alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10830.

#### Blackmon *v.*The State.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Indictment for larceny from house; from Fulton superior court —Judge Humphries. July 11, 1919.

*T. C. Battle,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, B. A. Stephens,*contra.

Broyles,.0. J.

1. “In indictments for compound larceny, the allegations in reference to the aggravating fact serve to individualize the transaction, and a more general description of the property is permissible in such eases than would be permitted in indictments for simple larceny.” *Melvin*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*491 (48 S. E. 198); *Cannon*v. *State,*125 *Ga.*785 (54 S. E. 692).

*(a)*Larceny from the house is a larceny of a compound nature. *Cannon*v. *State,*supra.

2. In the instant case the indictment charged the defendant “with the offense of larceny from the house, for that said accused, in the county of Fulton and State of Georgia, on the 28th day of March, 1919, with force and arms, did from the office and place of business of Dr. R. C. Mosley, said office and place of business being a house in said State and county, wrongfully, fraudulently, and privately take, steal, and carry away, with intent to steal the same, one typewriter of the value of seventy dollars and the property of the said Dr. R. C. Mosley.” The description of the property alleged to have been stolen, when taken in connection with the other allegations of the indictment just quoted, was sufficiently full to withstand a special demurrer. 2 Bishop’s Hew Criminal Procedure, § 700; *Sanders*v. *State,*86 *Ga.*717 (12 S. E. 1058); *Powell*v. *State,*88 *Ga.*32 (13 S. E. 829); *Cannon*v. *State,*supra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
II 

Calendar No. 665

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4222

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JULY 22, 2004

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, 

as the ‘‘Newell George Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, 

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Newell George Post 

7 Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 4222 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Newell George Post Office Building’’. 

Calendar No. 665

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4222

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Kansas City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Newell George al Service located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in 

JULY 22, 2004

Reported without amendment
10797.

#### Blood *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for car-breaking; from Richmond superior court— Judge II. C. Hammond. July 3, 1919.

*G. A.*Picquet, for plaintiff in error.

*A. L. Franklin, solicitor-general, John M. Graham,*contra.

Luke, J.

This case is presented here upon the general grounds only. There is evidence to support the verdict. It was the right and province of the jury to credit such witnesses and circumstances as they, under an appropriate charge of the court,, deemed satisfied them beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-679V Filed: January 4, 2016

Not for Publication

************************************* CYNTHIA RAE TORRES , * * Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* Larry G. Michel

, Salina

, KS, for petitioner. Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On December 29 , 2015, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain

Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) that was caused by her April 8, 2013 receipt of the rubell a and tetanus

diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines. Respondent denies that the rubella or Tdap vaccines caused petitioner’s GBS or any other injury. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’ s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E -Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial informat ion that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete such information prior to the document’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall delete such material from public access. Damages decision based on stipulation; Guillain

- Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); rubella vaccine; tetanus -diphtheriaacellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccineThe undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby adopts the parties’ attached stipulation and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of $105,000.00

,representing reimbursement for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(a) (2012). The award shall be in the form of a check payable to petitioner in the amount of $105,000.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4315

To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from releasing water from Fort 

Peck Dam if the water level of Fort Peck Lake is 20 feet or more 

below the reservoir’s full pool, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2004

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from releasing water 

from Fort Peck Dam if the water level of Fort Peck 

Lake is 20 feet or more below the reservoir’s full pool, 

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Peck Lake Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 
2

•HR 4315 IH 

1 (1) 2004 is the 6th consecutive year of severe 

2 drought in the State of Montana. 

3 (2) The biological and ecological resources at 

4 Fort Peck Lake, Montana, are compromised by 

5 drought and a lack of water. 

6 (3) The Secretary of the Army should manage 

7 the Missouri River Basin in a way that imparts 

8 equal emphasis on each of its uses, including flood 

9 control, navigation, recreation, and conservation of 

10 fish and wildlife (including threatened and endan11 gered species). 

12 SEC. 3. FORT PECK LAKE, MONTANA. 

13 The project for flood control and other purposes, Fort 

14 Peck Lake, Montana, authorized by section 9 of the Act 

15 entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain 

16 public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and 

17 for other purposes’’, approved December 22, 1944 (58 

18 Stat. 891), is modified to prohibit the Secretary of the 

19 Army from releasing water from Fort Peck Dam if the 

20 water level of Fort Peck Lake is 20 feet or more below 

21 the reservoir’s full pool. If the Secretary does release water 

22 from Fort Peck Dam, the outflow from the release may 

23 not exceed the volume of water flowing into the lake, as 

24 measured in average daily cubic feet per second.

Æ
10638.

#### Crawley *v.*The State.

Decided June 19, 1919.

Rehearing denied July 3, 1919.

Broyles, P. J.

