alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Isaac Cunningham *v.*Hugh McConnell.

Pleading — Petition on Notes and Accounts.

A petition which. alleges an indebtedness for sewing machines in the sum of $1,000 and an indebtedness on accounts and notes, with*398out alleging when or how many of the machines were delivered, or against whom the accounts were credited, or by whom the notes were executed, is insufficient.

APPEAL PROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The statement of the accounts, existing between Rees and appel-lee, made by the latter, is so unsatisfactory as to require a reversal. It can not be ascertained whether many of the claims evidencing the indebtedness, existed before or after the appellant became bound as the surety of Rees. There was also charges for cash advanced by McConnell to his agent, for which the surety can not be made to account by reason of his covenant, unless there is some explanation or reason assigned, other than the mere statements of these items in the account, bringing these cash claims within the breach of the covenant declared on. The petition, although no demurrer seems to have been filed, did not assign such breaches of the covenant as would authorize a recovery for the amount of the notes, if a recovery can be had at all under it.

The answer, however, may cure some of the defects in the petition and give the appellee a standing in court. The petition alleges an indebtedness in the sum of one thousand dollars for sewing machines, sold or delivered to the agent under the contract, and an indebtedness by account and notes, etc., without alleging when or how many of the machines were delivered, or against whom the accounts were created, or by whom the notes were executed. Neither the agent nor the appellant, as his surety, can respond to such a pleading; and when the statement of the accounts, as made by the appellee, is connected with the pleading, the reason for alleging the specific breaches of the covenant clearly appears. We do' not understand that the appellee is seeking to recover the amount of the notes secured by the mortgage, or that any judgment was rendered upon these claims. The parties should be allowed to amend their pleading, and the case be referred to a commissioner to audit the accounts between Rees and the appellee, in order that the liability, if any, of the appellant may be determined. The judgment reversed *399and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*Davis, for appellant.*

*Hargis, for appellee.*
Affiliate Members 

February 2024 

AFFILIATES 

Philip Antoci 

John Drugan 

Dana Greely 

Nigel Hearns 

Dennis Hilliard 

Bahne Klietz 

Kim Kunkler 

Ludwig Niewoehner 

Kari Pitts 

Jens Rafaelsen 

Christa Rajendram 

William Randle 

Peter Ross 

Jason Shroeder 

Ruediger Schumacher 

Tatiana Trejos
1

 October 21, 2005, represents the date plaintiff faxed a copy of records to defendant

indicating the balance due on defendant’s account. (See Doc. 49, p. 8; Doc. 49-10, p. 3; Doc. 49-

14). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0578-CG-B

)

JOHNSTON PAINT & BODY )

SUPPLIES, LLC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s request that the court determine the amount

of pre-judgment interest and costs (Doc. 71). Judgment was previously entered in favor of

plaintiff in the amount of $107,518.77 plus interest and costs. (Doc. 70). After plaintiff filed the

current motion, costs were taxed by the clerk in the amount of $596.79 and plaintiff was advised

that in accordance with Local Rule 54.1, if it was not satisfied with the clerk’s taxation of costs,

it could file a motion to retax within five days. (Doc. 73). No motion to retax has been filed. 

Thus, the only remaining issue before the court is plaintiff’s request for a determination of the

pre-judgment interest. 

Plaintiff asserts that pre-judgment interest totals $28,403.05, calculated at the rate of 6%

per annum for the time period of October 21, 20051

, until the date of judgment, November 5,

2009. The court notes that defendant filed no opposition to plaintiff’s motion. After reviewing

plaintiff’s motion and the documents in this case, the court finds plaintiff’s motion should be

Case 1:08-cv-00578-CG-B Document 75 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2
granted. 

Plaintiff’s motion for determination of pre-judgment interest (Doc. 71) is hereby

GRANTED and the court declares that plaintiff, Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc., is entitled to

$28,403.05 in pre-judgment interest.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00578-CG-B Document 75 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnoldo QUIHUI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10138.

D.C. No. CR-99-00306-02-FRZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*636Submitted May 16, 2001.*

Decided June 5, 2001.

Before HUG and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Amoldo Quihui appeals his sentence for conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Quihui alleges that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we AFFIRM. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we do not recount it here except as necessary to explain our decision.

