alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Payne *v.*Munger.

Attorney and Client — Champerty.

It is insisted that the contract for retainer was champertous and void. The record contains no allegation to that effect, and there is no attempt to prove such illegality. And the court will not presume champerty, nor infer it without strong proof.

APPEAL FROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 19, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Duvall:

The appellant’s motion for a judgment against the appellee for money collected by him as his attomey-at-law seems to have been properly dismissed'. For a valuable consideration the appellant authorized the appellee to collect and retain for his own use the amount which he did collect and retain. This the appellant’s counsel in this court does not controvert. But he insists that the contract for retainer was champertous and void. The record con*389tains no allegation of or attempt to prove any such, illegality. And this court will not presume champerty nor infer it without strong proof. The proportion between the amount collected and that retained is the only fact which squints at champerty; but this, *per se,*does not even tend to prove it, and especially as the appellee’s services in obtaining and enforcing the judgment in the appellant’s favor, a portion of the amount of which the appellee retained, was not the only consideration of their contract.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2043 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2043

  To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the 
                  ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2004

  Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Santorum) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the 
                  ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 228 Walnut 
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 
``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ronald 
Reagan Federal Building.
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth *v.*Jacob Cork.

Indictment — Presentment — Filing.

An indictment presented to the court in the presence of the grand jury, ■with an order to that effect, is a substantial compliance with section 120 of Criminal Code.

APPEAL FROM BREOKENRIDGE CIRCUIT OOURT.

December 5, 1866.

Opinion of the Court bt

Judge Peters :

The appellee was indicted in the court below for a penal ofíense, and on the trial his attorney moved to dismiss the prosecution, because the record did not show that the indictment was presented in court in the manner prescribed by *section*120, *Criminal*Code, which motion was sustained, and the Commonwealth appealed.

Said section reads as follows: “ The indictment must be presented by the foreman, in the presence of the grand jury to the ■court, and filed with the clerk, and remain in his office as a public record.”

The record shows that the indictment was indorsed a *“ true Ibill"*signed " *John Dehaven, Foreman ”*returned into court by the grand jury and filed October 11, 1865.

If the order noting the presentment of the indictment into •court had stated that it was presented by the foreman, in the presence of the grand jury, that would have been a *literal*compliance with the requirements of said *section.*

*40Is not tbe order, as made, a substantial compliance therewith ? We think it was.

The indictment was presented to the court in the presence of the grand jury, because the order states the grand jury returned or presented it, which necessarily includes every member thereof, and as we must know that some one of that body took it into the presence of the court and handed it to the clerk, and as the law required the foreman to do it, we must assume, in the absence of pleadings or proof of the contracy, that he did his duty and presented the indictment to the court.

Besides it might be sufficient, even if it appeared that it had been presented by any other member of the grand jury than the foreman appointed by the judge, who might be regarded the *foreman pro hae vice. ■*But it is not necessary to decide that question now, as it is not before us.

But from all the facts, as they appear on this record, it would be illogical and contrary to the spirit of the *Criminal Code*to assume that the indictment was not presented by the foreman of the grand jury and filed by the clerk.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the defendant’s motion to dismiss the *“*prosecution ” and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, December 6, 2010, 8 a.m. to 
December 6, 2010, 5 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference 
Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in 
the Federal Register on October 15, 2010, 75FR63494.
    This notice is amending the start and end times of the meeting from 
8 a.m.-5 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 22, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27328 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Joseph Gray *v.*D. B. Roberts et al.

New Trial — Conflicting Evidence.

Where the evidence is conflicting, the court will not set aside the verdict of the jury and award a new trial.

APPEAL EROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT

October 6, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

We think the two instructions which the Circuit Court seems to have given the jury at the request of both parties are at least as favorable to the appellant as he had a right to ask, and if the court erred in giving either of them it was to the prejudice of the appellee rather than the appellant; nor do we think the court committed any error in' overruling the motion of the appellant for a new trial. On some questions of fact in issues the evidence was conflicting, but on the whole it authorized the jury to find as they did, and, we think, the court rightly refused to grant appellant a new trial.

Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
#### John P. Twyford and Hull & Coburn *v.*Thos. Hazelrigg’s Admr.

Decretal Sale of Land — Title Passed.

No title passes to the purchaser of land, at a decretal sale, where the-legal title holders are not parties to the suit.

APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT.

October 3, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams :

Twyford, Hull, and Jones having purchased the land from Co-burn and received a deed for it after Apperson had sold and conveyed it to Coburn were essential parties to the suit of Hazelrigg, assignee of Apperson, to enforce the lien on Coburn’s notes executed to Apperson.

When Hazelrigg brought his suit two of the notes given by Coburn were not due though they were included in the suit, yet an amendment after each fell due was essential to a recovery of judgment thereon, which was not done.

As Twyford, Hull and Jones were' not parties to Hazelrigg’s suit, and as they held the legal title, no title passed to the purchaser under the decretal sale; therefore, it should be set aside. Jones having died, his heirs and representatives are essential parties. The judgment is reversed, with directions to permit the parties to amend their pleadings so as to bring all parties before the court and for further and full preparation, also to set aside the decretal sale of the land, and to peimit Coburn to enforce his liens on the land as against Twyford, Hull, and Jones, heirs, by-proper pleadings.
Exhibit 32

                     CERTIFICATIONS UNDER 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

The undersigned  certify,  pursuant to 18U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the preceding Annual Report on
Form 10-K fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained  therein fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Pacific Financial Corporation.



/s/ Dennis A. Long                                    /s/ John Van Dijk
------------------------                              --------------------------
Dennis A. Long                                        John Van Dijk
President and                                         Secretary/Treasurer
Chief Executive Officer                               Chief Financial Officer
March 19, 2004                                        March 19, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DEMAS W AI YAN, Esquire,

Debtor.

______________________________

CRYSTAL LEI,

Appellant,

v.

DEMAS WAI YAN, Esquire; CHEUK TIN

YAN,

Appellees. No. 15

- 60019

BAP No. 14

- 1266

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Jury, Taylor , and Pappas , Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017 **

Before: CANBY

, TROTT, and GRABER , Circuit Judges.

Crystal Lei appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 60019

Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Lei’s motion to

sanction chapter 7 debtor Demas Wai Yan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We rev iew de novo BAP decisions, and appl y the same standard of

review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New

Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian) , 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by denying Lei ’s request for attorney’s fees

incurred while defending against Yan’s state court actions asserting pre

- petition

claims because Lei lacks standing to challenge violations of the automatic stay

.

S ee Tilley v. Vucurevich (In re Pecan Groves of Ariz.) , 951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir.

1991) ( the debtor and trustee are the only legal beneficiaries of the automatic stay );

cf. Magnoni v. Globe Inv. & Loan Co. (In re Globe Inv. & Loan Co.) , 867 F.2d

556, 56 0 (9th Cir. 1989) ( recognizing th at parties with interests adverse to the

bankruptcy estate do not have standing to enforce the automatic stay ).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion b y declining to exercise its

inherent authority to sanction Yan based on his misconduct before another court.

See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991) ( setting forth standard of

review)

.

The BAP properly concluded that bankruptcy courts lack authority to award

sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because bankruptcy courts are not “court[s] of

the United States” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. See Perroton v. Gray (In re3 15

- 60019

Perroton) , 958 F.2d 889, 89 5

- 9 6 (9th Cir. 1992)

.

Lei’s request seeking relief from th is court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , set forth

in her opening brief, is denied.

