alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chas. A. Graves *v.*J. M. Corbin.

Vendor and Purchaser — Purchase-money Notes — Foreclosure of Lien.

Where one is the holder and owner of three purchase-money notes secured by a lien retained in the deed, the court should, on decreing a sale of the land, direct the sale of so much of it as. may he necessary to satisfy the judgment then rendered, leaving the deferred installment to have its lien on the remaining land.

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 8, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

It was error to adjudge a sale of the land, subject to the lien for a note for two thousand dollars not due when the judgment was rendered.

It is apparent from1 the pleadings that Corbin was the holder and owner of all three of the notes secured by the lien retained in the deed. Under such circumstances, there being no possibility of a contest as to priority, as is the case when the lien notes have been assigned, and are held by different persons, the court should have directed a sale of so much of the land as might be necessary to satisfy the judgment then rendered, leaving the deferred installment to have its lien on any remaining portion. *Emison v. Risk,*Mss. Opinion Sept. 5th, 1872. Hardin, Judge.

The sale of the absolute title is better calculated to invite competition in bidding, and is advantageous to. both creditor and debtor.

Waiving any question as to' the propriety of the action of the court in hearing the cause without giving appellant time to prepare his defense, inasmuch as the question will be re-opened by the reversal, no judgment should be rendered for the payment of the *553notes sued on, until the question as to whether the infant heir of J. S. Nelson, deceased, will recover the six acres he has sued for, is determined. If these six acres are lost, and it is true that upon them' are situated the buildings, orchard and garden, and that they are of the value suggested by appellant in his answer, or even approximate that amount in value, it may be proper ho rescind the contract, instead of compelling the payment of-the purchase money.

*Stevenson & Myers, for appellant.*

*J. L. Corbin, for appellee.*

The judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Patterning Nano-Domains with Orthogonal Functionalities: Solventless Synthesis of Self-Sorting 

Surfaces

Karen Gleason

Department of Chemical Engineering, MIT

25 Ames Street

Cambridge, MA 02139

kkg@mit.edu

Surfaces covered by well-defined organic functional groups can serve as platforms to immobilize 

molecular species such as fluorescent dyes or peptides, as well as particles, including quantum dots and 

metal nanoparticles. Reaction with the organic functional group is desired to provide high selectivity and 

strong binding of the desired component onto the synthetic surface. Immobilization schemes for 

molecules and particles combined with micropatterning techniques promise to be enabling methods for 

novel device fabrication. However, the solvents employed in conventional patterning techniques often 

result in dissolution or delamination of the functional layer. Additionally, the solvents and/or irradiation 

methods employed by traditional patterning schemes often degrade the activity of the desired organic 

functional groups. Click chemistry active surfaces were successfully deposited using the novel one-step 

synthetic process of initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) using the commercially available 

monomers. Bilayers of click-active iCVD films on top of amine-containing films were patterned by 

capillary force lithography to obtain dual functional nano-patterned surfaces having a minimum feature 

size of 110 nm. Exposing the patterned surface to a mixture of two fluorescent dyes resulted in selfsorting of the dyes via conjugation of the dyes onto selected areas of the pattern. Utilizing two functional 

layers displaying orthogonal reactivity enables sorting of aqueous mixtures of dyes and nanoparticles, 

such as quantum dots, onto selective areas of nanopatterned surfaces. The characteristics of the iCVD thin 

film growth method include the retention of reactive organic functional groups, compatibility with 

conventional silicon device and MEMS fabrication schemes, the ability to produce thin films which are 

conformal over micro- and nano-features, and facile nanopatterning schemes. We anticipate these features 

will make iCVD a powerful integration platform for organic and nanoparticle functionalization into next 

generation devices.
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority under section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to determine whether it is important to the security interests of the United States to furnish up to $123,000,000 in funds made available pursuant to chapter 8 of part I of the FAA to provide assistance for Ukraine, Tunisia, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Nigeria, Albania, and Vietnam without regard to any provision of law within the scope of section 614(a)(1) of the FAA and to authorize the furnishing of such assistance.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2014-27856

