alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. Miller *v.*Miller’s Admr., et al.

Iiregularities in Proceedings Waived.

All objections to the informality and irregularities were waived by the parties, as there were no exceptions taken to the proceedings.

APPEAL EROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

June 16, 1866.

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Peters :

The chief difficulty in the way of appellant consists in the manner of presenting his claim for relief. Pie was not a party to the original suit, and without any petition to be made a party, he filed a pleading, styled in the caption and answer, and without making M. E. Miller, administrator of M. Miller, deceased, or any one else defendant thereto, states the facts upon which his claim to the negro man, Nick, or the price for which he was sold, rests.

But the master was ordered to take proof of his claim to said slave, or the bond for his price, and the matters connected therewith, and report to the court the result of his investigations, which he did, and the record shows that the attorneys for the parties, without exceptions to the master’s report, or objections to the proceedings, submitted this branch of the case for judgment. We will, therefore, regard all objections, to the informality and irregularities in the proceedings, as waived by the parties, and proceed to consider the propriety of the judgment rendered by the court below.

*175It is conclusively shown by the evidence that the man Nick, after he had come to the bands of the administrator, was drafted, and put into the military service of the United States; tbat before be left the encampment an agreement was made by the administrator and appellant tbat if be could put William, a negro man then the property of said appellant, into the service as a substitute for Nick, tbat be should have Nick. William was substituted for Nick, and the certificate of the board of enrollment, of the fact, is filed as a part of the evidence, and M. E. Miller then executed to appellant a bill of sale for Nick, and delivered him into bis possession.

When Nick was drafted, all tbat M. E. Miller was entitled to, or could ever hope to get for him, was the bounty to be paid by the government of the United States, and the effect of the agreement with appellant is to entitle him to the same amount as bounty for William, who was substitute for him, or even if tbat were not the case, be bad the legal authority to sell Nick, and pass the title to bis vendee, making himself thereby responsible to the creditors and heirs of bis intestate for the value of the slave, in bis then condition, or the bounty when paid by the United States government. A sufficient consideration passed from appellant by putting bis slave into the army as a substitute for the slave of appellee to uphold the sale to him; and we see no rational or legal principle by which be should be deprived of the benefit of bis contract. As, therefore, the judgment of the court below is in conflict with this conclusion, it is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions tbat the price of Nick be paid over to appellant, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### Heaton *v.*Collins.—On appeal.

*Thursday, June 5.*

IN debt against *A.*and *B.,*the process was served on the former only, but both afterwards appeared to *the*suit. *A.*pleaded to the action; *B.*said nothing. The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered against *A.*alone. *Held,*that the judgment, being against only one of the defendants, was erroneous. *Tipton*v. *Barron,*5 Blackf. 154.
#### Early *v.*Foster and Another.

Thursday, *January*4, 1844.

An indorsement in blank by a third person of a promissory note, negotiable, &e., made at the date of the note, does not, of itself, render the indorser liable, as a maker, to the payee.

But as the indorsement may be made under such circumstances as to render him so liable, a note thus indorsed is admissible evidence in a suit by the payee against such indorser and the maker, as joint makers, as a link in the chain of the plaintiff’s evidence.

ERROR to the *La Porte*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— This was an action of assumpsit by *Parly*against *Foster*and *Wells.*The first count of the declaration sets out a negotiable promissory note made by *Foster*to the plaintiff, and indorsed at its date in blank by *Wells;*and lays a joint promise by *Foster*and *Wells*to pay the plaintiff “ the amount •of the note according to its tenor and effect. ” The second count is on a joint negotiable, promissory note made by *Foster*and *Wells*to the plaintiff. There are other counts in the declaration which need not be stated. The defendants demurred generally to the first count, and pleaded the general issue to the others. The Court sustained the demurrer, and on the trial of the issues of fact rendered a judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff offered in evidence, under the second count, a negotiable promissory note made by *Foster**36t0 P^bAiff? and indorsed by Wells, which corresponded in date, amount, and in the time and place of payment, with that described in the second count. Its admission being objecteci by the defendants, it was rejected.

*J. W.*Chapman, for the plaintiff.

*J. B.*Niles, for the defendants.

