alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM F. SMITH, Defendant

Criminal No. 255-75

Superior Court of Guam

June 12, 1975

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

This Court in the above-entitled matter denied a preliminary hearing at the request of defense counsel. This Court once again, adheres to its original ruling. The defendant has come before the Court to plead on an *information*(emphasis mine) duly signed by an assistant attorney general. A preliminary examination does not have to be held if an information is filed. Rule 5(c) is only applicable where a person is arrested under a warrant, or without a warrant, and a complaint is issued in compliance with Rule 4(a). The purpose of a preliminary examination has no other purpose than to afford a person an opportunity to challenge the existence of probable cause. It serves no useful purpose to have a preliminary examination after an information has been filed by the Office of the Attorney General. See *Roddy v. United States,*296 F.2d 9.
#### Granger *et al. v.*Knight *et al.*

July 15, 1910.

Action for breach of contract. Before *Judge Fite.*Bartow superior court.

July 30, 1909.

*Paul F. Akin,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Thomas W. Milner & Son,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. A direct assignment of error upon a ruling made during tin trial of a civil case is presented too late for consideration by the Supreme Court when it first appears in a bill of exceptions tendered more than thirty days after the adjournment of the term at which such ruling was made; and unless it affirmatively appears that a bill of exceptions embracing such an assignment of error was, with respect thereto, tendered in due time, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon that assignment.

2. Rulings of the trial court upon the question of the allowance or dis-allowance of amendments to pleadings can not constitute a ground of a motion for a new trial.

3. A verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in a suit brought by two of the individual members of a firm, which was composed of three members, to recover for services performed and money expended, is without evidence to support it, the evidence showing that if any recovery upon the contract which was the basis of the suit could be had, it should be for the firm and not for the two members thereof who brought the suit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# C_2013344EN.01000801.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-296/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. — S. Pilczer, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: The Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, Agents), the Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, Agent), the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent), the Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), the Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), the Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the French Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the French Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
 We have issued our report dated October 13, 2010, accompanying the consolidated financial statements in the Annual Report of Gilman Ciocia, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 and on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Gilman Ciocia on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-50089, effective April 14, 1998 and File No. 333-14915, effective October 28, 1996).
   /s/ Sherb & Co, LLPCertified Public Accountants
 New York, New York
 October 13, 2010
§ 1308.4 Coverage of certain excluded Contractors. ( a ) A Contractor whose contract is excluded from this part under § 1308.3(b) may elect to proceed under this part and the Act with respect to any dispute pending before a Contracting Officer on March 1, 1979, or initiated thereafter. If the disputes clause in the contract is not an “all disputes” clause (*see Patton Wrecking & Dem. Co.* v. *Tennessee Valley Authority,* 465 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972)), a Contractor's election under this section shall cause the provisions of the first two sentences of section 6(a) of the Act to apply to the contract, and such an election shall be irrevocable.
( b ) A Contractor makes an election under paragraph (a) of this section by giving written notice to the Contracting Officer stating that the Contractor elects to proceed with the dispute under the Act. For disputes pending on March 1, 1979, the notice shall be actually received by the Contracting Officer within 30 days after the Contractor receives the Contracting Officer's decision. For disputes initiated thereafter, the notice shall be included in the document first requesting a decision by the Contracting Officer.
### §6307e. Required disclosures for promoters

#### (a) Disclosures to the boxing commissions

A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxing commission responsible for regulating the match in a State a statement of—

(1) a copy of any agreement in writing to which the promoter is a party with any boxer participating in the match;

(2) a statement made under penalty of perjury that there are no other agreements, written or oral, between the promoter and the boxer with respect to that match; and

(3)(A) all fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the boxer pertaining to the event, including any portion of the boxer's purse that the promoter will receive, and training expenses;

(B) all payments, gifts, or benefits the promoter is providing to any sanctioning organization affiliated with the event; and

(C) any reduction in a boxer's purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the boxer or a purse bid held for the event.

#### (b) Disclosures to the boxer

A promoter shall not be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a boxing match until it provides to the boxer it promotes—

(1) the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match;

(2) all fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the boxer pertaining to the event, including any portion of the boxer's purse that the promoter will receive, and training expenses; and

(3) any reduction in a boxer's purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the boxer or a purse bid held for the event.

#### (c) Information to be available to State Attorney General

A promoter shall make information required to be disclosed under this section available to the chief law enforcement officer of the State in which the match is to be held upon request of such officer.

(Pub. L. 104–272, §13, as added Pub. L. 106–210, §4(2), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 324.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 13 of Pub. L. 104–272 was renumbered section 21 and is classified to section 6312 of this title.
### §715d. Enforcement of chapter

#### (a) Rules and regulations

The President shall prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to regulations requiring reports, maps, affidavits, and other documents relating to the production, storage, refining, processing, transporting, or handling of petroleum and petroleum products, and providing for the keeping of books and records, and for the inspection of such books and records and of properties and facilities.

#### (b) Certificate of clearance for petroleum and petroleum products

Whenever the President finds it necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter he shall require certificates of clearance for petroleum and petroleum products moving or to be moved in interstate commerce from any particular area, and shall establish a board or boards for the issuance of such certificates. A certificate of clearance shall be issued by a board so established in any case where such board determines that the petroleum or petroleum products in question does not constitute contraband oil. Denial of any such certificate shall be by order of the board, and only after reasonable opportunity for hearing. Whenever a certificate of clearance is required for any area in any State, it shall be unlawful to ship or transport petroleum or petroleum products in interstate commerce from such area unless a certificate has been obtained therefor.

#### (c) Review of order of denial of certificate of clearance

Any person whose application for a certificate of clearance is denied may obtain a review of the order denying such application in the United States District Court for the district wherein the board is sitting by filing in such court within thirty days after the entry of such order a written petition praying that the order of the board be modified or set aside, in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the board, and thereupon the board shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such transcript, such court shall have jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order, in whole or in part. No objection to the order of the board shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the board. The finding of the board as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, subject to review as provided in sections 1254, 1291, and 1292 of title 28.

(Feb. 22, 1935, ch. 18, §5, 49 Stat. 31.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (c), "sections 1254, 1291, and 1292 of title 28" substituted for "sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended [28 U.S.C. 225 and 347]" on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, the first section of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
### §2706. Informational and testing functions of Secretary of Energy

#### (a) Evaluations of new or improved technologies pursuant to written submissions

The Secretary of Energy shall, for the purposes of performing his responsibilities under this chapter, consider any reasonable new or improved technology, a description of which is submitted to the Secretary of Energy in writing, which could lead or contribute to the development of advanced automobile propulsion system technology.

#### (b) Testing by Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency of systems developed under research and development program or submitted by Secretary; scope and purposes of tests; submission of test data and results to Secretary

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall test, or cause to be tested, in a facility subject to Environmental Protection Agency supervision, each advanced automobile propulsion system in an appropriately modified production vehicle equipped with such a system developed in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance under this chapter, or referred to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for such purpose by the Secretary of Energy, to determine whether such vehicle complies with any exhaust emission standards or any other requirements promulgated or reasonably expected to be promulgated under any provision of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.) [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.], the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), or any other provision of Federal law administered by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. In conjunction with any test for compliance with exhaust emission standards under this section, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall also conduct tests to determine the fuel economy of such vehicle. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit all test data and the results of such tests to the Secretary of Energy.

#### (c) Collection, analysis, and dissemination of information, data, and materials to developers

The Secretary of Energy shall collect, analyze, and disseminate to developers information, data, and materials that may be relevant to the development of advanced automobile propulsion system technology.

(Pub. L. 95–238, title III, §307, Feb. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 82.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Clean Air Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322, which is classified generally to chapter 85 (§7401 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 92–574, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1234, which is classified principally to chapter 65 (§4901 et seq.) of Title 42. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4901 of Title 42 and Tables.
### §795. Report to Congress by January 31, 1975

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall report to Congress not later than January 31, 1975, on the implementation of sections 3 through 7 of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974.

(Pub. L. 93–319, §9, June 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 261.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 3 through 7 of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, referred to in text, are sections 3 through 7 of Pub. L. 93–319, June 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 248–260, which sections enacted section 793 of this title and section 1857c–10 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and amended sections 1857c–5, 1857c–8, 1857c–9, 1857d–1, 1857f–1, and 1857h–5 of Title 42. Section 1857c–10 of Title 42 was repealed by Pub. L. 95–95, §112(b)(1). On enactment of Pub. L. 95–95, sections 1857c–5, 1857c–8, 1857c–9, 1857d–1, 1857f–1, and 1857h–5 were reclassified to sections 7410, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7521, and 7607, respectively, of Title 42.
---

**CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**



I, Clifford Wilkins, Chief Executive Officer of Busanda Explorations
  Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
  of Busanda Explorations Inc., for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2003
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
  on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
  and results of operations of Busanda Explorations Inc.



By:*/s/ Clifford Wilkins*

Name: CLIFFORD WILKINS

Title:    Chief Executive Officer

Date:   August 19, 2003

---

**CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**



I, Christopher Smith, Chief Financial Officer of Busanda Explorations
  Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
  of Busanda Explorations Inc., for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2003
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
  on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
  and results of operations of Busanda Explorations Inc.



By:*/s/ Christopher Smith*

Name: CHRISTOPHER SMITH

Title:    Chief Financial Officer

Date:   August 19, 2003

---
### §8112. Definition

For purposes of this subchapter, the term "intellectual property enforcement" means matters relating to the enforcement of laws protecting copyrights, patents, trademarks, other forms of intellectual property, and trade secrets, both in the United States and abroad, including in particular matters relating to combating counterfeit and infringing goods.

(Pub. L. 110–403, title III, §302, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4266.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title III of Pub. L. 110–403, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4264, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Tables.
# C_2013344EN.01001501.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-609/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Concept - Evidence - Sworn statement - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - General Court’s powers of review - Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)

2013/C 344/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-427/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Centrotherm Systemtechnik

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

1

---
# C_2012355EN.01002501.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Wam Industriale v Commission

(Case T-303/10) (1)

1

(State aid - Undertaking with subsidiaries in certain third countries - Reduced rate loans - Decision declaring aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering it to be repaid - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - Execution of a judgment of the General Court - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Duty to exercise diligence - Duty of care)

2012/C 355/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wam Industriale SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Wam Industriale SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Wam Industriale SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
### §197e. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 647

Section, act Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 365, §6, 44 Stat. 1396, provided for travel and subsistence allowance to officers, employees, etc., of Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce on duty abroad or away from duty post.