Lei’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is also denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ESSAU LONZO JENKINS.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### ANGIE SITES v. JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy

National Space Council 

Users’ Advisory Group

Feb. 23, 2023
SCIENCE

NATIONAL 

POSTURE

INSPIRATION

Investigations in deep 

space, on the Moon, and 

on Mars will enhance our 

understanding of the 

solar system, the Earth, 

the human body, and 

how to perform new 

operations while we are 

out there exploring.

Benefits to

Humanity

What we choose to do, 

how we do those things, 

and who we do them with 

greatly impacts our place 

in the world today, our 

quality of life, and our 

possibilities for the future.

Accepting audacious 

challenges and succeeding 

through perseverance and 

tenacity in the face of 

adversity motivates current 

and future generations to 

dare mighty things.

Global Influence

Norms

Exploration

International 

Relationships 

STEM

Careers

Preserve Humanity

Cultural Enrichment

Advance S&T 

Priorities

Climate

Human 

Research

Heliophysics

Planetary

Biological 

Astrophysics

Physical 

Leadership

Economy

Human Condition

Commercial Low Earth Orbit 

Space Stations Picture credit: Pixabay

Dragon and Cygnus at the station

Private Astronaut Missions

Picture credit: Axiom
Wildfire Observations

First EMIT Data

SWOT TEMPO

Science

Infrastructure

Transportation & Habitation

Operations

Create a blueprint 

for sustained 

human presence 

and exploration 

throughout the 

solar system
We Go Together
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gary Alvin LARSEN, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-30404.

D.C. No. CR-02-00142-JLQ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

Thomas O. Rice, Esq., USSP-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, James A. McDevitt, Esq., AUSA-Attorney’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carlos Valero, Esq., Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The government appeals Gary Alvin Larsen’s 120-month sentence, imposed after his guilty plea convictions to use of fire to commit a federal felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h), and subornation of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b). We review de novo, *United States v. Beardslee,*197 F.3d 378, 386 (9th Cir.1999), and we reverse and remand.

The government contends that the district court erred in imposing Larsen’s sentences concurrently rather than consecutively as mandated by § 844(h). We agree.

The plain language of the statute requires a sentencing court to impose a sentence for a violation of § 844(h) consecutively with any other term of imprisonment. *See id.*at 387. *Cf. United States v. Gonzales,*520 U.S. 1, 9-10, 117 S.Ct. 1032, 137 L.Ed.2d 132 (1997) (rejecting limited reading of the same language in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and requiring consecutive sentences).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Wilcox *v.*The State.—In error.

*Saturday, July*19.

AN indictment for gaming alleged that the defendant, by playing at cards, &c., had won from *A. H., A. C.,*and *G. H.,*a certain article, &c. The evidence was, that the winning was by the defendant and another, as partners, from *A. C.*and *G. H.,*as partners. *Held,*that the variance was fatal.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1069 

CA 14-02113 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

JOANN ABBO-BRADLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT 

AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF DYLAN J. BRADLEY, 

TREVOR A. BRADLEY AND CHASE Q. BRADLEY, INFANTS, 

ZACHARY HERR AND MELANIE HERR, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF COLETON HERR 

AND HEATHER HERR, INFANTS, AND NATHAN E. KORSON AND 

ELENA KORSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND 

NATURAL GUARDIANS OF LOGAN J. KORSON, AN INFANT, 

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 

AND CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES, 

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

 

PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI LLP, NEW YORK CITY (STEPHEN J. PHILLIPS OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. 

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (JEFFREY C. STRAVINO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County

(Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered August 15, 2014. The order

granted the motion of defendant Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, to

dismiss the second amended complaint against it and dismissed the

second amended complaint against that defendant. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is 

unanimously modified on the law by denying that part of the motion of

defendant Conestoga-Rovers & Associates seeking to dismiss the second

amended complaint against it and reinstating the second amended

complaint against that defendant except insofar as the third and

fourth causes of action assert claims by each plaintiff as parent and

natural guardian of an infant child or children, and as modified the

order is affirmed without costs. 