Billing code 4710-10
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-41533

Summary Calendar

____________________

EDWARD C. CHARLES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PAMELA KIRKPATRICK, Chain Officer, Michael Unit;

UNIDENTIFIED MCCLURE, Property Officer, Michael Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court,

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:97-CV-245)

_________________________________________________________________

September 21, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Cornelius Charles, Texas prisoner #627324, appeals the

dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. He claims that the defendants retaliated against him

for filing grievances by withholding his property, which included

his medication and legal papers, following his transfer to another

unit; and that their actions denied him access to the courts,
violated his equal protection rights, and constituted deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs.

Pursuant to our review of the record, we AFFIRM for

essentially the reasons adopted by the district court. Charles v.

Kirkpatrick, No. 6:97-CV-245 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 1997).

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                       331
<INVENTORY>                                      2,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,151
<PP&E>                                             968
<DEPRECIATION>                                     635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,081
<BONDS>                                          3,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         19
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,689
<SALES>                                          4,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,965
<CGS>                                            3,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (5)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (18)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 29
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (224)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Report

1. Please provide a summary of your agency’s activities undertaken to carry out the provisions of 

OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” and the National Technology Transfer and 

Advance Act (NTTAA). The summary should contain a link to the agency’s standards-specific 

website(s) where information about your agency’s standards and conformity assessment related 

activities are available.

In 2021, as in previous reporting years, the Department of Energy (DOE) relied heavily on voluntary 

consensus standards (VCSs) to fulfill its mission and has a long history of working with the VCS 

community to develop standards that help DOE achieve its missions. DOE supports federal and 

contractor participation on appropriate VCS committees and writing bodies and tracks participation. 

Appropriate VCSs are referenced or invoked in our directives or contracts to meet our specific 

requirements.

The DOE Technical Standards Program has a detailed set of procedures called Technical Standards 

Program Procedures (TSPPs), which include the requirement to perform a mandatory search for existing 

VCSs prior to initiating a DOE Standard development or revision project. The Department has a robust 

project justification process which demands that a potential DOE Standard developer perform searches 

for existing VCSs and document not only the results of those searches, but also the methods used to 

perform the searches. The Department recognizes that new VCSs are always being developed and 

approved. Therefore, the project justification process includes the requirement to perform VCS 

searches when revising DOE Standards as well as when developing new DOE Standards. Lastly, DOE 

Standards can also be reaffirmed, meaning that the DOE Standard does not require technical changes to 

remain appropriate for use. The next revision of the TSPPs will include a VCS search requirement for 

reaffirmation. This requirement will make it mandatory to perform searches for any newly approved 

VCSs which could be used in lieu of reaffirming a DOE Standard.

DOE does not have a conformity assessment program, and therefore does not track conformity 

assessment activities regarding VCSs.

DOE Technical Standards Program Internet Link

https://www.standards.doe.gov/

2. Please list the government-unique standards (GUS) your agency began using in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards during FY 2021. Please note that GUS which are still in effect from previous years 

should continue to be listed, thus the total number in your agency's report will include all GUS 

currently in use (previous years and new as of this FY): 0
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

CLARENCE JONES,

Appellant.

DIVISION ONE

No. 71722-7-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: December 29, 2014

Per Curiam — Clarence Jones appeals from the judgment and sentence

entered after a jury found him guilty of assault in the second degree and unlawful

possession of a firearm in the first degree. He contends - and the State

concedes - that the judgment and sentence inadvertently states the incorrect

date for the assault charge. We accept the State's concession and remand for

correction of the scrivener's error.

In his statement of additional ground for review, Jones alleges that both

defense counsel and the police failed to adequately investigate potential

witnesses. But Jones does not identify the alleged witnesses or their potential

testimony. Moreover, because Jones's allegations rest on matters outside of the

record, they cannot be considered on direct appeal. See State v. McFarland,

127 Wn.2d 322, 337-38, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).

Jones next contends that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of a

State eyewitness. But he does not sufficiently identify the nature of the
No. 71722-7-1/2

improperly excluded evidence or establish any resulting prejudice. Under the

circumstances, he has failed "to inform the court of the nature and occurrence" of

the alleged error. RAP 10.10(c).

