alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. C. Willis, etc., *v.*A. Rainey’s Admr.

Partnership — Settlement Made While Both are Living Basis of Commissioner’s Report.

It is proper for the master commissioner to adopt the settlement made by the partners while both are living, as a basis of his report in settling the partnership account in a suit to settle the estate of a deceased partner.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

October 26, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

There should have been a reply to the answer and cross-petition of Samuel Willis. The statement of facts therein set up is not identical with that pleaded by H. C. Willis. Besides, while *715appellee may have been able to state truthfully that he had neither knowledge nor information sufficient to form a belief as to the matters relied on by H. C.' Willis, it is altogether probable that the testimony developed in the preparation of the case prior to the filing of the answer and cross-petition of Samuel may have compelled him to form some conclusion as to some of the facts set up in that pleading.

*Kyle & Poston, appellants.*

*Polk, Thompson, Jr., for appellees.*

From the testimony presented by the record, the commissioner properly adopted the settlement made not earlier that July 12, 1862, as the basis upon which to settle the partnership accounts involved in this litigation.

It seems that all proper credits for services rendered and expenses incurred by H. C. Willis were allowed him.

It was proper to refuse to charge appellee on the partnership with any part of the $583 paid to Nat Harris. This was the debt of the Willis brothers, and not of the partnership, and although it was contracted for partnership cattle it must be presumed that Rainey accounted for his portion of it in the settlement of July 12, 1862.

It is not so, however, as to the $350 borrowed from Henderson. This was a firm debt, and there is nothing tending to show that in the settlement of July 12, the Willis brothers agreed to pay it.

Appellee should also have been charged with the $52.00 he admits in his petition was paid to his intestate after he joined the Confederate army.

There is nothing to show that the $100 paid Tylor for cattle purchased after the settlement in July was paid out of the individual funds of either of appellants.

For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed. Appellee, upon the return of the cause, will be allowed a reasonable time to reply to Samuel Willis’ answer.

Further proceedings will be had consistent with this opinion.
#### Margaret Slack *v.*Harriet Rowlhac.

Attorney and Client — Relation Ceases at Death of Client — Limitation.

The relation of attorney. and client ce'ases upon the death of the latter and the statute of limitation begins to run at that time.

Limitation of Actions — Reply not Permitted Unless Answer Contains Counterclaim or Set-off.

A reply .to a plea of limitations is only permitted where there is a counterclaim or set-off by the defendant in his answer.

APPEAL PROM PULTON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1872.

*Randle &*Taylor, *for appellant.*

*Williams, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The relation of attorney and client between appellant and Hallett ceased to exist ait the death of the latter, and the trust arising from the employment and. the collection of the money also terminated. The failure of the appellant to sue, within five years and six months, his-personal representative made 'the statute a successful defense to the appellant's claim, and there is no proof bringing the case within any of the exceptions of the law preventing the statute from running. The reply was improperly filed to this plea of limitation. Such pleading is only permitted when there is a counterclaim or set-off by the defendant in his answer. *5Bush*558. Judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Handbook 44 – 2009 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes 

Section 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes 

A. Application 

A.1. This code applies to baskets and boxes for berries and small fruits in capacities of 1 dry quart and less. 

A.2. See also Section 1.10. General Code requirements. 

S. Specifications 

S.1. Units. – The capacity of a berry basket or box shall be 1⁄2 dry pint, 1 dry pint, or 1 dry quart. 

S.2. Materials. – A berry basket or box shall be made of any suitable materials that will retain its shape during normal 

filling, storage, and handling. 

S.3. Capacity Point. – The capacity of a berry basket or box shall be determined by its top edges. 

N. Notes 

N.1. Method of Test. – A berry basket or box may be tested either volumetrically, using rape seed as the testing medium, 

or geometrically through accurate inside dimension measurement and calculation. 

T. Tolerances 

T.1. Tolerances on Individual Measures. – Maintenance and acceptance tolerances in excess and deficiency on an 

individual measure shall be as shown in Table 1. Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances in Excess and in Deficiency. 

T.2. Tolerances on Average Capacity. – The average capacity on a random sample of 10 measures selected from a lot 

of 25 or more shall be equal to or greater than the nominal capacity. 

(Amended 1979) 

Table 1. 

Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances 

in Excess and in Deficiency

Tolerance 

Nominal Capacity In Excess 

cubic inches 

In Deficiency 

cubic inches 

1⁄2 pint 1 0.5 

1 pint 2 1.0 

1 quart 3 1.5 

4-25 
4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes Handbook 44 – 2009 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

4-26
{"id":3261,"count":5,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/tech-transfer-spinoffs\/home-and-city\/","name":"NASA Home & City","slug":"home-and-city","taxonomy":"category","parent":2827,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/3261"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2827"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=3261"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=3261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### John Armstrong *v.*T. W. Hudgens.

Judgments — Actions to Enforce Collection — Second Judgment in Personam.

In an action to enforce the collection of a judgment, the circuit court has no authority to render a second: judgent in personam.

APPEAL PROM GARTER CIRCUIT COURT.

January 27, 1872.

Davis, *for appellant.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Pryor :

This action was instituted to enforce the collection of a judgment. The circuit court, therefore, had no authority to render a second judgment *in personam*against the appellant, and to this extent the judgment appealed from must be reversed.

There is a slight error in the amount adjudged to be paid put ■of the Jacobs debt, but the error is so insignificant (being less than one dollar), that the judgment *in rem*will not be disturbed ■on that account.

The formal judgment is reversed and 'cause remanded.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 23

Repealing rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating

to the statutory limit on the public debt.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Michigan) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Repealing rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives relating to the statutory limit on the public debt.

1 Resolved, That rule XLIX of the Rules of the House

2 of Representatives is repealed.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7719

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER K. WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CR-98-34, CA-00-38-4)

Submitted: February 15, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher K. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although we disagree with the district court’s conclusion

that the motion for reconsideration was not timely filed, Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 52(b), the district court alternately concluded, and

we agree, that the motion was meritless.

2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher K. Williams appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-98-34;

CA-00-38-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2001; Sept. 10, 2001). 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
IV

House Calendar No. 127

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 301

[Report No. 105–382]

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to repeal the exception

to the requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all media.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 4, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

repeal the exception to the requirement that public committee proceedings be open to all media.

1 Resolved, That (a) clause 3(f) of rule XI of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by repealing

3 subdivision (2) and by redesignating subdivisions (3)

4 through (13) as subdivisions (2) through (12), respec5 tively.
2

•HRES 301 RH

1 (b) Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the

2 House of Representatives is amended by striking ‘‘, except

3 as provided by clause 3(f)(2)’’.

4 (c) The first sentence of clause 3(e) of rule XI of

5 the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by

6 striking ‘‘, except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)’’.

House Calendar No. 127

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 301

[Report No. 105–382]

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representamedia. that public committee proceedings be open to all tives to repeal the exception to the requirement

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 314 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 12, 1997.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported from 
that committee before November 15, 1997, providing for consideration or 
disposition of any of the following:
            (1) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, any amendment thereto, any 
        conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement 
        from a conference thereon.
            (2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions making 
        continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1998, any amendment thereto, 
        any conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement 
        from a conference thereon.
            (3) The bill (H.R. 2621) to extend trade authorities procedures with 
        respect to reciprocal trade agreements, and for other purposes.
            (4) The bill (S. 1454) to provide a 6-month extension of highway, 
        highway safety, and transit programs pending enactment of a law 
        reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
        1991.
    Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time before November 15, 1997, for the 
Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules, provided that the object of 
any such motion is announced from the floor at least one hour before the motion 
is offered. In scheduling the consideration of legislation under this authority, 
the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or his 
designee.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### B. H. Settles *v.*W. D. Cotton's Admr.

Exceptions, Bill of — Judgment Will be Affirmed in Absence of Bill.

Where there is no bill of exceptions in the record, the Court of Appeals will presume that the judgment was based on sufficient evidence.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 7, 1872.

*Lee & Rodman, for appellant.*

*O. H. Stratton, Bodley & Simrall, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

Without particularly disposing of other reasons for affirming the judgment, which have been urged by the counsel for the appellee, several of which seem to be sufficient, we must affirm the judgment, because, there being no bill of exceptions in the record, this court cannot know-what evidence was heard by the court and must presume, therefore, that the judgment was based on sufficient evidence.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
IIA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 951

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 9, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange certain

lands located in Hinsdale, Colorado.

