alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

HARLAN L. WILSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0161-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JULY 2, 1996 

COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHATHAM 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

B. A. Davis, III, Judge 

 Barbara Hudson for appellant. 

 Rudolph A. Shupik, Jr. for appellee. 

 The Virginia Employment Commission awarded benefits to 

Harlan L. Wilson upon the cessation of his employment with the 

Town of Chatham. The circuit court reversed the commission on 

the ground that Wilson voluntarily left his employment without 

good cause. We affirm the circuit court's decision. 

 An individual is disqualified from unemployment benefits if 

he leaves work voluntarily and without good cause. Code 

§ 60.2-618(1). Whether an employee voluntarily quit without good 

cause is a mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable on 

appeal. Virginia Employment Comm'n v. Fitzgerald, 19 Va. App. 

491, 493, 452 S.E.2d 692, 693 (1995). 

 The evidence before the circuit court demonstrated that 

Wilson left his employment voluntarily and without good cause. 

"The term 'voluntary' connotes '[u]nconstrained by interference; 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

unimpelled by another's influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself 

. . . [r]esulting from free choice.' An employee's intention to 

quit may be discerned from words or conduct inconsistent with the 

maintenance of an employer/employee relationship." Shuler v. 

Virginia Employment Comm'n, 9 Va. App. 147, 150-51, 384 S.E.2d 

122, 124 (1989) (citations omitted). 

 On February 8, 1993, Wilson told the town council that he 

would be submitting his resignation that evening. He did in fact 

submit a letter stating that it was his resignation. Although 

the council did not formally accept the resignation at that time, 

Wilson cleaned out his locker at work within the next three days. 

 At no time did he attempt to withdraw his resignation. 

 We hold that the circuit court did not err when it found 

that this employee voluntarily quit his employment without good 

cause. 

 Affirmed.
- 3 - 

Fitzpatrick, J., dissenting. 

 I respectfully dissent. 

 On appeal, "the findings of the [VEC] as to the facts, if 

supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be 

conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined 

to questions of law." Code § 60.2-625(A); Shifflett v. Virginia 

Employment Comm'n, 14 Va. App. 96, 97, 414 S.E.2d 865, 865 

(1992). In the instant case, the evidence supported the 

commission's finding that Wilson was terminated, and the circuit 

court erred in overturning that factual determination.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Peter Lamoureux,
President of Everest Asset Management, Inc. , the general partner of the Everest
Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), 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 Fund.

                             By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
                                  --------------------------------
                             Name: Peter Lamoureux
                             Title: Director, President and Treasurer
                             May 10, 2005

                                                                             E-3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7910

CURTIS L. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner and Former

Commissioner of Maryland Division of

Corrections, sued in his individual and

official capacity; PATRICIA ALLEN, Deputy

Commissioner of Maryland Division of

Corrections, sued in her individual and

official capacity; THOMAS CORCORAN, Former

Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment

Center, sued in his individual and official

capacity; SEWALL SMITH, Warden of the Maryland

Correctional Adjustment Center, sued in his

individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-03-3378-WDQ)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Curtis L. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Phillip Michael Pickus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. Wright appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Wright v. Sondervan, No. CA-03-3378-WDQ (D. Md. filed Nov. 3,

2004; entered Nov. 4, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
COMMON VACUUM

INSTRUMENTATION SKIRT

P— B8 0.D. X .125 W (AL)
152.4mm]

(2) UFTING EYE BOLTS
WITH 1/4—20 THREADS

Oe a7e De HOLES x" -. ey 4.0 0.0. (AL) 30.91
ON A 6.375 DIA. B.C. FOR [101.6mm] [785.06mm]
canine 2.52 DIA. COLD FINGER wie)
0.75 M5 TAPPED HOLES EQ.
[19.05mm] ON A 2128 DIA. B.C WH
SENSOR INSTALLED
11.50 [292.1mm] 0.D.
{ 3.50-24
THREAD X.188 LG COLD FINGER EXTENSION
WITH (2) 10-32 TAPPED
me HOLES (HELICOIL) SP ON
rea.eeen] . A .50 DIA B.C AS SHOWN
—
10.25
4.00
[260.35mm] [101.5¢mm]
6.00
| [152.40mm]
3.75 OD. I 1.00 [254mm]
8.94 0.D.
= |
250mm SQUARE \
BOTTOM FLANGE
(4) CLEAR HOLES FOR

