alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth *v.*Alex. McDaniel, etc.

Larceny — Continuous or Separate Offenses.

Where deiendant was charged with carrying away one lot of wheat, the fact that the carrying away occurred on three different days does not require the commonwealth to treat the acts committed on each day as a separate and distinct defense, since the acts may he treated as a continuous offense.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

June *5,*1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The indictment charges the commission of but one offense, The unlawful taking and conveying away of one lot of hay.

The fact that defendants were engaged, or are charged to have been engaged on three different days in the commission of the offense did not render it necessary that the commonwealth shall treat the act or acts committed on each day as a separate and distinct taking and conveying away. It is charged that one lot of hay was taken. The. talcing and carrying away of one thing can constitute but one offense, although the wrong-doers may have occupied themselves two, three, or five days in the perpetration of the wrong.

There are offenses which m'ay be constituted by a succession of acts performed at different times. When these are set out in the indictment there may be more days than one mentioned in which the successive acts were done. Bishop’s Crim. Procedure, Sec. 244. In this case but one lot of hay was taken and carried away. It is charged in effect that a portion was taken and carried away on the 10th, another portion' on the 11th and the remainder on the 15th of February, 1870. The succession of acts performed on these three several days constitute together the one offense. That of taking' and carrying away the lot of hay specifically described as having been taken under execution by Appleton, the constable, and placed by him in the possession of bailee Rea.

Possibly the commonwealth might have treated each removal of *711a cart or wagon load, as a separate taking, but it was not bound to do so. Neither is it required to treat the taking on each day as an act separate and distinct from' taking on the next or any other subsequent day.

*Phister, for appellant.*

Halbert, *for appellees.*

The judgment dismissing the prosecution is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions, to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.
10786.

#### Clements *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for uttering forged check—-Judge Terrell. June 38, 1919.

*Justiss & Say, B. A. McGraw,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. S. Boop, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

There is evidence to support the verdict. The motion for new trial contains no special grounds, and was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*
July 16, 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St Ste 354

Tyler TX 75702

- 7854

Re: Brandon Gober



### 12

- 14

- 00213

- CR

To The Honorable Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding his right to file a PDR along

with a copy of the certified return receipt showing the mailing of the same.

Sincerely,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson ACCEPTED

12-14-00213-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/16/2015 10:40:27 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERKJuly 09, 2015

Brandon Gober

Inmate 01942989

Hodge Unit

PO Box 999

Rusk

, TX 75785

Re: Opinion

Mr. Gober :

Please find enclosed a copy of opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in your case. The Court

has affirmed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion

.

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know.

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1064

In Re: ERMA J. ISTVAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-2304-PJM)

Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erma J. Istvan, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Erma J. Istvan filed a petition for writ of mandamus, writ of

prohibition, and mandatory permanent injunction seeking an order

directing the district court to prohibit a civil action pending

against her in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland.

Federal courts have no general power to compel action by state

courts. See Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988);

Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587

(4th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we deny the petition. We deny the

request for stay of state court proceedings, the motion for an

injunction to vacate three state court orders, and the motion for

costs and attorney’s fees. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Radiation Physics Division Quality Management System Guide RPD-G-05

PROTECTION OF CLIENTS’ CONFIDENTIALITY

Version: 3.11 Page 1 of 2 Approval: JMA Effective Date: September 17, 2020

Purpose

This Guide addresses the protection of confidential materials.

Scope

This Guide applies to clients’ calibration results, proprietary information, and any 

other client information that may be deemed confidential in nature.

Definitions

N/A

Equipment

N/A

Health & Safety Precautions

N/A

Protocol

General

All documents that could be considered confidential to the client shall be 

restricted to calibration personnel. Upon receipt of such materials, they should be 

placed in a folder in a controlled file cabinet and removed only when needed. No 

confidential documents shall be left exposed in a common work area unattended.

Occasionally, an error is made on a report. When this occurs, all pages bearing 

both the client’s name and test results are considered to be confidential 

information and shall be shredded. All other pages may be placed in any trash 

receptacle. 