The demurrer to the first count was correctly sustained. That count contained no cause of action against Wells, whose mere unexplained indorsement -of the note, made at its date, did not render him primarily liable, as a joint maker, to the payee ; *Wells*v. Jackson, 6 Blackf. 40; and he is not shown to be responsible as an indorser, so as to render him jointly liable with the maker, under the statute.

But the Court erred in rejecting the note which the plaintiff offered in evidence under the second count. That count was founded on a joint promissory note made by *Foster*and *■Wells*to the plaintiff. Though the indorsement of the note by *Wells*did not, of itself, render him liable as a maker, yet he may have’ indorsed it under such circumstances as showed his intention to have been to assume a joint primary responsibility with *Foster.*The plaintiff had a right to show that such was the fact; and to enable him to do so, the note was a necessary link in the chain of his evidence. *Wells*v. *Jack*son, before cited.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
THEODORE C. FREEMAN (CAPTAIN, USAF)

NASA ASTRONAUT (DECEASED)

PERSONAL DATA: Born February 18, 1930, in Haverford, Pennsylvania. Died 

October 31, 1964, at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, Texas, in the crash of a 

T-38 jet. Survived by his wife Faith and one daughter. 

EDUCATION: Freeman completed his secondary education in 1948. He attended 

the University of Delaware at Newark for one year, then entered the United States 

Naval Academy and graduated in 1953 with a Bachelor of Science degree. In 1960, 

he received a Master of Science degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the 

University of Michigan.

ORGANIZATIONS: Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics, and the Society of Experimental Test Pilots.

EXPERIENCE: Freeman graduated from both the Air Force’s Experimental Test Pilot and Aerospace Research Pilot 

Courses. He elected to serve with the Air Force. His last Air Force assignment was as a flight test aeronautical engineer and 

experimental flight test instructor at the Aerospace Research Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California. He served

primarily in performance flight testing and stability testing areas.

He logged more than 3,300 hours flying time, including more than 2,400 hours in jet aircraft.

NASA EXPERIENCE: Freeman was one of the third group of astronauts selected by NASA in October 1963.

NOVEMBER 1964

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Biographical Data

 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

 Houston, Texas 77058
#### ALPHONSE DIGIACOMO v. MARIE DIGIACOMO.

May 30, 1978.

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

I, Derin Ford, Principal Financial Officer of English Language Learning and
Instruction System, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.  This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), 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.

Date:    March 28, 2005

/s/ Derin Ford
- ----------------------
Derin Ford
Principal Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ERSCELL JULIUS WORLDS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cr - 00141

- AWA

- LRL

- 1 )

Submitted : May 22, 2024 Decided: July 16, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Erscell Julius Worlds , Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Alexandria , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7535 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Erscell Julius Worlds appeals from the denial of his motion for compassionate release. On appeal, Worlds asserts that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that changes in sentencing law could not constitute an extraordinary and compelli ng reason for release. We agree and thus vacate and remand for further proceedings. After the district court’s ruling, we decided United States v. Davis , 99 F.4th 647, 656 (4th Cir. 2024) , which held that a change in sentencing law can constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release

. This case is very similar
to Davis . In both, the defendants were sentenced as career offender s but, thanks to a change in sentencing law, would not be considered career offender s if sentenced today

. In both, the defendants sought compassionate release on the basis of this sentencing disparity. And the district court in Davis , like the district court here, found that this request amounted to an improper collateral attack and that relief, in any, needed to be sought through 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Davis , 99 F.4th at 656. On appeal in Davis , we vacated the district court’s order and remand ed for further consideration

. Davis’s claim , we held, was not a n improper collateral attack , because Davis was not challenging the validity of his sentence . Instead, Davis was seeking compassionate release based on the sentencing disparity between his actual sentence and the sentence he would receive if resentenced today

. Id. at 657. Because such a disparity, based on a change in sentencing law, may be grounds for compassionate release, we ruled , the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider the argument. Id. at 658. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7535 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 Davis requires the same result here. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for consideration of whether the changes in sentencing law at issue constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release in Worlds’ case. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
pro cess. VACATED AND REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7535 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Make an Aeolipile (Hero Engine)

See thrust created by water. Suggested Grades: K-12

Activity Overview

In this activity, you will explore how thrust is produced 

by creating a Hero Engine. 