Same memorandum as in Abbo-Bradley v City of Niagara Falls

([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Oct. 2, 2015]).

Entered: October 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 16.

#### Harvey Shannon, plaintiff in error, vs. Roosevelt Hyde and Clark, defendants in error.

[l.] Appearance of the defendant in *ca. sa.*at any time in the term, before the Juries have been discharged, is a performance of the condition of a *ca. sa.*bond.

*Ca. sa.*in Sumter Superior Court. . Decision by Judge Perkins, August Term, 1854.

Wm. E. Stevens being arrested under a *ca. sa.*gave bond, with security, for his appearance at the next term of the Court. When the case.was called, Stevens failing to appear, judgment was entered upon the bond against him and Harvey Shannon, his surety. Three.days before the close of the term,-Shannon, the surety, produced the body of Stevens, and moved to set aside the judgment and have an “ *exoneretur”*entered in' dis*89charge of the surety. The Court refused the motion, and this decision is assigned as error;

There being no appearance for the defendant in error, the cause proceeded *ex partem*■

Hawkins, representing Brown, for plaintiff.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

In cases of this sort, the Statute requires the condition of. the bond to be for the appearance of the defendant in *ea. sa.*at the term of the proper Court,, to be held next after the arrest, “'then and there to stand to and abide by such proceedings as may be had by the Court, in relation to his, her or their taking the bénefit of” the Statute.

The bond, in this case, is in substantial compliance with this requisition.

The condition of the bond having to be for the appearance of the defendant, to abide by such “ proceedings” as may be had by the Court, it is not performed unless the defendant appears time enough in the term to admit of “the proceedings”' by which he is to abide, to be had.

And of these proceedings it may happen that an issue for a Jury, on a suggestion of fraud by the plaintiff in *ca. sa.*may make a part.

The condition of the bond, therefore, is not performed unless the defendant appears time enough in the. term to admit of such an issue being formed, and if not continued, being tried, by a Jury. That is to say, the condition is hot performed, unless the defendant appears before the Juries shall have been discharged. *(Cobb’s Dig.*386.)

[1.] But on the other hand, if the appearance is at any time* before the Juries are discharged, the condition is performed. And appearance, at such a time, makes every object,of the Statute capable of being accomplished. As long as the Court has *90its Juries, it has what will enable it to transact all “the proceedings” of which the case is susceptible. • •

In this case, the surety having produced the body of his principal, the defendant in *ca. sa.*three days before the close of the term, produced him, it is to be presumed, before the Juries had been discharged. He therefore produced him in Reason.

The Court, therefore, should have granted the surety’s motion, to have the judgment set aside and himself exonerated from the bond.

It is not meant to be said, that if the case is not called until after the Juries shall have been discharged, an appearance a,t the time when it is called, will not be sufficient.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27885]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended 
by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments 
on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, 
for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to 
be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be postmarked on or before November 24, 2010. Address 
written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be 
examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce in Room 3720.
    Docket Number: 10-046. Applicant: University of Connecticut, 
Purchasing Department, 3 North Hillside Road, Unit 6076, Storrs, CT 
06269-6076. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 
Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used for many 
experiments, such as studying the mechanism of the growth of nano 
particles of TiO2 from solution for dye-sensitized solar cell. The 
instrument has unique features that allow operation in ESEM and in-situ 
modes. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of 
the same general category manufactured in the United States. 
Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: September 22, 2010.
    Docket Number: 10-060. Applicant: The University of Texas at 
Arlington, 7300 Jack Newell Blvd. S., Fort Worth, TX 76118. Instrument: 
Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. 
Intended Use: The instrument will be used for automated manipulation of 
nanoscale components and their assembly/integration into a micro/meso 
scale device. The instrument is the only instrument that can provide 
ultra-high resolution images in both high and low vacuum pressure 
ranges. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of 
the same general category manufactured in the United States. 
Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 5, 2010.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Gregory Campbell,
Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-27885 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P