Quihui argues that his conduct did not constitute obstruction because it did not actually hinder the investigation. Quihui relies on this Court’s decision in a previous case that a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice was inappropriate where the defendant gave a false name and false identification cards to law enforcement at the time of arrest, but those acts did not significantly hinder the investigation. *United States v. Solano-Godines,*120 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir.1997). Quihui, however, attempted to pay a witness to lie to police during their investigation so that he would not be apprehended. Rather than falling under our precedent of *Solano-Godines,*Quihui’s case is governed by our decision in *United States v. Atkinson,*966 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir.1992). There, we found the district court did not err by enhancing a sentence for obstruction where the defendant instructed witnesses to lie to federal agents during the investigation. *Id.*at 1277. The district court here did not err by characterizing Quihui’s conduct as obstruction and enhancing Quihui’s sentence accordingly.

AFFIRMED.

***

 ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

FRED LOHR AND JOLENE K. FOUSE,

Petitioners

v.

SARATOGA PARTNERS, L.P. AND 

HUNTINGDON COUNTY TAX CLAIM 

BUREAU,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 209 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether the lack of a right to redemption under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law 

(RETSL) 72 P.S. §5860.101 et seq., violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 

United States Constitution and Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution[?]
. 

. N r NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

LICE NS I N G Opp ORT U N I TY U.S.DEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE 

PHOTONIC DOSIMETER 

THE TECHNOLOGY U.S. Patent Number 10,718,872 

NIST scientists have developed a photonic device whose resonance characteristics (such as, quality 

factor, peak position, and free spectral range) change in a predictable way in response to the 

interaction of radiation with the sensor and/or its surroundings. The invention consists of one or more 

photonic structures (such as Bragg mirror, ring resonator, photonic crystal cavity) that is designed to 

undergo structural changes in response to ionizing radiation. The changing structure produces 

measurable shifts in photonic response (e.g., peak frequency, quality factor Q, free spectral range) 

that are used to measure cumulative absorbed dose. 

SMALL 

ADAPTABLE 

ACCURATE 

The invention can be used to measure 

real-time dose by making a differential 

measurement using two or more 

photonic sensors having different 

sensitivities to cumulative dose, so that 

the latter can be isolated. 

BENEFITS 

Can be used in an offline mode in 

which cumulative dose can be 

quantified 

Leverages commercial communications 

technology and chip fabrication for 

inexpensive manufacturing and operation 

Invention works in harsh environments 

where electronic dosimeters could fail 

Size scale is smaller than the state of the 

art, so can be used for dosimetry of 

microscopic samples, surfaces and 

regions of large dose gradients (e.g., 

near beam penumbrae or near 

boundaries of dissimilar materials within 

bulk matter) 

pbOt·onlt desamtt@r 

arrav 

An 1trav of �hoton1< dosImews subje<ted to Ion11in1 radlatio,, 

CONTACT 

Technology Partnerships Office (TPO) 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

TPO@NIST.GOV 

Ref. 17-024
| 1)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                     |                                     |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Dated:              November 7, 2006 |                                                          | /s/ WILLIAM              P. SPENCER |
|                                 | William P. Spencer Chief Executive Officer and President |
|                                 |                                                          |

----
11000.

#### Alexander *v.*Easterling.

Smith, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial (other than mere amplifications of the general grounds), to be treated at all, must be considered as in the nature of a motion based on newly dis*72covered evidence; and a new trial cannot be granted for newly discovered evidence, where it is not made to appear by affidavit of the movant and his *counsel*that they did not know of such evidence before trial and that the same could not have been discovered with ordinary diligence. Park’s Ann. Code, § 6086, and note.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Reidsville — Judge Cowart. August 15, 1919.

*S. B. McCall, W. T. Burkhalter,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. S.*Way, contra.

2. While the evidence in this case is not at all satisfactory to this court, there is some evidence to support the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court is compelled, under the limitations of the constitutional amendment creating it, to affirm his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00028

- CR

Lamar Lovett , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order denying post

- conviction DNA testing entered by the trial court.

Hav ing reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no

reversible error in the order

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order denying post

conviction DNA testing

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on

of costs is made.
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	RESEARCH	NEEDS	ASSESSMENT	FORM

Title	of	research	need: Validation	of	Conclusion	Scale

Keyword(s):

Submitting	subcommittee(s): Forensic	Document	Examination Date	Approved:

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	Information:

1. Description	of	research	need:

A	form	of	validation	showing	the	conclusion	scale used	accurately	represents	the	opinions	reached.		

2. Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

3a. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

More	examiners	would	be	willing	to	accept	a	conclusion	scale	that	had	research	to	back	its	effectiveness.		

The	more	examiners	who	follow	the	scale	the	more	solid	the	discipline.		

3b. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

Because	multiple	subcommittees	will	be	utilizing	the	conclusion	scale,	validation	that	the	scale	is	reliable	

will	strengthen	the	forensic	community	as	a	whole.	

