alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff v. JOSE C. CRUZ, Defendant

Criminal No. 487-76

Superior Court of Guam

October 28, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

The Prosecution opposes the Defendant’s Motion filed 12 October, 1976, to dismiss charge one of the information for failure to properly charge Defendant, in violation of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Rule 7(c) of Guam’s Rules of Criminal Procedure.

*363We agree with Defendant that the Legislature never intended a general Rule of Law that mere possession of a “wild animal” (which could be a dog or cat or even a deer) would.be illegal. We reject the Prosecutor’s argument based upon Witkin, California Criminal Procedure, pg. 190, because the converse of that rule, pg. 191, is more applicable here. “. . . where the exception is a part of the statutory definition or description of the crime, one of the elements to be pleaded is the nonexistence of the facts giving rise to the exception.” A logical analysis of traditional Chamorro culture in this Territory makes it clear that Section 12315 of the Government Code, of itself, cannot possibly define an offense in unconditional terms. Therefore, exceptions to Section 12315, whether couched in negative or positive language, must exist. Without implementing regulations promulgated, under Section 12321 in accordance with procedure set forth in Section 12007, to give active meaning to said Section 12315, Defendant’s 6th Amendment right is violated by being charged thereunder.

Had regulations been promulgated the Prosecution would be under an obligation to: (1) give the official citation of the rule which Defendant allegedly violated; (2) state the specific nature of the alleged crime; (3) plead to nonexistence of facts giving rise to any exception which nullify the illegality of Defendant’s acts. But where no regulations have been promulgated, Section 12315 alone cannot be used to criminally accuse Defendant because Defendant does not know with clarity what wrongful act he is accused of doing.

It is not Defendant’s obligation to research the existence or nonexistence of a regulation which might apply. Yet an information lacking specificity negates the Defendant’s ability to prepare a defense. The government is obligated to provide an accused with a “. . . plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts *364constituting the offense charged”. (Rule 7(c)). The Prosecution has not carried its burden as count one of this information does not comply with the law.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss count one is hereby granted.

Submit order.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  OHA PPP Appeal Decisions Cited In Frequently Asked Questions For PPP Borrowers and Lenders 

# OHA PPP Appeal Decisions cited in Frequently Asked Questions for PPP Borrowers and Lenders

## About this document and download

See more information about SBA's frequently requested records.

**Owned by**

##                 Variations of this document            

-         Version      Lawndale Christian Health Center |             File size: 207KB |          Download      .pdf        for Lawndale Christian Health Center /        
-         Version      Windsor Court Hotel Partners |             File size: 359KB |          Download      .pdf        for Windsor Court Hotel Partners /
# C_2012013EN.01001202.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)

(Case T-59/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AMPLIDECT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Acquisition of distinctive character through use - Evidence)

2012/C 13/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Geemarc Telecom International Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong) (represented by: G. Farrington, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Audioline GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, P. Lübbe and B. Allekotte, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2009 (Case R 913/2009-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Audioline GmbH and Geemarc Telecom International Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Geemarc Telecom International Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Geemarc Telecom International Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
# C_2010301EN.01005001.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/50

---

Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)

(Case T-394/10)

()

2010/C 301/79

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in case R 861/2010-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 June 2010 in case R 861/2010-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’, for goods in class 9

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 747361 of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 1552528, No 1102971, No 1552529 and No 747362 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; Community trade mark registrations No 2361087 and No 2347193 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9 and 12

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the provisions of this Article; violation by the Board of Appeal of a general principle of EU law regarding equal treatment and violation of Article 1 of the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as violation of Article 2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. Shworan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    | 
|--- | 
|By: | 
|    | 
|    | 
|    |
# C_2012138EN.01002501.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/25

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2011 — Praskevicius v Parliament

(Case F-81/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Merit points - Consideration of comparative merits - Statement of reasons)

(2012/C 138/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vidas Praskevicius (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for the 2009 promotion exercise and claim for compensation for non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 C 301, p. 66.

---
### Part IV—Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 115–334, title II, §2301(a)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4551, substituted "Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program" for "Environmental Quality Incentives Program" in part heading.

Chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, comprising this part, was originally added to Pub. L. 99–198 by Pub. L. 104–127, title III, §334, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 996. Chapter 4 is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 107–171, title II, §2301, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 253, because of the extensive revision of the chapter's provisions by Pub. L. 107–171. Such revision did not contain a chapter heading, which was subsequently added by Pub. L. 110–234, title II, §2501(b), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1058, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title II, §2501(b), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1786. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234.
The HONORABLE JOHN C. GODBOLD, United States Circuit Judge for the * Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation. The HONORABLE RICHARD G . KOPF, United States District Judge for the 1 District of Nebraska, who adopted the recommend ation of the HONORABLE DAVID L. PIESTER, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1687

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Frank T. Dovidio, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 9, 1998 Filed: July 16, 1998

___________ Before LOKEN, GODBOLD, and HEANEY, Circuit Judges. *

___________ PER CURIAM. Frank T. Dovidio app eals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute mariju ana, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress 60 9 1 pounds of marijuana hidden in the rear of Dovidio’s van. The van was stopped after sunset for driving with a broken headlight. State Patrol Officer Dale Fahnholz checked-2-

Do vidio’s Missouri driver’s license and learned of a prior drug arrest or conviction

. Fahn holz called for back-up and sought Dovidio’s consent to search the van. Whe n additional officers arrived, Dovidio refused to consent, bu t Fahnholz smelled marijuana through the van’s open window and decided to search the van. While placing Dovidio in Fahnholz’s patrol car, the officers were advised that Dovidio’s New Jersey driver’s license had been suspended. They arrested Dovidio for driving on a suspended license and discovered the marijuana during a subsequent inventory search of the van.
Dovi dio argues his arrest and the subsequent search were unlawful becaus e Officer Fahnholz knew Dovidio had a valid Missouri driver’s license. The distric t court rejected th is contention because Fahnholz acquired probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the van when he smelled marijuana. See United States v. Caves , 890 F.2d 8 7, 90-91 (8th Cir. 1989). Therefore, discovery of the marijuana wa s ine vitable, and the marijuana need not be suppressed even if Dovidio was unlawfully arrested. See Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). Dovidio argues the district court’s fi nding that Fahnholz smelled marijuana from outside the van is clearl y erron eous because Fahnholz would have immediately arrested Dovidio, would hav e told other officers of the odor, and would not have bothered to ask for cons ent to search had he in fact smelled the large quantity of marijuana wrapped and hidden in the rear of the van. However, as Officer Fahnholz’s testimony was neither internall y inconsistent nor contradic ted by extrinsic evidence, Dovidio has not persuaded us this credibility finding was clear error. See United States v. Galvan , 953 F.2d 1098, 1101 (8th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DARON LAVON HUSTON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1191

[ July 2 6 , 2018 ]

Appe al of order denying 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Cynthia L. Cox , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 311988CF001072A

.

Daron Lavon Huston, Bowling Green, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
----

|  |  777 Old Saw Mill River RoadTarrytown, New York 10591  (914) 789-2800www.progenics.com |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Contact:  | Kathleen FredriksenCorporate Development(914) 789-2871kfredriksen@progenics.com |   |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

----
Editorial Note on Part 284
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 284 appear at 65 FR 10222, Feb. 25, 2000.

