alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG

#### Neil Wilson Callahan v. Charles S. Sharp and Rappahannock Regional Jail

October 9, 1998

Case No. CL98-177

By Judge John W. Scott, Jr.

The Petitioner, Neil Wilson Callahan, having filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief with this Court on September 4, 1998, requesting his immediate release from incarceration on the basis of the fact that the offense for which he is currently incarcerated occurred in “1992.” If the offense date for the perjury conviction was November 18, 1992, Petitioner would have been eligible for release on August 7, 1998. If, on the other hand, the offense date for the perjury conviction was May 19, 1998, as well as the previous date, the Petitioner would be eligible for release on October 14, 1998. The Court must therefore determine which of these dates is the actual date of the offense.

On August 20, 1998, a conviction order was entered by file Honorable Thomas A. Fortkort in the Circuit Court of the City of Fredericksburg. That Order found the Defendant guilty of peijury on the basis of his guilty plea, which was tendered in the presence of his counsel. The Court sentenced the Petitioner to serve five years in the state penitentiary with four years six months suspended. The Order states that the dates for the peijury conviction were November 18, 1992, and May 19, 1998. The indictment and the sentencing order found the Defendant guilty in violation of § 18.2-435, Va. Code (1950, as amended). That section specifically states:

> *453It shall likewise constitute perjury for any person with the intent to testify falsely to knowingly give testimony under oath as to any material matter or thing and subsequently to give conflicting testimony under oath as to the same matter or thing—”

Under the language of the statute, the offense is not committed until subsequent testimony is given. In this case, the subsequent testimony was not given until May 19, 1998. Therefore, the elements of the offense were not satisfied until May 19, 1998. Without the subsequent testimony, there would be no violation of this offense.

It is therefore, adjudged, ordered, and decreed in accordance with § 18.2-435, Va. Code (1950, as amended), that the dates of the offense are as stated in the indictment. Since the offense was not committed until the Defendant’s subsequent testimony in May of 1998, any active period of incarceration imposed upon the Petitioner (Defendant) should be governed by the statutes and regulations of the Department of Corrections in effect as of May 19, 1998.
**Exhibit        32.2**

| (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                  Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                | BY:    | /s/ Edward                  Stiften                                         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   | Edward                  Stiften                                                  |   |
|                                                |   | Executive Vice                  President and Chief Financial Officer  |
|                                                |   | Express                  Scripts, Inc.                                           |   |
|                                                |   |                                                                             |   |
| Date:                    October 24, 2007 |   |                                                                             |   |
#### Donell J. BLOUNT, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Willie NEECE, Correctional Officer; Vitatoe, Correctional Officer; Sergeant J. Lambert, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-7420.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 26, 2012.

Decided Jan. 8, 2013.

Donell J. Blount, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Davies Su-pino, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

*245Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donell J. Blount, Sr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants on his claim of violations of the Eighth Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Blount v. Neece,*No. 7:11-cv-00362-GEC-RSB, 2012 WL 3562772 (W.D.Va. Aug. 17, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 339 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 98
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 339

                          [Report No. 108-237]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency 
 supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
                                 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                July 25 (legislative day, July 24), 2003

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency 
 supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
                                 2003.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on 
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) an amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, 
if offered by Representative Toomey of Pennsylvania or his designee, 
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or 
demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.

                                                  House Calendar No. 98

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 339

                          [Report No. 108-237]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency 
 supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
                                 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 25 (legislative day, July 24), 2003

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STACY LEE WATTS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1079

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed September 26, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Collier County; Christine Greider, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00576

- CV

ESTATE OF DELFINA E. ALEXANDER, DECEASED,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2 013

- PBA

- 000133

- L2 Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant s filed a Joint Notice of Appeal from an O rder Granting Motion for Appointment of Appellate Counsel in Trial Cause Number 20 13 PBA000133 L2. It appears this
court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from this order. See In the Guardianship of Glasser , 297 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, no pet.); In the Matter of the Estate of Levinson , No. 04

- 08

- 00782

- CV; 04

- 08

- 00929

- CV; 04

- 09

- 00092

- CV , 2009 WL 3400935 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Oct. 21, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. Accordingly, if appellants do not agree with this court’s initial revi ew of its jurisdiction, appellants are hereby ORDERED to show cause i n writing no later than September 12, 2014 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants do not respond by September 12, 2014, this appeal is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
All other appellate deadlines in this appeal are ABATED pending this court’s determination of its jurisdiction.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHER EOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4317-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4317-DR), dated June 2, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued July 13, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 2, 2017.