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

Any	research	that	can	further	validate	forensic	science will	be	a	positive	to	the	criminal	justice	system.		

Better	scientific	research	will	yield	better	standards.		Better	standards	will	be	more	widely	accepted	in	

courts	of	law.		When	testifying	in	courts	that	recognize	the	standards,	examiners	who	follow	the	standards	

will	spend	less	time	defending	their	science	and	more	time	testifying	to	the	evidence	involved	in	the	case.				
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

4.		Status	assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV): I Major gap	in	

current	

knowledge

Minor	gap	in	

current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.	Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

SAC

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need? Yes x No

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment? Yes x No

If	no,	what	is	the	status	assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date: 17-Mar-2016

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)
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.                  

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

# CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.

Dated: December 1, 2014.

Connie M. Downs,

Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

[FR Doc. 2014-28561 Filed 12-2-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4787 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4787

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale to, and 
    possession by, unauthorized users of traffic signal preemption 
                 transmitters, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2004

    Mr. Rogers of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale to, and 
    possession by, unauthorized users of traffic signal preemption 
                 transmitters, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) Chapter 2 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
``Sec. 39. Traffic signal preemption transmitters
    ``(a) Offenses.--
            ``(1) Sale.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
        commerce, knowingly sells a traffic signal preemption 
        transmitter to a person who is not a government approved user 
        of such a transmitter shall be fined under this title or 
        imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
            ``(2) Possession.--Whoever, not being a government approved 
        user of a traffic signal preemption transmitter, knowingly 
        possesses a traffic signal preemption transmitter in or 
        affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be fined under 
        this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the term `traffic signal 
preemption transmitter' means any device or mechanism that can change a 
traffic signal's phase.''.
    (b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``39. Traffic signal preemption transmitters.''.
                                 <all>
```
1029-JS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 02-14-00459-CR

Devin Gardner v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

OFFENSE: 29.03

COUNTY: Tarrant

TRIAL COURT: 213th District Court

DATE: 08/06/15 Publish: NO TCCASE#: 1311335D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Devin Gardner v. The State of Texas

APPELLANTS Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: "/<wk

JUDGE: ZtA fL

&o/r

MA^&^*-

CCA#: 1022-/5

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Filed 12/12/00 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2000 ND 213

Matrix Properties Corporation, a 

Minnesota corporation, formerly 

known as E.W. Wylie Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

TAG Investments, a North Dakota 

partnership, and James A. Grettum, 

an individual resident of North Dakota, Defendants and Appellants

No. 20000192

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Frank L. Racek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Sidney J. Spaeth, Vogel, Weir, Hunke & McCormick, Ltd., P.O. Box 1389, Fargo, N.D. 58107-1389, for plaintiff and appellee.

Jonathan T. Garaas, Garaas Law Firm, DeMores Office Park, 1314 23rd Street South, Fargo, N.D. 58103-3796, for defendants and appellants.

Matrix Prop. Corp. V. TAG Investments

No. 20000192

Per Curiam.

[¶1]TAG Investments and James A. Grettum appealed from a district court’s post- judgment order determining that its prior judgment, as affirmed by this Court in Matrix Properties Corp. v. TAG Investments, 2000 ND 88, 609 N.W.2d 737, required TAG and Grettum to transfer property in accordance with Matrix Properties Corporation’s exercise of an option under the parties’ 1996 agreement.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).  Double costs are awarded to Matrix under N.D.R.App.P. 38 and 39.  We further direct the district court to order specific performance requiring TAG and Grettum to convey the subject property upon tender by Matrix of the purchase price set in the 1996 option agreement.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

William A. Neumann

Mary Muehlen Maring

William F. Hodny, S.J.

[¶3]The Honorable William F. Hodny, S.J., sitting in place of Kapsner, J., disqualified.
#### Malachi Powell v. The People.

*Payment of penalty precludes review on certm'wi.*

*{J&i'tioran'i*will not lie to bring up proceedings for the collection of a penalty under a municipal ordinance if tire penalty has been paid.

Certiorari to the Recorder’s Court of Detroit.

Submitted Oct. 13.

Decided Oct. 19.

Complaint for keeping a disorderly saloon. Respondent was fined $100 and $13 costs.

"Writ quashed.

*Olías. E. Miller*for plaintiff in *eerUora/ri.*

City Attorney *E G. Russell*and City Counselor *H. M. Duffield*for defendant in *eertiorari.*

Marston, C. J.

The respondent was convicted in the Recorder’s Court of Detroit for violating an ordinance and a penalty was imposed which was paid. The payment of the penalty renders wholly immaterial the questions raised and the writ must be quashed as having been improvidently granted.

The other Justices concurred.