§ 284.102 Transportation by interstate pipelines. ( a ) Subject to paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, other provisions of this subpart, and the conditions of subpart A of this part, any interstate pipeline is authorized without prior Commission approval, to transport natural gas on behalf of: ( 1 ) Any intrastate pipeline; or
( 2 ) Any local distribution company.
( b ) Any rates charged for transportation under this subpart may not exceed the just and reasonable rates established under subpart A of this part.
( c ) An interstate pipeline that engages in transportation arrangements under this subpart must file reports in accordance with § 284.13 of this chapter.
( d ) Transportation of natural gas is not on behalf of an intrastate pipeline or local distribution company or authorized under this section unless: ( 1 ) The intrastate pipeline or local distribution company has physical custody of and transports the natural gas at some point; or
( 2 ) The intrastate pipeline or local distribution company holds title to the natural gas at some point, which may occur prior to, during, or after the time that the gas is being transported by the interstate pipeline, for a purpose related to its status and functions as an intrastate pipeline or its status and functions as a local distribution company; or
( 3 ) The gas is delivered at some point to a customer that either is located in a local distribution company's service area or is physically able to receive direct deliveries of gas from an intrastate pipeline, and that local distribution company or intrastate pipeline certifies that it is on its behalf that the interstate pipeline is providing transportation service.
( e ) An interstate pipeline must obtain from its shippers certifications including sufficient information to verify that their services qualify under this section. Prior to commencing transportation service described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, an interstate pipeline must receive the certification required from a local distribution company or an intrastate pipeline pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
[Order 436, 50 FR 42495, Oct. 18, 1985, as amended by Order 526, 55 FR 33011, Aug. 13, 1990; Order 537, 56 FR 50245, Oct. 4, 1991; Order 581, 60 FR 53072, Oct. 11, 1995; Order 637, 65 FR 10222, Feb. 25, 2000; Order 756, 77 FR 4894, Feb. 1, 2012]
§ 440.1 Purpose, authority, and relationship to other requirements. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to protect and conserve the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. To effectuate this purpose, this section establishes standards, requirements, conditions, and restrictions to prevent or reduce depletion and degradation of surface and groundwater resources and to promote sound practices of water resource management.
( b ) *Authority.* This part implements Sections 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.2 (b), 3.6(b), 3.6(h), 4.1, 5.2, 7.1, 13.1 and 14.2(a) of the Delaware River Basin Compact.
( c ) *Comprehensive Plan.* The Commission has determined that the provisions of this part are required for the immediate and long range development and use of the water resources of the Basin and are therefore incorporated into the Commission's Comprehensive Plan.
( d ) *Relationship to other Commission requirements.* The provisions of this part are in addition to all applicable requirements in other Commission regulations, dockets, permits, and determinations.
( e ) *Severability.* The provisions of this part are severable. If any provision of this part or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the invalidity will not affect other provisions or applications of this part, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
( f ) *Coordination and avoidance of duplication.* In accordance with and pursuant to section 1.5 of the Delaware River Basin Compact, to the fullest extent it finds feasible and advantageous the Commission may enter into an Administrative Agreement (Agreement) with any Basin state or the Federal Government to coordinate functions and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort. Such Agreements will be designed to: Effectuate intergovernmental cooperation, minimize the efforts and duplication of state and Commission staff resources wherever possible, ensure compliance with Commission-approved requirements, enhance early notification of the general public and other interested parties regarding proposed activities in the Basin, indicate where a host state's requirements satisfy the Commission's regulatory objectives, and clarify the relationship and project review decision making processes of the states and the Commission for projects subject to review by the states under their state authorities and by the Commission under Section 3.8 and Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the Compact.
[86 FR 20630, Apr. 21, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 7006, Feb. 2, 2023]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Office of the Assistant Secretary--Water and Science; 
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Restoration of a Portion of 
Lower Hobble Creek

AGENCY: Central Utah Project Completion Act Completion Office, 
Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Department of the Interior, the 
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, and the Utah Reclamation 
Mitigation and Conservation Commission, as joint leads, are initiating 
an Environmental Assessment of the impacts associated with the proposed 
restoration of the eastern portion of Lower Hobble Creek, near 
Springville, Utah. This restoration effort is intended to facilitate 
the recovery of the June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus), a Federally listed 
endangered species, through improvement of spawning habitat and 
maintenance of stream flow. It is anticipated that the resultant effort 
would include the possible restoration of approximately 2 miles of 
stream channel, potential modification or removal of several existing 
barriers to fish passage, and enhancement of the existing water supply.

DATES: Date and location for public scoping will be announced locally.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Lee Baxter at (801) 379-
1174, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cba7a9aab3bfaeb98bbeb8a9b9e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="355957544d41504775404657471b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.

Reed R. Murray,
Program Director, Central Utah Project Completion Act, Department of 
the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2011-6090 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SUBCHAPTER VII—NATIONAL NEED MINERAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDATION PROCESS