Note: You may need help from an adult to make holes 

in the soda can with a nail. 

Steps

1. Tie the string onto the tab of the soda can so 

that when in use, the can is able to rotate freely 

on the string. See Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Tie the string to the tab on the can

2. Using a nail, make two equally spaced holes in the side of the can near the base. Before 

removing, push the nail to the left in order to slant the hole in that direction. See Figure 

2. 

CAUTION: Exercise caution when using the nails. You may need an adult's help. 

Also, be careful when handling the soda can since the edges of the holes you created 

may be sharp.

Figure 2. Use the nail to make holes near the bottom of the can

Time: 30 minutes

Materials

• Empty soda can with tab still 

attached

• 18 inch–24inch length of string or 

fishing line

• Medium-sized nail

• Water

• Container to catch water coming 

from the can
3. Fill the can with water and hold it over the container.

4. Once full, lift the can using the string; count the rotations the can makes. See Figure 3. 

Record the number of rotations in the “2 Holes” column of the following table: 

2 Holes 3 Holes 4 Holes 5 Holes

Number of 

Rotations

5. Add a third hole to the can and repeat the experiment. Record the number of rotations 

made by the can in the appropriate column of the table from Step 4. 

Figure 3. The water coming out of the holes causes the can to move

6. Repeat Step 5 with four holes and then five holes. 

Background Information

What is an aeolipile? The aeolipile, or Hero engine, was invented by Hero of Alexandria in 1 

B.C. He used a water-filled copper sphere that, when heated, generated steam that could be used 

to create motion.

Why did the can rotate? As the water escaped from the soda can, it generated a force away from 

the can. As per Newton’s third law of motion, that also created an equal but opposite force that

pushed towards the can. Since the can was held in place by the string, it caused the resultant

rotational force to turn the can.
No. 14,984.

#### Miller *v.*Cook.

New Trial. — *Newly Discovered Evidence.*— Slander. —In an action for slander, a new trial should not be granted the defendant on the ground of newly-discovered evidence where the evidence alleged to have been discovered is of an act of unchastity committed long after the slanderous words were published.

Same. — Newly discovered evidence, to authorize a new trial, should be of such a character as to render it probable that a second trial would result differently from the first.

From the Pike Circuit Court.

*E. A. Ely,*for appellant.

*F. B. Posey, A. N. Taylor*and *E. P. Richardson,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

In the case between the same parties, growing out of the same transaction, we have given an outline of the controversy, and we need only add that the present appeal is prosecuted from a judgment denying a new trial asked upon a complaint filed after the close of the term at which the original judgment was rendered. The ground upon which a new trial is claimed is that the appellant, since the trial, has discovered evidence that the appellee had sexual intercourse with a man named Clark.

*239Filed June 5, 1890.

Waiving a decision of the question whether the appellant could prosecute a complaint for a new trial and an appeal at the same time, we affirm the judgment below for the reason that the trial court justly ruled that the facts stated do not show that the appellant was entitled to a new trial.

•The judgment of the trial court is right for these reasons:

1st. The act of sexual intercourse, which it is alleged that the appellant could prove, occurred long after the slanderous words were published.

2d. The evidence is not such as renders it probable that a second trial would result differently from the first.

The questions raised upon what counsel say is a complaint to review are disposed of by the judgment in the case first brought to this court.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         290,216
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,339,866
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,927,033
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     86,882,617
<ALLOWANCE>                                    750,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,918,506
<DEPOSITS>                                  81,857,788
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,200,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,537,574
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,353,332
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       989,122
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,980,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              98,918,506
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,070,809
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               65,131
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                63,730
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,199,670
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,021,590
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,077,605
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,122,065
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                708,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                593,137
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     593,137
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   370,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.65
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,227,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   299,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               589,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               739,916
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,040
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              750,876
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           750,876
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998

<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                                         19,810,498
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    40,819,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         12,746,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,683,375
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,645,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        20,132,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       87,016,587
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,645,843
<SALES>                                        23,515,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,666,143
<CGS>                                          6,259,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,390,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (8,184)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             685,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,582,161
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,547,494
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,034,667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.21
        



</TABLE>