alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gray et al. *v.*Morton et al.

Evidence — Preponderance of — New Trial — Reversal.

A mere preponderance of evidence on the side of the appellant cannot be available in this court for reversal when the court below had refused a new trial on that ground.

APPEAR PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters :

By the former judgment the controversy as to all the defendants except Darlington, Oraycroft, and Morton was adjudicated and finally settled, which was approved by this court. The court below, therefore, properly refused permission to appellants to file their amended petition by which they sought to relitigate rights which had been thus judicially settled.

After having fully considered the instructions, we have failed to find any substantial error in refusing the third and sixth as asked by appellants, and in granting those asked by appellees.

Nor are we authorized by the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions to interpose and set aside the verdict of the jury; a mere preponderance of evidence (even if we were of that opinion) on the side of appellants cannot be available in this court for reversal, where the court below had refused a new trial on that ground.

. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Unscramble the words or phrases that are connected to aeronautics. Copy the letters of the 

unscrambled words/phrases that are in the numbered cells to the cells at the bottom with the 

same number to reveal a message.

NAPLES 1 19

FEASTY 7

ETQUEIR 11 8 18

LRWOE NOSESISMI 10 14 3

STRAFE 4

ROME CITENFIFE 17 15 13 5 16

HONEYTCLOG 20 6 9

TARSAECOUNI 2

SAAN 12

V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Scrambled Words
#### Anthony Bonanno et al., Respondents, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 325]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble E Payne, J.), entered September 16, 2003, entitling plaintiffs to recover damages upon a jury verdict, inter alia, awarding plaintiff Anthony Bonanno $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, and plaintiff Maria Bonanno $20,000 for loss of consortium, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the award of damages for future pain and suffering, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new trial solely as to damages for future pain and suffering unless plaintiffs, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, stipulate to reduce the award for future pain and suffering to $250,000 and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith.

While the evidence adduced at the damages-only trial ordered by this Court (298 AD2d 269 [2002]), fairly considered, supports the jury’s awards for past pain and suffering and loss of consortium, and those awards do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]), the same is not true of the jury’s award for future pain and suf*378fering. That award, when viewed alongside awards allowed in cases involving plaintiffs with comparable knee injuries and bleaker prognoses *(see Donlon v City of New York,*284 AD2d 13, 16 [2001]; *see e.g. Barlatier v Rollins Leasing Corp.,*292 AD2d 480 [2002]; *Castellano v City of New York,*183 AD2d 800 [1992], *lv denied and dismissed*80 NY2d 1021 [1992]), is excessive within the meaning of CPLR 5501 (c) and we accordingly direct a new trial as to that component of damages, unless plaintiff stipulates to accept a reduced award in the amount indicated.

Defendant’s contentions that certain rulings by the court deprived it of a fair trial are without merit. As a matter of preparedness for retrial, defendant was responsible for anticipating that plaintiffs would again raise an issue that was raised and litigated during the 2001 trial. The Workers’ Compensation Board documents that the trial court declined to receive in evidence were hearsay, unsigned by the witness *(cf. Robbins v New York City Tr. Auth.,*105 AD2d 616, 617 [1984]), and were not shown to be admissible under a hearsay exception *(see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases],*188 AD2d 214, 225 [1993], *affd*82 NY2d 821 [1993]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
### FILED IN COURTOFAPPEALS J 1ctb Court ofAppeal's District CATHY S. LUi>K, C OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 8/26/2015 

### RUSHING, CALVIN LOUISE Tr. Ct. No. 2012-0431 

## Pursuantto Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the court ofappeals. Abel Acosta, Clerk FILE COPY COA No. 12-14-00112-CR PD-0430-15 12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 

### 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 

### TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2107 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 483
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2107

 To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health 
                    courts through fiscal year 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2004

  Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mr. Leahy,  Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Durbin) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             April 29, 2004

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health 
                    courts through fiscal year 2009.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 1001(a)(20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(20)) is amended by striking 
``fiscal years 2001 through 2004'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2004 
through 2009''.

                                                       Calendar No. 483

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2107

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health 
                    courts through fiscal year 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 29, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
No. 15,116.

#### Deitz *v.*The State.

Ceiminal *Law.*— Indictment.—Transcript.—Grand Jury.— *Variance in Name of Foreman of.*— Presumptions.—Where the *name*of Thomas Bellows appears on the indictment as the foreman of the grand jury returning the same, while the transcript recites that George Bellows acted as such foreman, it must be presumed that he whose name appears on the indictment, was the duly appointed foreman, and that the recital to the contrary in the transcript is a mistake of the clerk. It must be also presumed that the judge whose duty it was to inspect the indictment, knew who the foreman of the grand jury was at the time the indictment was returned.

*Same.*— Mode *of Constituting Grand Jury.*— Defect *in Indictment as to.*— Must *be Baised by*Plea.— *When Plea must be Filed.*— A defect in an indictment which relates to the mode of constituting the grand jury, and which does not appear upon the record, ean only be raised by plea, and that plea must be filed before entering a plea of not guilty.