Jones also contends that instruction 18, the "to convict" instruction for

unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, failed to include all of the

necessary elements of the offense. But Instruction 18 followed WPIC 133.02.

And Jones fails to identify the alleged missing elements or otherwise explain why

the instruction was deficient. His challenge therefore fails.

Finally, Jones contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his

conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree. But his

arguments rest on the claim that the State's witnesses were not credible. This

court cannot review the credibility of witnesses on appeal. See State v. Walton,

64 Wn. App. 410, 415-16, 824 P.2d 533 (1992) (appellate court defers to the trier

of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility of witnesses, and the

persuasiveness of the evidence).

We affirm Jones's conviction. We remand solely to permit the trial court to

correct the scrivener's error on the judgment and sentence.

FOR THE COURT:

CO

CD

LrJ

CD

era

-2-
#### London *v.*Kennedy.

Opinion delivered February 4, 1929.

*I. S. Simmons*and *L. E. Lister,*for appellant.

*George W. Dodd,*for appellee.

Smith, J.

Appellant seeks by this appeal to reverse a judgment against him, and the assignment of error relied upon for that purpose is that the court improperly denied his motion for a change of venue.

There appears in the body of the transcript a motion for change of venue in proper form, but the bill of *1069exceptions contáins no reference to it. It will therefore be conclusively presumed that the court properly disposed of this motion.

In the case of *Estes*v. *Chesney,*54 Ark. 463, 16 S. W. 267, it was said: “The appellants insist that the judgment should be reversed because the court improperly denied their motion for a change of venue. This is a question which we cannot consider, for the reason that the petition for a change of venue and supporting affidavits are not brought upon the record by bill of exceptions.”

The case of *Adkisson*v. *State,*142 Ark. 34, 218 S. W. 167, is to the same effect.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
9944.

#### Copeland *v.*Maxwell.

Decided April 17, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Cairo—Judge Willie. June 28, 1918.

*L. W. Rigsby, Ira Carlisle,*for plaintiff in error.

Jenkins, J.

This was a suit by a cropper against his landlord for the value of a half of the crops raised, wherein it was alleged that “the plaintiff was to leave on said place and did leave on said place the same amount of seed-cane that was planted by him,” and that “he dug- up and banked the same amount of seed-cane that he planted.”' The defendant demurred specially to these allegations, upon the ground that the petition failed to set forth the amount of seed-cane planted and the amount left on the place; and he also demurred generally. The demurrer was overruled, the case proceeded to trial, and the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. *Held:*

1. The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer that the petition set out no, cause of action. *Woolley*v. *Adams,*85 *Ga.*659 (11 S. E. 784) ; *Payne*v. *Watters,*9 *Ga. App.*265 (70 S. E. 1114).

2. The averments setting up the stipulations in regard to the seed-cane, and compliance with the plaintiff’s resultant obligation, were not averments necessary as a condition precedent to the bringing of the suit; and since the plaintiff does not claim any indebtedness by reason of these averments, the defendant had no right to require elaboration of the petition in this respect. If the plaintiff failed to comply with the stated provision of the contract relating to the seed-cane actually furnished to him by the defendant, it was a matter within the knowledge of the landlord, and could be set up by way of defense.

3. There was evidence sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based on general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COSTILLA ENERGY INC. FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,904
<PP&E>                                         268,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,107
<BONDS>                                        195,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           998
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,066)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,743
<SALES>                                         15,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,887
<CGS>                                            6,785
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (299)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,639)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.76)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             974
<SECURITIES>                                     5,018
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,398
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         339,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        293,301
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,041
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   451,195
<SALES>                                          6,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,567
<CGS>                                            5,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,108)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.86)
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (270)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,480
<PP&E>                                          18,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,830)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               71
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,276
<SALES>                                         17,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,234
<CGS>                                           12,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    836
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (35)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                871
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       871
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>