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

HR 951 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LARSON AND FRIENDS CREEK EXCHANGE.

2 In exchange for conveyance to the United States of

3 an equal value of offered lands acceptable to the Secretary

4 of the Interior which lie within, or in proximity to, the

5 Handies Peak or Red Cloud Peak Wilderness Study Areas

6 or the Alpine Loop Backcountry Bi-way in Hinsdale Coun7 ty, Colorado, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to

8 Lake City Ranches, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership (in

9 this section referred to as ‘‘LCR’’), approximately 560

10 acres of selected land located in the same county and gen11 erally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Larson and Friends

12 Creek Exchange’’, dated June 1996. The exchange shall

13 be contingent upon LCR granting the Secretary a perma14 nent conservation easement on the approximate 440 acre

15 Larson Creek portion of the selected lands (as depicted

16 on the map) which limits future use of such lands to agri17 cultural, wildlife, recreational, or open space purposes.

18 The exchange shall also be subject to the standard ap19 praisal requirements and equalization payment limitations

20 set forth in section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and

21 Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716), and to re22 views and approvals relating to threatened species and en23 dangered species, cultural and historic resources, and haz24 ardous materials under other Federal laws. The costs of

25 such appraisals and reviews shall be paid by LCR. The

26 Secretary may credit such payments against the value of
3

HR 951 RFS

1 the selected land, if appropriate, pursuant to section

2 206(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

3 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(f)).

Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WALTER SMITH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 321 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of XFormity Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Christopher Ball, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Jack Rabin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Christopher Ball Christopher Ball Chief Executive Officer May 16, 2011  /s/ Jack Rabin Jack Rabin Chief Financial Officer May 16, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 35 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      February 4, 1997.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable Frank Tejeda, a Representative from the State of Texas.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and 
transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the deceased.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1 NO. 01-13-00816-CV In The First District Court of Appeals of Texas at Houston Retaka Romeo Nelson, Appellant vs. Shannon Brochette Nelson, Appellee

On Appeal From District Court No. 308, Cause 2012-04063 Harris County, Texas EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST DI STRICT COURT OF APPEALS: Appellant requests this c ourt stay consideration of his pending motion for en banc reconsideration, pending the outcome of his 1) pending motion to remand for lost or destroyed records, and 2) his pend ing motion for leave to supplement. The remand and supplement motions would be m ooted by this court’s premature ruling on the pending en banc motion for reconsider ation. Appellant would be harmed if he is precluded from the relief within both motions, which are both subject to inclusion into the pending motion for en banc reconsideration by amendment or supplementation. This motion was filed in good faith to establish due-order-ofpleadings, and not for the sake of delay or harassment. ACCEPTED 01-13-00816-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/6/2015 2:21:11 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 Conclusion This court should grant Appellant’s emer gency request to stay consideration of his pending motion for en banc reconsider ation, so that it can first consider his pending motion to remand for lost or destroyed record s, and his pending motion for leave to supplement, in due-order-of-pleadings.
Prayer WHEREFORE , Appellant prays that the Court grant the relief requested herein and such further relie f, at law or in equity, to which it may be entitled.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Retaka Nelson Retaka Nelson P.O. Box 7367 Los Angeles, CA 90007 Tel: (832) 590-9295 Email: thetakesta@gmail.com Appellant-Petitioner, Pro Se Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, I hereby certify that the number of words in this document are 408. I have relied on th e word count of th e computer program used to prepare the document. /s/ Retaka Nelson Retaka Nelson3 Certificate of Conference In that Shannon’s appella te counsel is opposed to Appellant’s pending motion to remand for lost or destroyed reco rds, and his pending motion for leave to supplement, it is suffice to infer th at she opposes this motion to stay.

/s/ Retaka Nelson Retaka Nelson

Certificate of Service I certify that a true copy of all documen ts herein was served in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 9. 5 on each party as follows: Shari Goldsberry Via E-Serve on 7/6/2015 Texas Bar No. 24038398 Marina Bay Dr. Suite #108 League City, TX 77573 Ph: (281) 533-3030 Fx: (281) 533-3033 Email: shari@goldsberrylaw.com Attorney for Appellee, Shannon Nelson /s/ Retaka Nelson Retaka Nelson