From the Clark Circuit Court.

*F. B. Burke,*for appellant.

*L. T. Michener,*Attorney General, *G. H.*Voight, Prosecuting Attorney, and *J. H. Gillett,*for the State.

Mitchell, C. J.

The appellant was convicted upon an indictment in which he was charged with having unlawfully given away intoxicating liquor, to a person named, to be drank as a beverage on Sunday.

The point is made that the judgment is a nullity, because it appears from the record that George Bellows was appointed foreman of the grand jury at the term of the Clark Circuit Court at which the indictment was returned, while the indictment upon which the appellant was tried is endorsed by Thomas Bellows as foreman. Section 1670, R. S. 1881, provides that “As soon as the grand jury has returned an indictment into court, the judge must examine it; and if the foreman have neglected to indorse it 'A true bill/ with his *86name signed thereto, * * the court must cause the foreman to indorse it * * in the presence of the jury.”

Filed April 2, 1890.

We must presume that Thomas Bellows, whose name appears on the indictment, was the duly appointed foreman, and that the recital in the transcript that George Bellows was appointed foreman was a mistake of the clerk.

We must presume that the judge whose duty it was to inspect the indictment knew who the foreman of the grand jury was at the time the indictment was returned. *Buell*v. *State,*72 Ind. 523; *Brooster*v. *State,*15 Ind. 190; *Mountjoy*v. *State,*78 Ind. 172.

Moreover, the question could not properly be raised by a motion for a new trial. A defect in an indictment which relates to the mode of constituting the grand jury, and which does not appear upon the record, can only be raised by plea, and that must be filed before entering a plea of not guilty. Cooper v. *State,*120 Ind. 377.

There is no bill of exceptions purporting to contain the evidence, and accordingly what is said upon the propriety of the conviction in that regard can not be considered.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Telkonet Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,Jason L. Tienor,
Chief Executive Officer of Telkonet, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) 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.







/s/ Jason L.
      TienorJason
      L. Tienor

              Chief
      Executive Officer
              April
      1, 2009
#### Susan Dahlin, Respondent, v Sarah J. Paladino et al., Appellants.

[789 NYS2d 305]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated March 19, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew that branch of her prior motion which was for leave to amend her bill of particulars, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated November 24, 2003, and, upon renewal, granted that branch of the plaintiffs prior motion which was for leave to amend her bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew is denied, and so much of the order dated November 24, 2003, as denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend her bill of particulars is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew that branch of her prior motion which was for *648leave to amend her bill of particulars. The plaintiff failed to present “new facts” and a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; *see Gallagher v Daniella's Rest.,*6 AD3d 659 [2004]; *Morrison v Rosenberg,*278 AD2d 392 [2000]).

Moreover, upon renewal, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to amend her bill of particulars. On the eve of trial, the plaintiff served the defendants with a “supplemental” bill of particulars asserting for the first time a claim of lost earnings that had already accrued and future economic losses. In subsequently moving for leave to amend her bill of particulars to include these new claims, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her inordinate delay in seeking to add them, and failed to provide an affidavit establishing the merits of these claims *(see Hastie v Midway Nursing Home,*8 AD3d 532, 533 [2004]; *Fuentes v City of New York,*3 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]; *Rosse-Glickman v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.-Kings Highway Div.,*309 AD2d 846 [2003]; *Smith v Plaza Transp. Ambulance Serv.,*243 AD2d 555 [1997]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

            (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company
      for the quarterly period ended October 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

      Dated: April 28, 2005                     /s/ Clyde B. Anderson
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Clyde B. Anderson
                                                Executive Chairman of the Board

            The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany
the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of the general incorporation
language in such filing.

                                       31
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Mystery Picture Graphing Activity 3

On the graph found on the third page, plot and connect the points found in groups 1-7 to reveal a 

mystery picture. Once you have the picture, read through the information on the second page to 

determine which aircraft is pictured.

Points to be plotted: 

Group 1: Group 3: Group 5: Group 7:

(-12, 4) (10, -3) (-19, 8) (6, 2) 

(-4, 2) (2, -1) (-14, 5) (11, -1) 

(7, 6) (0, -4) (-12, 5) (13, -1) 

(5, 7) (-5, -7) (-7, 8) (18, 2) 

(5, 8) (-10, -8) (-7, 7) (18, 1) 

(8, 7) (-12, -7) (-12, 4) (13, -2) 

(10, 5) (-10, -3) (-7, 1) (18, -5) 

(10, 4) (-6, 1) (-7, 0) (18, -6) 

(8, 5) (-9, 2) (-12, 3) (13, -3) 

(4, 3) (-14, 3) (11, -3) 

(3, 0) (-19, 0) (6, -6) 

(11, -2) (-19, 1) (6, -5) 