Calibration results

1. Upon completion of a calibration or test, a calibration or test report is 

generated. Once the report has been produced it is placed in a folder to be 

circulated for signatures.

2. The original signed, either ink on paper or electronically, calibration report is 

sent to the customer. Copies of calibration reports, along with computer 

printouts from the calibration procedure, are placed in the customer’s file in a 

file cabinet. Access to file cabinets is limited to the calibration personnel.
Radiation Physics Division Quality Management System Guide RPD-G-05

PROTECTION OF CLIENTS’ CONFIDENTIALITY

Version: 3.11 Page 2 of 2 Approval: JMA Effective Date: September 17, 2020

Proprietary information

Occasionally, clients may provide supplemental information to facilitate the 

calibration/test process. If the client does not so identify the information as 

confidential, NIST personnel are not responsible for keeping it in confidence. 

Client-supplied documents shall be kept in the client’s file during the calibration 

or test.

Once the calibration/test is completed, client-supplied information is handled 

according to the client’s instructions, with possible actions including:

• return of the information,

• shredding of the information,

• or placing of the information in the client’s file.

Acceptance Criteria

N/A

References

N/A

Records

N/A

Filing and Retention

Information stored in a client’s file shall be retained for at least as long as the 

retention period of the order (test) folder.
|   | **** |
|--------|------|

**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| November 10, 2006 | By:    | /s/          Brian D. Comer |   |
|-------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Date)

     |   | Brian D. Comer

President

                                              |   |

 

 

 

----
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 thejudgment and sentence 

### entered after a jury foundhim guilty ofassault in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm in the firstdegree. He contends - and the State concedes - that thejudgment and sentence inadvertentlystates the incorrect 

### date for the assault charge. We acceptthe State's concession and remand for correction ofthe 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. ButJones 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 notsufficiently identify the nature of theNo. 71722-7-1/2 improperly excluded evidence or establish any resulting prejudice. Underthe circumstances, he has failed "to inform the court ofthe 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 inthe first degree, failed to include all ofthe 

### necessary elements of the offense. But Instruction 18 followedWPIC 133.02. And Jones fails to identifythe 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 unlawfulpossession of a firearm in the firstdegree. But his 

### arguments rest on the claim that the State's witnesses were not credible. This court cannot review the credibility ofwitnesses 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 conflictingtestimony, credibility ofwitnesses, and the persuasiveness ofthe evidence). We affirm Jones's conviction. We remand solely to permit the trial court to correct the scrivener's error on thejudgment and sentence.

FOR THE COURT:

CO CD

LrJ CD

era -2-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

l0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139010 

MARTIN B. MARCUS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139010 

 COA: 284042 

Oakland CC: 2007-086327-CK 

GFG EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., 

d/b/a GARDEN FRESH SALSA, INC., 

GARDEN FRESH SALSA CO., INC., 

BASHA FOODS, FRESHLANE TRANSIT, 

GARDEN FRESH SALSA II, GOURMET 

INTERNATIONAL GOODS, and 

GFG II EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,749,715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  418,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    467,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,878,041
<PP&E>                                       1,538,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                 989,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,807,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          553,203
<BONDS>                                      2,992,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           335
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,991,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,807,201
<SALES>                                        887,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               887,020
<CGS>                                          436,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,186,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             684,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,385,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,385,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,385,665)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### Elberton & Eastern Railroad Co. *et al. v.*Green, admx., *et al.*

Atkinson, J.

