alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. George Gallahan

April 18, 1984

By JUDGE JOHN A. JAMISON

I have studied Mr. Stevens’s letter of April 3rd and Mr. Smith’s of April 5th, along with the cases furnished me by Mr. Stevens and those cited in his letter. The six cases cited and analyzed by Mr. Smith have also been given my attention, and I am naturally quite conscious of the *Greenwalt*case  decided in 1982 on appeal from the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County, which also bears on the question here presented.

The thrust of these cases is the need to determine whether or not there was what can be considered a true dismissal. Mr. Stevens feels that since no actual trial took place and no presentation of evidence was begun, that the defendant was not in jeopardy. This is persuasive reasoning, but I am faced with the fact that the District Judge actually wrote on the warrant that it was *"dis*missed,This important decision, a produce of the Court’s mind, transferred to paper, and signed by the Judge, appears to me to be a holding on which the defendant could be assured that no further trial would take place. If he had been charged with a felony at the time the matter had been in the District Court for its preliminary hearing and that Court had attempted to dismiss the felony, of *112course the Commonwealth could have proceeded anew before the Grand Jury without any difficulty. Here, however, Gallahan was charged before the District Court with "assault and battery," but the magistrate and the Commonwealth made the important concession that the assault and battery charge as well as the maiming charge grew out of exactly the same incident, even though there was a discrepancy as to the actual date. Assault and battery is without question, a lesser included offense of malicious wounding. Since assault and battery is a misdemeanor which the District Court had the authority to dismiss, it did so. It, therefore, appears that Mr. Smith’s position that the defendant would be in double jeopardy if now tried upon the indictment, is a correct one and I must so find.

I concede that there can be argument to the contrary, but in view of the clear message in *Brown*v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 111 (1981), the most recent case cited by Mr. Smith and the prior cases he also cites, that if a defendant is dismissed in the District Court of an offense in which that Court had jurisdiction to try and dispose of, it appears clear that the Commonwealth has no right to take the greater offense in which the lesser is included, before a Grand Jury. Of course, this reasoning would not apply if assault and battery had not been a lesser included offense, but here it is clear that it is.

Therefore, I must sustain the position taken by Mr. Smith and hold that double jeopardy would attach if the case should now go forward in the Circuit Court
HonorableB. C. Hooser

CountyAttorney Howard o.ounty Big Spring,..TexaeDear Slrz OplnlonRO.. O-7101 Re+:i Alie'busses

which are owned and used strictly ,by. ahur&es as non-profit vehialeseubjeat to the one pbr.

oent **motor** ve- 'hioli$+etall

sales tax levied by Article 7047k, V.A.C.S.? Your reqrieet

for an opinion, re0eive.d In this offloe on February 14, .1.946, reads as followat

*We question is will the churohhave to pay the one per cent motor vehicle retail sales tax. The bus is to be used strictlyas a non-profitvehicle and to oarrypeople to church and Sunday Suhool." You eualosed a letter to a cltlcen of Big Spring from Hon. Qeorge II.

Sheppard, State Comptrollerof Pu@llc &counts, Milch letter states thata

a

. . It Is our view that tie church will have to pay'tie one per uent motor vehlole retail sales tax on the thirty-twopassenger bua that you purebased from the Davis Auto Company of tilldress,Texas, as ue do not find anything lu Article 7047k exemptingchurohes **rrom** paying the tax.' We agree with the Interpretation placed on said statute by the State Comptroller. We rind uo authority, statutory or otherwloe, authorl5lugthe exeqptlon of churches or otherBonoribleIi.C. Hooser, page 2 (o-7101)

rellglousorganltatlons rrom payment of the sales tax In question. We thereforeansver ~your qwetlon In the afYlrmatlve.

Yours very truly ATTORREYORNJSRAL

OF TEXAS

E+y /a/ J. Arthur Sandlln

J. Arthur Sandlln Assistant JAS:ms:lm APPROV&DMAR 12, 1946

/s/‘CarloaAshley FlRST AiSISTANT A'l!TORRRY

GRRRRAL 

## APPROVED

' OPIlKOll COHRITTRR
Seventh Amendment of the Research and Commercial License Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.49 
 NOTE: Portions of this Exhibit are the subject of a Confidential Treatment Request by the Registrant to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). Such portions have been
redacted and are marked with a “[***]” in the place of the redacted language. The redacted information has been filed separately with the Commission. 
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE RESEARCH AND COMMERCIAL LICENSE OPTION AGREEMENT 
 The Parties to
the Research and Commercial License Option Agreement of October 1, 2005 as previously amended (“Agreement”), Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at Point Richmond Tech Center, 501
Canal Boulevard, Suite A100, Richmond, California 94804 (“Sangamo”), and Dow AgroSciences LLC, a Delaware limited liability company having its principal place of business at 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 (“DAS”),
hereby further amend the Agreement as follows: 
 A. Section 8.3 (b) of the Agreement is hereby further amended to add the following
subsection “(iii)”: 
 (iii) Additional Research during 2011-2012 portion of Subsequent Resarch Term

 a. DAS and Sangamo agree to carry out, subject to 8.3(b)(iii) e, the two additional research projects described in attached
documents titled “[***],” and “[***]” 
 b. 2011 funding for these additional
projects is $[***]. DAS will pay this amount in four equal payments of $[***], due on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of 2011. 

c. 2012 funding for these two projects is $[***]. DAS will pay this amount in four equal payments of $[***],
due on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of 2012. 
 d. Sangamo will send
invoices and DAS will pay within thiry (30) days of receiving each invoice. 
 e. DAS may cancel any part of
the work to be carried out under Section 8.3(b)(ii) on ninety (90) days written notice. 
 B. Except as amended hereby or pursuant to
other duly made amendments, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Those amendments made herein shall be effective as of the Sixth Amendment Effective Date. 

 

	***	CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Parties have executed this Second Amendment of the Research and Commercial License Option Agreement in duplicate originals by their proper officers as of December 3,2010 (“Seventh Amendment Effective Date”). 

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY: 
  

									
	Sangamo Biosciences, Inc.	 		 	Dow AgroSciences LLC
					
	By:	 	   /S/ H. Ward Wolff
	 		 	By:	 	   /S/ Antonio
Galindez



									
		 		 		 	Antonio Galindez
	Title:	 	   EVP& CFO
	 		 	President and CEO
					
	Date:	 	   12/17/10
	 		 	Date:	 	   December 14, 2010



  
 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LARRY CHAMBERS AND ABIE WOLF,

 Appellants, 

v.

GARY STARR AND BONNIE STARR, 

 

 Appellees.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

No. 08-20-00136-CV

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCV1581)

O R D E R

The Court has this day GRANTED the Appellants’ motion to extend time on designation 

of record. The Appellants are to file their designation and make financial arrangements with the 

Court Reporter within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. The Court Reporter is to advise 

the Court, in writing, whether a designation and financial arrangements were made, on or before 

November 13, 2020,

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12

th day of October, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### Chase and others *v.*United States.

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

January 31, 1882.)

1. Duties on Imports.

The facts that imported goods were subject to a lower rate of duty than that charged upon them, and that the action of the principal appraiser was irregular, because he did not see the goods, cannot be set up by the importer in an action to recover the difference between the amount paid and that of the final liquidation, where he was notified by the collector of the liquidation of the entries at the higher rate, and did,not take an appeal to the secretary of the treasury.

Ai Law.

*883
      *C. L. Woodbury*and *J. P.*Tucker, for defendants, (plaintiffs in error.)

*Prentiss Cummings,*for plaintiffs, (defendants in error.)

Lowell, C. J.

This action was brought to recover duties alleged to be due upon six importations of jute, made by the defendants, into the port of Boston in 1870. The facts in respect to all the importations were substantially alike. The defendants made due entry of the goods, classifying them as manufactures of jute, and the appraiser certified to the correctness of the classification, and the duties, as estimated, were fully paid, and the goods wore withdrawn and sold. Some months afterwards the principal appraiser, Mr. Webster, reported that the goods in question, known as “D. W. Bagging,” that is, double-warp bagging, — were suitable for the uses to which cotton bagging is applied, and that they were dutiable at a higher rate than that at which they had been assessed in the estimate. Mr. Webster did not see the goods. The collector thereupon liquidated the entries at the higher rate, of which the defendants were notified; but they did not appeal to the secretary of the' treasury. This action is brought to recover the difference between the amount paid and that of the final liquidation.

It was admitted, for the purposes of the argument, if the facts themselves were' competent, that the bagging was in law subject to the lower rate of duty; and that the action of the principal appraiser was irregular because he did not see the goods. But the district judge ruled that the defendants could not set up these facts, because they had neglected to appeal to the secretary. He relied on section 14, St. June 30, 1864, (13 St. 214,) as construed in *Westray*v. *U. S.*18 Wall. 322; *U. S.*v. *Cousinery,*7 Ben. 251; *Watt v. U. S.*15 Blatchf. 29; *U. S.*v. *Phelps,*17 Blatchf. 312. In this last case, Judge Blatchford said that the three preceding authorities had established the law for the circuit courts, and I agree with him. If *Westray*v. *U. S.*does not mean what Chief Justice Waite and Judge Blatchford understand it to mean, we must rely on the supreme court to set us right.

Judgment affirmed.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40869

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ARTHUR TYRONE BALTHAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(1:96-CR-3-2)

March 25, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur Tyrone Balthazar appeals his conviction and sentence

for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Having reviewed the
2

arguments amd the record, we find no clear error. We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in refusing

Balthazars’s request for an offense level reduction for being a

“minor” or “minimal” participant. See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

MANUAL § 3B1.2; United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 198-99 (5th

Cir. 1995).

The court also properly applied the “career offender”

guideline to Balthazar because he had two prior felony

convictions that fell within that guideline. See U.S. SENTENCING

GUIDELINES MANUAL § 4B1.1; 4A1.2 (1996); United States v. Garcia,

962 F.2d 479, 482 (5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Consortium Service
Management  Group,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Donald S. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer
of  the  Company,  hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); 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  14,  2003


                              /s/  Donald  S.  Robbins
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              Donald  S.  Robbins
                              President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-Q  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document













                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Pagd 1 of 1 Page
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,275<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       421
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          48,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,065
<SALES>                                         44,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,968
<CGS>                                           34,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,859<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,286
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,872
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are comprised of Due from Tax Credit Partnerships, Construction
Contracts Receivable, Notes Receivable and Due from Related Parties.
<F2>Other Expenses are comprised of general and administrative, and depreciation 
and amortization expenses.  Amended Financial Data Schedule.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In re: Robert V. CASE, Robert V. Case, Debtor-Appellant, v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Appellees.

No. 09-4899-BK.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 19, 2010.

Robert V. Case, pro se, Groton, NY.

Thomas J. Clark and Curtis C. Pett, Attorneys, Tax Division (Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, of counsel), for John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

PRESENT: B.D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.*

The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Debtor-Appellant Robert V. Case appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for Northern District of New York (Mordue, C.J.), denying his appeal from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court (Cangilos-Ruiz, *J.).*
      *1126We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

When faced with an appeal from a district court’s review of a decision of the bankruptcy court, we conduct independent review of the bankruptcy court decision. *In re Enron Corp.,*419 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir.2005). We review a decision to lift an automatic stay for abuse of discretion. *In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc.,*351 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir.2003).

A bankruptcy court is authorized under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to lift an automatic stay “for cause.” A stay may be lifted to permit litigation to continue against the debtor in another court. *See In re Bogdanovich,*292 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir.2002). We have catalogued a number of factors that a court should consider when faced with a motion to lift a stay so that other pending litigation may continue. *See In re Sonnax Indus., Inc.,*907 F.2d 1280, 1286 (2d Cir.1990). The Bankruptcy Court in the case before us considered the *Sonnax*factors carefully, and properly exercised its discretion by modifying the stay.

We have reviewed all of Case’s arguments and find them .to be meritless.

The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited financial statements for the year ended July 31, 1998 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                  1,702
<SECURITIES>                           22,625
<RECEIVABLES>                             156
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,858
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         24,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      77
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             24,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           24,837
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2,000
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,412
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,412
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,412
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            2.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                            2.53
        

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2774 

To repeal the Legal Services Corporation Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To repeal the Legal Services Corporation Act. 

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

3 That the Legal Services Corporation Act is repealed. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20168]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Physics; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for the Division of 
Physics (1208) (V180104)--NANOGrav Site Visit.
    Date and Time: October 25, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-8:00 p.m., October 26, 
2017; 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
    Place: West Virginia University, 1500 University Avenue, Stewart 
Hall, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Jean Cottam-Allen, Program Director for Physics 
Frontier Centers, Division of Physics, National Science Foundation, 
2415 Eisenhower Avenue., Room 9245, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 
(703) 292-8783.
    Purpose of Meeting: Site visit to provide an evaluation of the 
progress of the projects at the host site for the Division of Physics 
at the National Science Foundation.

Agenda

October 25, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-7:00 p.m.

08:30-12:00 Panel Session: Presentations on Center Overview, Management 
and Science
12:00-1330 Lunch with Graduate Students and Postdocs
13:30-1600 Panel Session: Continued Science Presentations, Education 
and Outreach
16:00-1700 Executive Session--CLOSED SESSION
17:00-1900 Poster Session
19:00-2000 Executive Session--CLOSED SESSION

October 26, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

08:30-11:00 Meeting with University Administrators; Discussion with 
Center Directors
11:00-15:00 Executive Session--CLOSED SESSION
15:00-1600 Closeout Session with Center Directors

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during 
closed sessions of the site review will include information of a 
proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information and 
information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-20168 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P