Boone, Cape Girardeau, Mississippi, New Madrid, and Scott Counties for Public Assistance. Pemiscot and Ste. Genevieve Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-17774 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
NUMBER 13-17-00070-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras1, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam2

Relator, the Texas Department of Public Safety, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus with request for emergency relief in this cause on January 30, 2017. Through 

this original proceeding, relator seeks to vacate two orders rendered on January 6, 2017 

which (1) strike relator’s expert witness, and (2) deny relator’s motion to strike the medical 

 

1 Justice Dori Contreras, formerly Dori Contreras Garza. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 45.101 et 

seq. (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 

2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in 

any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do 

so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

experts retained by the real party in interest, Raquel Guzman. Through its request for 

emergency relief, relator seeks to stay the jury trial of this matter which is set for February 

6, 2017.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 

302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a 

clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus 

Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator 

bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 

S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or 

is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re 

Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford 

Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of 

an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the 

detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the 

relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus and the request 

for emergency relief. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

31st day of January, 2017.
Opinion issued July 13, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 23 - 004 35 - CV

——————————— IN RE H - E - B, LP , Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, H

- E

- B, LP , filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s May 30, 2023 order transferring venue of the underlying trial court cause to Bexar County, Texas
. 1 Relator requests that the Court “enter a writ of mandamus

1 The underlying case is Vanessa Toledo v. H

- E

- B, LP, H.E. Butt Grocery Company, H.E.B., Inc., and Ross Rhoton , Cause No. 2022

- 73790, in 190th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Beau A. Miller presiding.2

directi ng the [trial court] to order the transfer of venue to Montgomery County, [and] that HEB recover its costs of [c]ourt.” Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to establish that it is entitled to mandamus relief requested in the petition . Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). A ny pending motion i s dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
#### Holcomb *v.*Holcomb.

*(Circuit Court,*E. *D. Michigan.*

May 25, 1885.)

Practice—Ricuit to Discontinue Action—Reference—Set-off—Statute of Limitations.

Where defendant pleaded a set-off, and the case was referred, and the referee nad reported a balance due to the defendant, and the statute of limitations had run against an original suit upon his claim, *held,*that the plaintiff had no right to discontinue the action.

On motion of defendant to set aside an order of discontinuance, and for judgment against the plaintiff on report of referee. Plaintiff’s declaration was upon the common counts. Defendant pleaded the general issue and notice of set-off. The case -was referred to a referee, and the referee found and reported that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $26,531.49. Notice of the filing of this report was given plaintiff as required by law, and no objections were filed, but plaintiff entered an *ex parte*order discontinuing the case.

*De Forest Paine,*for the motion.

*George, S. Hosmer,*for plaintiff.

Brown, J.

The right of a plaintiff, in an ordinary action at law, to discontinue his suit at any time before verdict, upon the payment of costs, is beyond question, and is expressly recognized in the practice of the circuit courts of this state. Circuit court rule 26. Whether this right exists in eases where the defendant has filed a set-off, and claims an affirmative judgment in his favor, as by statute he is entitled to do, is an open question, and the authorities are in hopeless conflict. The principal cases are collated in *Merchants' Bank*v. *Schulenberg,*19 N. W. Rep. 741,'in which the justices of the supreme court' of this state were equally divided in opinion. Without expressing a decided opinion upon the general subject, it is sufficient for the purposes of this case to hold that where a cause is referred to a referee, and the referee has found a balance due to the defendant, and the statute of limitations has run against an original suit upon Ms claim, (as'it is conceded to have done in this case,) the plaintiff ought not to he permitted to discontinue without the assent of the de» *782fendant. Having provoked a conflict -with defendant, and lulled him into the belief that he was willing to test his claim by way of set-off to his own demand, he should not be allowed, after a virtual defeat, to reap the fruits of a victory. The examination before the referee is a substantial trial of the action. Edw. Bef. *c.*1, § 3. His report is equivalent to the'verdict of a jury, (chapter 4, §§ 18-28,) and has the same effect by way of estoppel upon the parties. Chapter 27, § 10; Bigelow, Estop, *c.*18. Now, the right to discontinue termin-ates with a verdict, and we think, by analogy, with the filing of *the*referee’s report.

The motion is therefore granted.
J-S13038-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JODY ANDREW BOYER,

Appellant No. 1531 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000069-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 3, 2015

I do not believe the Commonwealth presented suffic ient evidence to

support the conviction for resisting arrest. Accor dingly, I respectfully

dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 501 Referred in House (RFH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 501

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2015

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights settlement in 
            the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New Mexico Navajo Water Settlement 
Technical Corrections Act''.

SEC. 2. NAVAJO WATER SETTLEMENT.

    (a) Definitions.--Section 10302 of the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 407 note; Public Law 111-11) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Arrellano'' and 
        inserting ``Arellano''; and
            (2) in paragraph (27), by striking ``75-185'' and inserting 
        ``75-184''.
    (b) Delivery and Use of Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Water.--
Section 10603(c)(2)(A) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1385) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``Article III(c)'' and 
        inserting ``Articles III(c)''; and
            (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ``Article III(c)'' and 
        inserting ``Articles III(c)''.
    (c) Project Contracts.--Section 10604(f)(1) of the Omnibus Public 
Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1391) is 
amended by inserting ``Project'' before ``water''.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10609 of the Omnibus 
Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1395) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), by 
        striking ``construction or rehabilitation'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``planning, design, construction, 
        rehabilitation,'';
            (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``2 percent'' and 
        inserting ``4 percent''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``4 percent'' and 
        inserting ``2 percent''.
    (e) Agreement.--Section 10701(e) of the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1400) is amended 
in paragraphs (2)(A), (2)(B), and (3)(A) by striking ``and Contract'' 
each place it appears.

            Passed the Senate May 21, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```