programs. "This award underscores the important work done by our professional and dedicated natural resources staff."
The Natural Resources Conservation Award is given out every other year and encompasses a two year time period.  The purpose of the award is to promote excellence in every aspect of the Air Force environmental programs.
One of the main focuses of the 20th CES’s natural resources team is the conservation of the Red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species. The team helped increase the Red-cockaded woodpecker population on Poinsett Electronic Combat Range by 800 percent.
"(The award) highlights the importance of our efforts to protect and enhance the environment; but most importantly, how we support the mission of Shaw AFB," Muszynski said. "I am extremely proud of our natural resource staff in their achievement and accomplishments." 
Shaw's natural resources team was the first to create a Regional Wildland Fire Team in the Air Force which has been used to provide prescribed burns throughout Poinsett.  The prescribed burns reduced wildfires on the range by 95 percent minimizing negative impacts on Shaw's flying mission while enhancing the timber and wildlife habitat.
Prescribed burning and the conservation of the Red-cockaded woodpecker are just some programs the natural resources team has.
The team received the natural resources award twice, in 1995 and again in 2006, and was also awarded the Natural Resources Team Award in 2001.
"We put forth a team effort with a lot of passion and we believe in what we do, and we work hard to make it better," said Ronald June, the 20th CES chief of natural and cultural resources.
The award is named after General White, the fourth chief of staff of the Air Force, who provided leadership in the establishment of Air Force environmental programs.conservation 



ACC 



Shaw AFB 



20th CES 



natural resources 



General Thomas D. White Natural Resources Conservation Award
*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 11, 2005*

Decided August 11, 2005

Before

 Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

 Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEVIN T. ROMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Western Division

No. 02 CR 50052

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

O R D E R

Kevin Romez was arrested while carrying a gun and transporting over three

kilograms of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. He was indicted for possession with

intent to distribute the marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), carrying a firearm in

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 04-1264 Page 2

relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession of a

firearm by a felon, id. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to all three counts after entering

into a written plea agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his

convictions or sentences in return for concessions by the government.

Appealing nonetheless, Romez maintains that the sentencing court erred by

applying the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, see United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and contends that a limited remand under United States v.

Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), is necessary. For its part the government

asserts that this appeal should be dismissed without reaching the Booker issue, and

we agree. Romez’s plea agreement included no “escape hatch” to permit him an

appeal should the guidelines be invalidated, and the law implies none, Booker

notwithstanding. See United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 636–37 (7th Cir. 2005);

see also United States v. Lockwood, No. 04-2511, 2005 WL 1743745, at *4 (7th Cir.

July 26, 2005); United States v. Roche, No. 04-1475, 2005 WL 1618816, at *2 (7th

Cir. July 11, 2005); United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            THE ANSWER IS NO

  (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on June 4, 1992, on ``Larry King Live,'' 
then-candidate Bill Clinton said, ``I will present a 5-year plan to 
balance the budget.''
  About 3 weeks ago, President Clinton said that he would balance the 
budget within 10 years. What do we have today? We have got nothing. It 
is 3 years later from the original promise and the American people are 
still waiting to hear from this President on a balanced budget.
  Two nights ago on ``Larry King Live,'' the President once again 
artfully dodged Larry King's question about the lack of any attempt by 
the administration to balance this budget.
  We have got to balance the budget in this country. We have a huge 
problem in this country that is accumulating at a rate of $33 million 
an hour.
  What does our President do? He goes out and vetoes the first serious 
attempt in a long time to cut spending.
  Does he have an alternative? The answer is no.
  Can he balance the budget in 5 years? The answer is no.
  Can he balance the budget in 10 years? The answer is no.
  Is he even going to try? The answer is no.
  Mr. Speaker, it is up to us, the Republicans in the U.S. Congress, to 
balance this budget.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          ODYSSEY OF THE MIND

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the educators 
and parent leaders whose teams won the Utah State Odyssey of the Mind 
competition. The Odyssey of the Mind Association gives teams of 
students at each educational level an opportunity to develop creative 
problem-solving skills. These student teams compete in local areas, 
nationally and internationally. There is also an annual world 
championship competition. I am proud of these young people who are 
successful problem solvers, team workers, and creative thinkers.
  I congratulate Mary Ellen Rasmussen, Robin Money, Rhonda Nilson, 
Karen Sanderson, Charlotte Summers, Diana and Roger DeFriez, Terry and 
Debbie Preece, Karen Bodily, Lynn Ottesen, Spencer Jones, and their 
students for their success in the Utah Odyssey of the Mind competition. 
I am proud of their efforts to represent their State and country in the 
1995 world championship at the University of Tennessee--Knoxville. The 
dedication given to such programs by these parents and teachers is 
representative of their love for our children and their investment in 
the future of our country.

                          ____________________
```