1. The motion by the State to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied. The questions raised in the motion could have been made in the trial court, and, it’ not appearing from the record that they were raised there, they will not be passed upon „by this court. *Bolton*v. *City of Newnan,*147 *Ga.*400, (94 S. E. 236), and authorities cited.

2. Upon the motion to change the venue the evidence was conflicting on the material issues, and it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant the motion. See, in this connection, *Wilburn*v. *State,*140 *Ga.*138 (78 S. E. 819); *Broxton*v. *State,*ante, 31 (99 S. E. 635).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*

*34Indictment for murder—motion to change venue; from Union superior court—Judge J. B. Jones. May 19, 1919.

In the motion to dismiss the writ of error it was contended that the act of 1911 as to change of venue and as to exceptions in such cases (Ga. L. 1911, pp. 74-7) is unconstitutional and wholly void, and the bill of exceptions was unauthorized.

*Hughes Spalding, John A. Sibley',*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G. Collins, solicitor-general, Pal. Haralson, W. E. & T. S. Candler,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<CIK>     0000837913
<NAME>     GENUS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>     1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        8653
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                13119
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (241)
<INVENTORY>                                   7628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             30141
<PP&E>                                       28712
<DEPRECIATION>                              (23463)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               35729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        14612
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    101789
<OTHER-SE>                                  (80672)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 35729
<SALES>                                      12277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             12277
<CGS>                                         6812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                11342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               1221
<INCOME-TAX>                                   250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            971
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   971
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .05


</TABLE>
#### Windland v. Windland

*380C.P. of Adams County,

no. 90-S-735.

*John Moran,*for plaintiff.

*Tracey M. Sheffer,*for defendant.

April 21, 1997

KUHN, J.,

This action commenced on August 27, 1990, when plaintiff filed a no-fault divorce complaint. On November 14, 1991, she amended that complaint to add counts for indignities, equitable distribution, alimony pendente lite, and attorney’s fees. On April 29, 1992, a divorce master was appointed upon plaintiff’s request but on July 30,1992, only nine days after defendant filed his affidavit of consent, plaintiff moved to vacate that master’s appointment. That request was granted on September 9, 1992. The docket was then inactive until June 11,1996, when defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint and also filed a counterclaim for a section 3301(d) divorce. Per order of November 21, 1996, plaintiff’s alimony pendente lite claim, which had been continued since March 26, 1992, was dismissed.

On March 3, 1997, defendant filed a motion for non pros wherein he requested that plaintiff’s claims for equitable distribution, counsel fees and costs be dismissed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(c)(3). It appears that on December 20, 1996, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.22(b), defendant sent written interrogatories to plaintiff at P.O. Box 413, East Berlin, PA 17316 by regular mail. Answers were not received by defendant until April 11, 1997.

Although styled a motion for non pros, a reading of the same clearly shows that defendant was seeking sanctions under the aforesaid rule for plaintiff’s failure to respond. Pa.R.C.P. 4006(a)(2) requires that answers be filed within 30 days after service. Here, service was completed on December 20, 1996. Pa.R.C.P. 440(b).

*381The relief requested appears overly harsh. Delay has been the hallmark of this case. While no such courtesy is required, there is no evidence that defendant reminded plaintiff of the tardiness of her responses. Of course, plaintiff sought no extension. Nevertheless, responses have been received. The more appropriate sanction would be imposition of attorney fees related to the motion. Review of defendant’s fee exhibit suggests an award of $150 to be reasonable.

Accordingly, the attached order is entered.

ORDER

And now, April 21, 1997, in consideration of defendant’s motion for non pros, it is directed that plaintiff pay defendant’s attorney’s fee of $150.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20613 C onfer enc e C al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. J OHAN DA RI O R EY ES
- HOBB S , a l s o k n o wn a s J o h a n Da r i o Re y e s , a l s o k n o wn as D ar i o J ohan R eye s, al so know n as Johan D avi d R eye s, al so know n as Johan D ariR eyes , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C R - 146- 1 B e fo r e G A R Z A , D E N N IS , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A ppeal i ng t he j udgm enti n a c r i m i nalcas e, Johan D ar i o Reyes - H obbs pre se nt s ar gum ent s t hat he c onc ede s ar e f or ec l os ed by Uni t e d St at e s v . Ce pe daR i os , 530 F . 3d 333 , 335 - 36 (5t h C i r. 200 8) , w h i ch h el d that even aft er Lopezv. G on zales , 549 U . S . 47 ( 200 6) , a sec on d st ate c on vi ct i on f or s i m pl e possess i on of a c o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e q uali f i e s a s a n a gg r av at e d f el on y t hats upp o r t s t he

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20613 Document: 00511027499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010N o. 09- 20613

2 i m po s i t i o n o f

a n e i ght - l e ve le nhan c e m e ntund e rU ni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e § 2 L 1 .2 (b )(1 )(C ). T h e a p p e lla n t’s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r yd is p o s itio n is GR ANT ED , a n dt h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-20613 Document: 00511027499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 4.13



                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                        ASSOCIATES FIRST CAPITAL TRUST II


                  This Certificate of Trust of Associates First Capital Trust II
(the "Trust"), dated September 3, 1998, is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business
Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.).