1/4-20 ON A 9.05 [230mm]
BOLT SQUARE [325.3mm 6CD]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     NIGHTINGALE, INC'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     209,162
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         209,162
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209,162
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          323,067
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       20,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     (134,505)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (113,905)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,807
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,502)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.004)
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL15-4-000]

Take notice that on November 7, 2014, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company filed clarifications to its petition for declaratory regarding pay of dividends out of paid-in capital, filed on October 7, 2014.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistancewith any FERC Online service, please email                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 17, 2014.                

Dated: November 10, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-27241 Filed 11-17-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
9891.

#### Davis *v.*The State.

Harwell, *J.*

*1.*The plaintiff in error was convicted of receiving stolen chickens, and his main contention for a reversal of the judgment (raised by the general grounds of the motion for a new trial) is that the conviction was based solely upon the testimony of two accomplices,— that of the two persons who stole the chickens and pleaded guilty to the theft. The rule of law requiring corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice (Penal Code of 1910, § 1017) refers to felonies, and has no application to misdemeanors. This has been repeatedly ruled by both the Supreme Court and this court.

*6Decided November 7, 1918.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Houston county —Judge Biley. May 13, 1918.

*Emmett Houser,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. E. Brown, solicitor,*contra.

2. The evidence authorized the .verdict, ■ and the court did' not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M A R L O N J O E T R A M B L E , a . k. a . M ar l on Joe G osby-T ram bl e, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 30077 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 1 9 9 - RSM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ar do S . M a rt i ne z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anua ry17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar lo n J o e T r a m b le ap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n a n d1 2 0 - m o n th s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f

ortr ans port a t i on f

orpurpos e s of

pr os t i tut i on thr ough c oe r c i on and e nt i c e m e nt , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2422( a ) . P ur s uantt o A nder s v . 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30077 2 Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), T ram bl e’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e n o g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . We h a v e p r o v i d e dT r a m b l e th e o p p o rtu n i tyt o f i l e ap r o s e s up p l e m e n t a l b r i e f . No pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f ora ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 -8 1 (1 9 8 8 ), d isclo se s n o ar g u ab le g ro u n d s f o r r elief a s to T ra m b le’s conv i ct i on . W e di sm i ss the appeal of the se nt ence i n l i gh tof the val i d app ea l w a iv e r . See U

ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 23 5 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED . T h e co n v i ct i o n i s A F F I R M E D , an dth e ap p e a l o f th e s e n te n c e is D I SM I SSED .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   500,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,510
<OTHER-SE>                                   (227,607)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,344)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,344)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6862

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES MORRIS LOVE, a/k/a Jay,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-94-54, CA-95-488-3-MU)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Morris Love, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

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 on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Love, No. CR-94-54; CA-95-488-3-MU

(W.D.N.C. May 30, 1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         17,488
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,660,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,677,973
<PP&E>                                         721,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,399,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,960,645
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1498
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,399,678
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               74,756
<CGS>                                          117,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               23,841
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (71,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (71,725)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4176 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4176

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   122 West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, as the ``Bobby 
                 Marshall Gentry Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 122 
West Elwood Avenue in Raeford, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Bobby Marshall Gentry Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bobby Marshall Gentry Post 
Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Matthew



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 18, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00328

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Matthew MURRAY

, Appe llee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR11683

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee Matthew Murray’s brief was due August 11, 2014, but it has not been filed. We

order the brief filed by August 28, 2014 . If the brief is not filed by the date ordered, the appeal

may be set for submission without an appellee’s brief.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court