(-14, 4) (7, -2) 

(-19, 7) (6, 1) 

(-19, 8) (6, 2) 

Group 2: Group 4: Group 6:

(-6, 1) (13, -3) (-13, 3) 

(-4, 0) (10, -5) (-16, 1) 

(-5, -5) (10, -4) (-16, 2) 

(-8, -6) 

(-11, -5) 
NASA’s Aeronautics Missions:

At any given time, NASA Aeronautics is working on different missions to help make flight safer, 

faster, quieter and more efficient. Some current projects include the following: 

Electrified Aircraft Propulsion: The X-57 (Figure 1) is 

one of the first airplanes fully powered by electricity, 

meaning that it produces no harmful emissions when it 

flies. NASA is working with industry partners to use the 

technology from the X-57 to produce larger, passengercarrying airplanes that are partially or fully powered by 

electricity. Figure 1. The X-57 is powered by electricity.

Low-boom Flight Demonstrator: For many years, 

planes have been able to fly faster than the speed of 

sound, or supersonically. Unfortunately, when 

planes fly this fast, they produce a very loud noise 

called a sonic boom. As a result, nonmilitary 

supersonic flight over land is not allowed currently. 

NASA’s X-59 (Figure 2) airplane is designed to fly 

supersonically without creating a sonic boom. 

NASA will be flying the plane over different 

communities across the U.S. in an attempt to 

demonstrate that supersonic flight is possible 

without creating harmful noise pollution. If successful, the hope if that supersonic flight over land 

will become a reality.

Figure 2. The X-59 is designed to fly supersonically without 

creating a sonic boom. 

Advanced Air Mobility: Soon flying taxis, 

package-carrying drones and other similar aircraft 

will be a common sight in the skies over towns. 

NASA is leading the way to develop a system for 

controlling these aircraft as they fly passengers 

and cargo over urban and rural areas. This system 

is known as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM). Figure 3. Flying taxis and other aircraft will be controlled 

through a system known as AAM. 

Answer:
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Robert MacLean, President, Secretary, Treasurer and director of Internetstudios.com, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Internetstudios.com, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 (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 Internetstudios.com, Inc.

Dated: May 19, 2005

/s/ Robert MacLean

Robert MacLean

President, Secretary, Treasurer and director

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer 

and Principal Accounting Officer)
Recommendation: 

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

New Telescope Assets 

2012-02-07 (SC-Ol) 

The Council recommends that NASA should study possible scientific uses of the 

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)- donated telescope assets, to see whether it can 

capitalize on this opportunity or not, exploring possible applications to high priority 

science identified in the various Decadal surveys in consultation with the broad scientific 

community. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The donation appears to involve very high quality telescope assets with excellent 

capabilities, better than the best NASA ultraviolet/near-infrared telescopes operating in 

space today (e.g., the Hubble Space Telescope). The telescope assets could leverage the 

limited budget available for NASA science in the coming decade, for a much greater 

scientific reach than would otherwise be possible. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

In order to decide how best to respond to the transfer of telescope assets, NASA needs to 

understand - much better than it currently does - the possible scientific uses of these 

assets, considering possibilities across the Science Mission Directorate disciplines. 

Without more study, NASA's decision will be made in the absence of this crucial 

information. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs with the recommendation on assessing the potential scientific uses of the 

telescope assets. Plans for two Science Mission Directorate (SMD)-led studies related to 

these assets were discussed at a NASA Strategy Implementation Planning (SIP) meeting 

and those plans were approved. 

NASA will conduct a broad survey to assess potential uses of these assets across the 

science portfolio including Heliophysics, Planetary Science, and Astrophysics. Also 

included in the survey will be other NASA strategic priorities with Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and Space Technology as active partners, 

considering higher risk mission architectures and advanced technologies. 

SMD is also conducting a focused mission concept study to identify potential uses of 

these assets to meet Astrophysics scientific priorities and assess financial requirements. 

SMD released a "Dear Colleague" letter soliciting applications from interested 

individuals in the astrophysical community for the formation of a Science Definition 

Team (SDT) that will assess the possible scientific use of one set of the telescope assets 

for advancing the science priorities of the 2010 Astrophysics Decadal 

Enclosure 
Survey. Applications from interested individuals were received by the September 19, 

2012, deadline and are under review. 

Both studies will be completed by approximately April 2013 and will employ reasonable 

budget assumptions coordinated with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). 

These studies will inform an eveI1tual NASA decision on the future of the assets. 

1 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XIII,  Ltd. at September 30, 1998, and its statement of
income  for the nine  months  then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference  to the Form 10Q of CNL Income  Fund XIII,  Ltd.  for the nine  months
ended September 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         817,721
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  45,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                   25,192
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         25,974,098
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,008,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,992,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,078,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,992,294
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,352,137
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  559,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,974,977
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,974,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      1,974,977
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature of its  industry,  CNL Income  Fund  XIII,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>