                  1. Name. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is
Associates First Capital Trust II.

                  2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the
trustee of the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware
are as follows:

                  Chase Manhattan Bank Delaware
                  1201 Market Street
                  Wilmington, Delaware  19801
                  Attention:  Corporate Trust Administration

                  3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be
effective immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware.





<PAGE>   2


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the
Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first above
written.

                                         The Chase Manhattan Bank,
                                         as Trustee



                                         By: /s/ ANDREW M. DECK
                                            -----------------------------------
                                         Name: Andrew M. Deck
                                         Title: Trust Officer

                                         Chase Manhattan Bank Delaware,
                                         as Trustee



                                         By: /s/ DENIS KELLY
                                            -----------------------------------
                                         Name: Denis Kelly
                                         Title: Trust Officer

                                         Marvin T. Runyon III
                                         as Trustee

                                         /s/ MARVIN T. RUNYON III
                                         --------------------------------------


                                         John F. Stillo
                                         as Trustee


                                         /s/ JOHN F. STILLO
                                         --------------------------------------






                                        2
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Missouri

2023

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international 

system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented 

measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and 

has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

Mass Echelon II

30 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb, 500 lb

50 lb to 0.001 lb

4oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

250 kg to 1 mg

6500 lb to 0.001 lb

4 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts 

6500 lb to 2000 lb

Volume Gravimetric, I

500 mL

1 gal to 2 fl oz

Volume Transfer, II

1500 gal to 5 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal to 25 gal 

_____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

(Rev.: September 2021)

Effective Dates: 2023-02-01 to 2024-02-01
Operations Manual 

Items: H3760-H, H3760-S, 

And H3760-HS 

Introduction: Thank you for choosing Benchmark Scientific as your source for laboratory equipment. This manual covers the Benchmark Scientific line of digital Hotplates, Stirrers, and Hotplate/Stirrers (Series H3760). In order to ensure the safe operation of the equipment enclosed, please read this manual in its entirety before use. Specifications Speed: 200-1500 rpm*Temperature: Ambient +5°C – 380°C*Platform Dimensions: 6.5” x 6.5”Electrical: Power Consumption:

115V/60Hz or 230V/60Hz Max: 500W

Warranty: 2 Years *Speed and Temperature control may not be available on all models 

Installation:Prior to installation, please ensure all components are included within the carton and have arrived as expected. Please contact the supplier as soon as possible should there be any discrepancy. Place your new Hotplate/Stirrer on a flat, level service with at least 4 inches (10cm) clearance on all sides. If desired, attach the optional support rod to the rear of the unit by screwing threaded end into designated hole. Attach proper power cord to the rear of unit and plug into a grounded outlet of appropriate voltage.

Voltage of outlet must match voltage listed on the label on rear of instrument. Failure to supply appropriate power may damage instrument and void warranty!

Control Panel - Hotplate/Stirrer Combination: 

A) Hot surface indicator light – Safety Warning B) Digital Display 

C) Temp. selection keys 

D) Speed control dial 

E) Start/Stop 

Operation (Hotplate/Stirrer Combination): 

- Turn power switch (rear of instrument) to on position (“I”).

- Set stir speed by turning the dial. The set stir speed will 

appear on the top of the display. To operate without stirring, set stir speed to zero. 

- Set temperature by using the up & down keys beneath the 

display. The set temperature will appear on the bottom of the display. To operate without heating, set temperature to zero. 

- Once desired stir speed and temperature are set, press the 

selection knob to begin stirring and heating. The actual stir speed and temperature will begin to rise to the set parameters. Hot surface indicator lights at 50°C. 

Caution: Hot surface! Once selection knob has been pressed, the surface of the instrument will begin to heat. Avoid bodily contact or personal injury may occur. 

Control Panel - H

A) Hot 

B) Dig

C) TemD) Star

Operation (Hot P

- Turn power s

- Set temperat

- Set tempera

actual surface 

- Once desired 

begin heatinrise to matcsurface indica

Caution: Hopressed, the Avoid bodily 

Operation (Stirre

- Turn power s

- Set stir speed 

- Set stir speed 

stir speed app

- Once desired 

stirring. The aselected stirri

Maintenance: 

- To ensure p

keep outer instrument fwipe down aor spray clean

- The instrume

of failure or source and co

Troubleshooting

 Not heating Or Not stirring
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 March 31, 2009 (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.

 

 

| May 12, 2009 |   | By: /s/ | David A. Wheat                                                                                                   |
|--------------|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Date)       |   |    | David A. Wheat

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

  |

 

 

 

 

----