A bank became insolvent, and was taken in charge by the superintendent of banks. Certain persons instituted an action against the officers of the bank. It was alleged tliat the bank was insolvent more than two months before it closed; that the defendants knew of such in*892solvency, and it was their duty to close the bank; that they did not do so, but continued to operate the bank and allowed the petitioners to make therein deposits in stated amounts, and to suffer loss and injury for which the defendants are liable jointly and severally. The prayers were for process, for judgment, and for general relief. A demurrer was interposed on the grounds: (a) that a cause of action was not alleged; (b) that the dates and amounts of the separate deposits were not alleged; (c) that there was a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. An amendment was allowed, which alleged that there are a large number of persons who occupy identical position with petitioners; that petitioners do not know which of the deposits fall within the same class with them, and the identity of such deposits can only be determined by facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants, and of such depositors themselves; that petitioners “sue as members of the class of depositors who were without knowledge, at the time of making their deposits, of the insolvency of said bank, who suffered loss by reason of the keeping of said bank open and receiving deposits after said bank became insolvent, and to whom defendants are liable by reason of the facts set forth in plaintiffs’ original petition; any recovery herein being • intended for the benefit of any and all persons who join in this litigation before its termination, in order that their rights may be determined in one litigation.” The demurrer was renewed, and was sustained; and the petitioners excepted. *Held:*

*No.*6656.

February 28, 1929.

*W. A. Slaton,*for plaintiff.

*QallaM)a/y & Howard, Colley & Wynne, Clement H. Sutton,*and *B. W. Fortson,*for defendants.

1. The bank was not a party, and the suit was not for breach of an implied contract. The action was at law against the officers, based on tort.

2. The joinder of two plaintiffs suing for separate torts and both plaintiffs suing as members of a class, with the privilege of other persons of the class to become parties to the action, suing upon separate torts, does not characterize the action as a suit in equity.

3. This court has not jurisdiction. Accordingly the case will be transferred to the Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction.

*Transferred to Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                              20
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (51)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,247
<PP&E>                                             485
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (198)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,482
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           248
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,047)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,922
<SALES>                                         12,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,339
<CGS>                                           11,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (24)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      20
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (417)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Rachel Unger, plaintiff, *vs.*The Forty Second Street &c. Railroad Company, defendants.

A motion to dismiss the complaint, under the 27th rule of court, can only be made after an *issue*of fact has been joined in the action. The 4th subdivision of section 274 of the Code, relates only to actions against several defendants, where the plaintiff fails to proceed against the defendant or defendants served.

(Before Monell, J., at Special Term,

January, 1867.)

Motion to dismiss the complaint, for want of prosecution.

Monell, J.

This was a motion to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. After the service of the summons and complaint, the defendants obtained an order staying the plaintiff’s proceedings until the payment of the costs of a former suit between the parties, and extending the time to answer for twenty days after such costs should have been paid. The costs have not been paid, nor the stay of proceedings vacated, and the defendants have not answered the complaint.

A motion to dismiss, under the 27th rule of court, can only be made after an *issue*of fact has been joined in the *546action; and the 4th subdivision of section 274 of the Code, relates to actions against several defendants,-where the plaintiff fails to proceed against the defendant or defendants served.

There being no provision in the Code or in the rules of court applicable to this motion, it must be denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0162 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOHN CHRISTOPHER RYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until September 7, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 8 2022

08/08/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0162
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL

ON GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The government moves for reconsideration of our recent denial of its motion to 

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Crowley Government Services, Inc., 

ASBCA No. 63531, 2023 WL 4196714 (June 7, 2023). We have not requested a 

response from appellant. See John Shaw LLC d/b/a Shaw Building Maintenance,

ASBCA No. 61379, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,026 at 180,294. A motion for reconsideration is 

not intended to allow a party to re-argue issues that were previously raised and 

decided. Id. Nevertheless, the government essentially reargues its already-rejected 

position that this appeal is moot. The motion for reconsideration is denied. See Green

Valley Co., ASBCA No. 61275, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,044 at 180,330.

Dated: July 21, 2023

(Signatures continued)

TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

Appeal of - )

)

Crowley Government Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63531

)

Under Contract No. N62387-15-C-2505 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: James Y. Boland, Esq.

Caleb E. McCallum, Esq.

 Venable LLP

 Tysons Corner, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Donald J. Thornley, Esq.

Patrick M. Mayette, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys
2

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63531, Appeal of Crowley 

Government Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 24, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals