source_identifier
stringlengths 40
303
⌀ | input
stringlengths 0
32.9k
| output
stringlengths 0
32.9k
|
|---|---|---|
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/1731865.json | officer testified that appellant was sitting in the front seat of Red Cab No. 377, and told him that the driver had gone to buy some whiskey; that he was cold and climbed into the front seat to get warm.
The attendant at the Stein Filling Station stated to | officer testified that appellant was sitting in the front seat of Red Cab No. 377, and told him that the driver had gone to buy some whiskey;<|sentence|> that he was cold and climbed into the front seat to get warm.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
The attendant at the Stein Filling Station stated to |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1052/vote_105_2_00153.xml.json | Breaux (D-LA)</member_full>
<last_name>Breaux</last_name>
<first_name>John</first_name>
<party>D</party>
<state>LA</state>
<vote_cast>Yea</vote_cast>
<lis_member_id>S179</lis_member_id>
</member> | Breaux (D-LA)</member_full><|paragraph|>
<last_name>Breaux</last_name><|paragraph|>
<first_name>John</first_name><|paragraph|>
<party>D</party><|paragraph|>
<state>LA</state><|paragraph|>
<vote_cast>Yea</vote_cast><|paragraph|>
<lis_member_id>S179</lis_member_id><|paragraph|>
</member> |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/528353.json | er,*of Concord, staff attorney, NEA-New Hampshire, by brief and orally, for the respondent, Exeter Education Association, NEA-New Hampshire.
HORTON, J.
The petitioner, SAU #16 Cooperative School Board (cooperative board) appeals the decision of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor | er,*of Concord, staff attorney, NEA-New Hampshire, by brief and orally, for the respondent, Exeter Education Association, NEA-New Hampshire.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
HORTON, J.<|paragraph|>
The petitioner, SAU #16 Cooperative School Board (cooperative board) appeals the decision of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/4131138.json | *I. Introduction*
Plaintiffs, Walter and Carrie Ball, individually, and parents and legal guardians of LMB, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. This matter relates to a | *I. Introduction*<|paragraph|>
Plaintiffs, Walter and Carrie Ball, individually, and parents and legal guardians of LMB, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.<|sentence|> This matter relates to a |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/2335066.json | For the same reason, and by the same rule, the appellant here cannot be permitted to incorporate the order of July twenty-ninth in the record on this appeal, for the purpose of enlarging the time allowed for an appeal, and the appeal must be considered as taken wholly irrespective of the entry of the order of July twenty-ninth of the Court below, which properly forms no part of the record now before us; and in this view it was not | For the same reason, and by the same rule, the appellant here cannot be permitted to incorporate the order of July twenty-ninth in the record on this appeal, for the purpose of enlarging the time allowed for an appeal, and the appeal must be considered as taken wholly irrespective of the entry of the order of July twenty-ninth of the Court below, which properly forms no part of the record now before us; and in this view it was not |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/975312.json | using the long-distance telephone to obtain money and property from Dr. Pilkington by omitting to state a material fact, etc. Verdicts on various counts of an indictment need not be consistent. This question has been so recently and so fully discussed by this court that voluminous citation of authority is unnecessary. See Macklin v. United States (C.C.A.) 79 F.(2d) 756, 758-759, and the cases there cited.
The appellants insist, however, that there is | using the long-distance telephone to obtain money and property from Dr. Pilkington by omitting to state a material fact, etc.<|sentence|> Verdicts on various counts of an indictment need not be consistent.<|sentence|> This question has been so recently and so fully discussed by this court that voluminous citation of authority is unnecessary.<|sentence|> See Macklin v. United States (C.C.A.) 79 F.(2d) 756, 758-759, and the cases there cited.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
The appellants insist, however, that there is |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.usgs.gov/search?keywords=Earth&f[0]=usgs_facet:multimedia_image-141772&f[1]=usgs_facet:other_basic-42.json | - iowa(1)
- kansas(1)
- maryland(1)
- michigan(1)
- missouri(1)
- nebraska(1)
- nevada(2)
- south dakota(6)
- virginia(3)
- washington(1)
## By Year
- 2019(1)
General February 26, 2024 Earth | - iowa(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- kansas(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- maryland(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- michigan(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- missouri(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- nebraska(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- nevada(2)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- south dakota(6)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- virginia(3)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
- washington(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
## By Year<|paragraph|>
- 2019(1)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
General February 26, 2024 Earth |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/9574852.json | Acting Chief Judge.
Appellee Dyar could reasonably have been found by the trial court to have an insurable interest either because the corrective deed was effective as against someone in the insurer’s position, *cf. Hunt v. Covington,*145 Fla. 706, 200 So. 76 (1941), or because appellee Dyar had an insurable interest as mortgagor or otherwise. Section 627.405(2), Florida Statutes (1975); *Aetna Ins. Co. v. King,*265 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). The trial court could | Acting Chief Judge.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Appellee Dyar could reasonably have been found by the trial court to have an insurable interest either because the corrective deed was effective as against someone in the insurer’s position, *cf. Hunt v. Covington,*145 Fla. 706, 200 So. 76 (1941), or because appellee Dyar had an insurable interest as mortgagor or otherwise.<|sentence|> Section 627.405(2), Florida Statutes (1975); *Aetna Ins. Co. v. King,*265 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).<|sentence|> The trial court could |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/6835974.json | Superior Court, quoting the United States Supreme Court, concluded: “Of course, ‘the absence of a reliance interest is not an argument in favor of abandoning the category itself.’ ” *Rose,*81 A.3d at 134 (quoting *Carmell v. Texas,*529 U.S. 513, 531 n. 21, 120 S.Ct. 1620, 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000)). In *Carmell,*the high Court considered an *ex post facto*challenge to- | Superior Court, quoting the United States Supreme Court, concluded: “Of course, ‘the absence of a reliance interest is not an argument in favor of abandoning the category itself.’ ”<|sentence|> *Rose,*81 A.3d at 134 (quoting *Carmell v. Texas,*529 U.S. 513, 531 n. 21, 120 S.Ct. 1620, 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000)).<|sentence|> In *Carmell,*the high Court considered an *ex post facto*challenge to- |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/3-monochloropropane-12-diol-mcpd-esters-and-glycidyl-esters.json | FA level. Following this finding, FDA scientists initiated conversations with the infant formula industry and brought concerns about the elevated levels in the 2013-2016 sample set to industry’s attention.
Between 2017-2019, to determine if infant formula manufacturers had reduced 3-MCPDE and GE levels in infant formulas, FDA scientists surveyed and analyzed an additional 222 samples of infant formula from the four largest U.S. infant formula manufacturers. Based on FDA’s testing of products on the market from 2017-2019, three U.S. manufacturers have successfully reduced 3-MCPDE and GE levels in their infant formula products to levels consistent with | FA level.<|sentence|> Following this finding, FDA scientists initiated conversations with the infant formula industry and brought concerns about the elevated levels in the 2013-2016 sample set to industry’s attention.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Between 2017-2019, to determine if infant formula manufacturers had reduced 3-MCPDE and GE levels in infant formulas, FDA scientists surveyed and analyzed an additional 222 samples of infant formula from the four largest U.S. infant formula manufacturers.<|sentence|> Based on FDA’s testing of products on the market from 2017-2019, three U.S. manufacturers have successfully reduced 3-MCPDE and GE levels in their infant formula products to levels consistent with |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/2628994.json | E. Hermann Mueller, Appellant, Impleaded with Lizzie Lang and Martha Mueller, Defendants.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that defendant Mueller has not established that he was a purchaser for a valuable consideration within the meaning of *927the Real Property Law.*
*(Turner v.*Howard, 10 App. Div. 555.) Hirschberg, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., not voting.
See Consol. Laws, chap. 50 ; Laws of | E. Hermann Mueller, Appellant, Impleaded with Lizzie Lang and Martha Mueller, Defendants.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that defendant Mueller has not established that he was a purchaser for a valuable consideration within the meaning of *927the Real Property Law.*<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
*(Turner v.*Howard, 10 App. Div. 555.) Hirschberg, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., not voting.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
See Consol. Laws, chap. 50 ; Laws of |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/5021224.json | Rabinowitz, Appellant, Directed to Wilber J. Kennedy, Respondent.
Order dismissing writ of habeas corpus and directing that the relator be delivered into the custody of the agent of the State of Pennsylvania affirmed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur. | Rabinowitz, Appellant, Directed to Wilber J. Kennedy, Respondent.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Order dismissing writ of habeas corpus and directing that the relator be delivered into the custody of the agent of the State of Pennsylvania affirmed.<|sentence|> No opinion.<|sentence|> Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur. |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/6792086.json | swung at him-and missed. The significantly younger intruder pummeled Newell with something metallic, knocking- Newell to his knees and shattering his glasses. Newell’s head was severely lacerated, and his right arm was broken.2 Thé intruder fled around the carport and across the yard. Regaining his balance, Newell briefly tried to chase the intruder. Newell had to stop when blood from the lacerations on his head began to obscure his vision.
¶ 6. While driving to the emergency room, Johanna called-911. At that time, Johanna did not recognize the intruder. | swung at him-and missed.<|sentence|> The significantly younger intruder pummeled Newell with something metallic, knocking- Newell to his knees and shattering his glasses.<|sentence|> Newell’s head was severely lacerated, and his right arm was broken.2<|sentence|> Thé intruder fled around the carport and across the yard.<|sentence|> Regaining his balance, Newell briefly tried to chase the intruder.<|sentence|> Newell had to stop when blood from the lacerations on his head began to obscure his vision.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
¶ 6.<|sentence|> While driving to the emergency room, Johanna called-911.<|sentence|> At that time, Johanna did not recognize the intruder. |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/10975490.json | anek v. Indiana National Bank (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 81. This Court concludes that this decision was correct. We grant the petition to transfer and adopt and affirm the Court of Appeals' decision. - App.Rule 11(B)(8), Ind.Rules of Procedure.
INB has filed a motion for an award of appellate attorney fees pursuant to the provisions of the guaranty agreement. This Court now determines that the | anek v. Indiana National Bank (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 81.<|sentence|> This Court concludes that this decision was correct.<|sentence|> We grant the petition to transfer and adopt and affirm the Court of Appeals' decision.<|sentence|> - App.Rule 11(B)(8), Ind.Rules of Procedure.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
INB has filed a motion for an award of appellate attorney fees pursuant to the provisions of the guaranty agreement.<|sentence|> This Court now determines that the |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/5139301.json | Matter of Supplementary Proceedings: Crossman Company, Respondent, v. Florence H. Rauch, Appellant.
Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor | Matter of Supplementary Proceedings: Crossman Company, Respondent, v. Florence H. Rauch, Appellant.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.<|sentence|> Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.nrc.gov/materials/ml030730680.pdf.json | Information Notices
Inspection Manual (Including Temporary Instructions)
6
For more information on this term, please see the definition given in 10 CFR 20.1003.
PPL 1-82 Appendix 2, Page 1 of 3 April 2003
APPENDIX 2 GUIDANCE FOR BAC | Information Notices<|paragraph|>
Inspection Manual (Including Temporary Instructions)<|paragraph|>
6<|paragraph|>
For more information on this term, please see the definition given in 10 CFR 20.1003.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
PPL 1-82 Appendix 2, Page 1 of 3 April 2003<|paragraph|>
APPENDIX 2 GUIDANCE FOR BAC |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/3234651.json | easy man to live with, it might appear.
Come the summer of 1966, and he, for business reasons, he claims, was, for the most part, living unluxuriously in New York City, | easy man to live with, it might appear.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Come the summer of 1966, and he, for business reasons, he claims, was, for the most part, living unluxuriously in New York City, |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/2449918.json | , and there was, therefore, no jurisdiction to modify the December decree. Although the motion for new trial and the form of decree were both delivered to the clerk of the District Court on December 5, 1977, the decree was not signed and entered on the trial docket until December | , and there was, therefore, no jurisdiction to modify the December decree.<|sentence|> Although the motion for new trial and the form of decree were both delivered to the clerk of the District Court on December 5, 1977, the decree was not signed and entered on the trial docket until December |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/2357796.json | a Troy, Idaho, tavern and asked the bartender if any methamphetamine could be purchased. The bartender indicated that methamphetamine was available and that he could arrange for a purchase. The bartender then went to talk to a bar patron for a few minutes and returned to tell the informants that a delivery could be arranged if they returned in a couple of hours. The bar patron was Roy Rupp. The informants left the tavern.
*18After an hour and a half the informants returned | a Troy, Idaho, tavern and asked the bartender if any methamphetamine could be purchased.<|sentence|> The bartender indicated that methamphetamine was available and that he could arrange for a purchase.<|sentence|> The bartender then went to talk to a bar patron for a few minutes and returned to tell the informants that a delivery could be arranged if they returned in a couple of hours.<|sentence|> The bar patron was Roy Rupp.<|sentence|> The informants left the tavern.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
*18After an hour and a half the informants returned |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/9737811.json | #### Emiliano H. MACHADO, Appellant, v. J & B CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.
No. 72-1390.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 22, 1973. | #### Emiliano H. MACHADO, Appellant, v. J & B CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
No. 72-1390.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Jan. 22, 1973. |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/4705462.json | Laundry Co., Inc., Respondent.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Blaekmar, P. J., Kelly, Jaycox, Kelby and Young | Laundry Co., Inc., Respondent.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.<|sentence|> No opinion.<|sentence|> Blaekmar, P. J., Kelly, Jaycox, Kelby and Young |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/1167561.json | ,*75 Kan. 301; *Jewelry Co. v. Bennett,*75 Kan. 743; *Disney v. Jewelry Co.,*76 Kan. 145.)
Complaint is made of the instructions of- the court in | ,*75 Kan. 301; *Jewelry Co. v. Bennett,*75 Kan. 743; *Disney v. Jewelry Co.,*76 Kan. 145.)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Complaint is made of the instructions of- the court in |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.acquisition.gov/search/advanced?keys=&type[far_dita]=far_dita&sort_by=search_api_relevance&sort_order=DESC&f[0]=part_number:6&f[1]=part_number:24&f[2]=reg_doc_type:subtopic.json | Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)
Search
˄ Top Sign | Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)<|paragraph|>
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council<|paragraph|>
Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)<|paragraph|>
Search<|sentence|>
˄ Top Sign |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/4142934.json | U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A) (notice may be served by mail on alien or alien’s counsel of record); *see also Garcia,*222 F.3d at 1209 (notice to counsel of record constitutes notice to alien); *Farhoud v. INS,*122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (actual receipt of notice by alien not required to satisfy due process).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as | U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A) (notice may be served by mail on alien or alien’s counsel of record); *see also Garcia,*222 F.3d at 1209 (notice to counsel of record constitutes notice to alien); *Farhoud v. INS,*122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (actual receipt of notice by alien not required to satisfy due process).<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/9080776.json | Johnston County, Inc.,*135 N.C. App. at 165, 519 S.E.2d at 545. In that case, we noted that “USF&G has continued to insist the policy afforded no coverage and that the Club therefore may not assert a bad faith claim,” despite the fact that such argument was already addressed and rejected in * | Johnston County, Inc.,*135 N.C. App. at 165, 519 S.E.2d at 545.<|sentence|> In that case, we noted that “USF&G has continued to insist the policy afforded no coverage and that the Club therefore may not assert a bad faith claim,” despite the fact that such argument was already addressed and rejected in * |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/npin.cdc.gov/search?query=&f[0]=disease:3771&f[1]=topic:4436&f[2]=topic:14797&f[3]=type:publications.json | (5)Communication Factors
(1)Community Based Organizations
(4)Community Health Care Planning
(1)Condoms
(10)Continuing Education
(8)Contraception
(2) | (5)Communication Factors<|paragraph|>
(1)Community Based Organizations<|paragraph|>
(4)Community Health Care Planning<|paragraph|>
(1)Condoms<|paragraph|>
(10)Continuing Education<|paragraph|>
(8)Contraception<|paragraph|>
(2) |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/page/9/index.html.json | e Week, 2024
May 17, 2024•Presidential Actions
## A Proclamation on National Safe Boating Week, 2024
May 17, 2024•Presidential Actions | e Week, 2024<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
May 17, 2024•Presidential Actions<|paragraph|>
## A Proclamation on National Safe Boating Week, 2024<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
May 17, 2024•Presidential Actions |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/3185202.json | and dismiss the complaint in the following memorandum.
Cardamone and Callahan, JJ. (dissenting).
We dissent. We previously affirmed a Special Term ruling in this case granting a preference and permitting Aetna’s actions for declaratory judgment to proceed before a jury on the issue of consent *( | and dismiss the complaint in the following memorandum.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Cardamone and Callahan, JJ. (dissenting).<|paragraph|>
We dissent.<|sentence|> We previously affirmed a Special Term ruling in this case granting a preference and permitting Aetna’s actions for declaratory judgment to proceed before a jury on the issue of consent *( |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/6489904.json | provided in this section, the taxable income of the estate shall be computed in the same manner as for an individual. The tax shall be computed on such taxable income *and shall be paid by the trustee."*Section 1398(c)(1), Title 26, United States Code. (Emphasis added.)
6
. The respondent is nevertheless requested, in its response to this order, to reply to the contentions made on the merits by the trustee, | provided in this section, the taxable income of the estate shall be computed in the same manner as for an individual.<|sentence|> The tax shall be computed on such taxable income *and shall be paid by the trustee."*Section 1398(c)(1), Title 26, United States Code.<|sentence|> (Emphasis added.)<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
6<|paragraph|>
. The respondent is nevertheless requested, in its response to this order, to reply to the contentions made on the merits by the trustee, |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/8682833.json | the effect of his writ, and he could not recover an\ judgment against the defendant for the debt claimed.
Pee Cueiam. Judgment below, in favor of the plaintiff, for his costs, is reversed, and judgment rendered for the defendant to recover his costs against the | the effect of his writ, and he could not recover an\ judgment against the defendant for the debt claimed.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Pee Cueiam.<|sentence|> Judgment below, in favor of the plaintiff, for his costs, is reversed, and judgment rendered for the defendant to recover his costs against the |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/3504152.json | the State of New York, Appellant, v Randy Burks, Donald Towson and Augustus Singleton, Respondents.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J. | the State of New York, Appellant, v Randy Burks, Donald Towson and Augustus Singleton, Respondents.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J. |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/3489183.json | s failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility because it renders an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question).
Although the IJ’s adverse credibility determination may, in part, have reflected a misunderstanding of the petitioner’s testimony, remand is not required in this case when we can confidently predict that the agency would adhere to the same decision upon remand. *See id.*at | s failure to corroborate his testimony may bear on credibility because it renders an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question).<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Although the IJ’s adverse credibility determination may, in part, have reflected a misunderstanding of the petitioner’s testimony, remand is not required in this case when we can confidently predict that the agency would adhere to the same decision upon remand.<|sentence|> *See id.*at |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/4148503.json | 2013.
Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Catherine M. Maraist, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Stokes Holt, Esq., Holt Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Linda S. Dunn pleaded guilty to credit union fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 | 2013.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Catherine M. Maraist, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
James Stokes Holt, Esq., Holt Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
PER CURIAM: *<|paragraph|>
Linda S. Dunn pleaded guilty to credit union fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/dotgov/www.army.mil/article/248632/new_website_connects_the_army_to_innovative_small_businesses.json | STTR Program’s Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn platforms to foster improved communication, as well as a news and announcements hub where visitors can stay in the know on program happenings and topic releases, and read articles about how the latest technologies and successes from SBIR and STTR awardees are transforming the Army. “As the Army continues to modernize, our program should keep modernizing as well,” Willis said. “We are one Army, and this website represents our aligned approach to leverage the best innovation in the world to meet our Army’s and our Soldiers’ unique needs.” To view the Army SBIR/STTR website and learn more about its programs, | STTR Program’s Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn platforms to foster improved communication, as well as a news and announcements hub where visitors can stay in the know on program happenings and topic releases, and read articles about how the latest technologies and successes from SBIR and STTR awardees are transforming the Army.<|sentence|> “As the Army continues to modernize, our program should keep modernizing as well,” Willis said.<|sentence|> “We are one Army, and this website represents our aligned approach to leverage the best innovation in the world to meet our Army’s and our Soldiers’ unique needs.”<|sentence|> To view the Army SBIR/STTR website and learn more about its programs, |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/1892229.json | either a person in *764Nebraska who was purchasing the land from the plaintiff, or to that person’s attorney. The abstract was then examined by the attorney for that purchaser, objections were made to it, and a new abstract was demanded about February 13, 1920. The plaintiff on February 18, 1920, notified Thomas M. Keegan that the abstract had been examined by the plaintiff’s attorney who had made certain objections to it and had demanded a new | either a person in *764Nebraska who was purchasing the land from the plaintiff, or to that person’s attorney.<|sentence|> The abstract was then examined by the attorney for that purchaser, objections were made to it, and a new abstract was demanded about February 13, 1920.<|sentence|> The plaintiff on February 18, 1920, notified Thomas M. Keegan that the abstract had been examined by the plaintiff’s attorney who had made certain objections to it and had demanded a new |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/12363752.json | complying with rule 8.150 and section 985.037. Therefore, “this case presents a controversy capable of repetition, yet evading review, which should be considered on its merits.” *N.W. v. State,*767 So.2d 446, 447 n.2 (Fla. 2000); *see also Kelley v. Rice,*800 So.2d 247, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); AW. *v. State,*711 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 5th | complying with rule 8.150 and section 985.037.<|sentence|> Therefore, “this case presents a controversy capable of repetition, yet evading review, which should be considered on its merits.”<|sentence|> *N.W. v. State,*767 So.2d 446, 447 n.2 (Fla. 2000); *see also Kelley v. Rice,*800 So.2d 247, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); AW. *v. State,*711 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla. 5th |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/5014602.json | effect that the conditions were unsanitary and undesirable.
On June 5, 1936, plaintiff’s resignation was presented to the board of directors and accepted by said board. .
This proceeding was instituted to require the board of directors of said school district to reinstate plaintiff in her former position in said school and to direct the issuance of a warrant to her in payment of the services she would have rendered if her resignation had not been accepted | effect that the conditions were unsanitary and undesirable.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
On June 5, 1936, plaintiff’s resignation was presented to the board of directors and accepted by said board.<|sentence|> .<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
This proceeding was instituted to require the board of directors of said school district to reinstate plaintiff in her former position in said school and to direct the issuance of a warrant to her in payment of the services she would have rendered if her resignation had not been accepted |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/5410120.json | et al., Appellants, v Susan Eich, an Infant, by Her Natural Mother, *939Barbara Eich, et al., Respondents.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of | et al., Appellants, v Susan Eich, an Infant, by Her Natural Mother, *939Barbara Eich, et al., Respondents.<|sentence|><|paragraph|>
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of |
s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/cap/12260906.json | to replace the closure mechanism. Thus, the prosecution presented evidence that the fair market value of the door, had it been brand new, would have exceeded $100. Although the door had been in use for several years prior to the incident, the district court could have reasonably found that the door in its undamaged condition, | to replace the closure mechanism.<|sentence|> Thus, the prosecution presented evidence that the fair market value of the door, had it been brand new, would have exceeded $100.<|sentence|> Although the door had been in use for several years prior to the incident, the district court could have reasonably found that the door in its undamaged condition, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.