alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38490.

#### LONGINO v. GARNER *et al.*

Carlisle, Judge.

The plaintiff in his petition alleged that the defendants named therein were indebted to him in a certain amount for building materials sold to them as per an itemized statement attached as an exhibit to the petition and that such materials were delivered to the defendants and used by the defendants in the improvement of a certain described tract of land belonging to them. Upon the trial of the case the plaintiff testified that he did not sell the building materials to the defendants but that he sold them to one Scott, who, he understood and was led to believe, was the defendants’ lessee, and that he extended credit to Scott; that he had had no dealings with the defendants and that the materials were delivered to Scott and billed to him under his trade name, “Scott’s Truck Stop”; that such materials were used in improving the property of the defendants. The evidence showed that the property involved was held by Scott, if at all, under a lease; that the plaintiff had seen and read that lease, which had, among its terms, the provision that “lessee, at his expense, may erect new buildings on said premises and may make or cause to be made such structural changes in any buildings now or hereafter located on leased premises as may be advantageous to -his needs or requirements.” *Held:*

Such evidence was wholly insufficient to show that the lessee in contracting for the materials was acting as agent for the defendant lessors so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover a general judgment against the defendant lessors for any sum due on account of the furnishing of such materials or to have foreclosed a lien on the defendant lessors’ premi*681ses. *Gignilliat v. West Lumber Co.,*80 Ga. App. 652 (2) (56 S. E. 2d 841); *Morgan v. May Realty Co.,*86 Ga. App. 261 (71 S. E. 2d 438); Sol Abrahams & Son Const. Co. v. Osterholm, 136 S. W. 2d 86, 92 (Mo. App.); Lilly v. Munsey, 135 W. Va. 247 (63 S. E. 2d 519). The trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for a nonsuit.

Decided October 21, 1960

Rehearing denied November 10, 1960.

*Charles H. Hyatt, W. S. Northcutt, Northcutt, Edwards & Johnston,*for plaintiff in error.

*Tindall & Tindall, J. D. Tindall, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
# L_2020405EN.01008401.xml

| 2.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 405/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 405/84

---

Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on the prudential supervision of investment firms and amending Directives 2002/87/EC, 2009/65/EC, 2011/61/EU, 2013/36/EU, 2014/59/EU and 2014/65/EU

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 314 of 5 December 2019
  )

| 1. | On page 71, Article 2(2): |
| --- | --- |

1.

On page 71, Article 2(2):

for:

| ‘2. | (...) in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

read:

| ‘2. | (...) in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) and third subparagraph of Article 1(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

| 2. | On page 102, Article 54: |
| --- | --- |

2.

On page 102, Article 54:

for:

‘In accordance with Section 3 of Chapter 2 of this Title, ...’,

read:

‘In accordance with Section 3 of Chapter 1 of this Title, ...’.

| 3. | On page 110, Article 63, point (2): |
| --- | --- |

3.

On page 110, Article 63, point (2):

for:

| ‘(2) | in Article 45, the following paragraph is added: |
| --- | --- |

‘(2)

| “3. | In accordance with Article 65(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, ...”.’, |
| --- | --- |

“3.

read:

| ‘(2) | in Article 45, the following paragraph is added: |
| --- | --- |

‘(2)

| “3. | In accordance with Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033, ...”.’. |
| --- | --- |

“3.

| 4. | On page 113, Article 67(1), second subparagraph: |
| --- | --- |

4.

On page 113, Article 67(1), second subparagraph:

for:

‘They shall apply those measures from 26 June 2021. However, Member States shall apply the measures necessary to comply with point (5) of Article 64 from 26 March 2020.’,

read:

‘They shall apply those measures from 26 June 2021. However, Member States shall apply the measures necessary to comply with point (6) of Article 62 as regards Article 8a(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU by 27 December 2020, and the measures necessary to comply with point (5) of Article 64 from 26 March 2020.’.

---
§ 250.101 Amphetamine and methamphetamine inhalers regarded as prescription drugs. ( a ) Recurring reports of abuse and misuse of methamphetamine (also known as desoxyephedrine) inhalers show that they have a potentiality for harmful effect and that they should not be freely available to the public through over-the-counter sale. From complaints by law-enforcement officials, health officials, individual physicians, parents, and others as well as from Food and Drug Administration investigations, it is evident that the wicks from these inhalers are being removed and the methamphetamine they contain is being used as a substitute for amphetamine tablets. Amphetamine tablets and amphetamine inhalers have been restricted to prescription sale because of their potentiality for harm to the user.
( b ) It is the considered opinion of the Food and Drug Administration that, in order to adequately protect the public health, inhalers containing methamphetamine or methamphetamine salts (d-desoxyephedrine, or dl-desoxyephedrine, or their salts), as well as amphetamine inhalers should be restricted to prescription sale and should be labeled with the statement “Rx only.”
[40 FR 14033, Mar. 27, 1975, as amended at 67 FR 4906, Feb. 1, 2002]
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 09- 051- CR Z AC HAR I AH E L I AS VA NDE R B UR G AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 355TH DI STRI CT CO URT O FHO O D CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l antZachari ah El i as V anderb ur g at t em pt s t o appeal f r om t he t r i al cou rt ’ s j udgm ent s se nt enc i ng hi m t o t w o ye ar s’ i m pr i so nm entf oroneco untof se xua l as sa ul tan d s i x ye ar s’ co m m uni t y s upe rvi si on f ora seco nd c ountof se xua l as sa ul t . W e d i sm i sst he app ea l f orl ac k o fj ur i sd i ct i on. Van de r bu r g’ ss e nt e nc e w a si m po s e d on Nov e m be r21, 2008 . V a n d e r b u r g f ile d a m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l, s o h isn o t ic e o fa p p e a l w a sd u e w it h in2 ... Bec aus e w e l ack j ur i sd i ct i on ov ert he app ea l , w e t ak e n o a ct i on on

Van de r bu r g’ sc ou ns e l ’ sm ot i on t o w i t hd r a w t ha tw a sf i l e d on M a r c h 16, 2009 . 2 n i n e tyd a y s — th a t i s , o n o rb e fo re F e b ru a ry1 9 , 2 0 0 9 . S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 26. 2( a ) ( 2) . Van de r bu r g di d no tf i l e h i sn ot i c e o fa pp e a l u nt i l F e br ua ry 24, 2009.W e sent noti ce t o V ander bur g on M ar ch 2 6, 20 09 , st at i ng t hatbecause oft he app ar entunt i m el i nes s ofhi s not i ceofap pea l , w e w oul d di sm i sst he a p p e a l u n le s sh e o ra n yp a rt yd e s ir in g t o c o n t in u e t h e a p p e a l re s p o n d e d b yA p r il 6 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d s h o w e d g ro u n d sfo r c o n ti n u i n g th e a p p e a l . S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 9. 2( b) ( 1) –( 2) . W e r ecei ved no r esponse. The l ac k o fa t i m el y no t i ceofapp ea l d epr i vest hi s cou rtofj ur i sd i ct i on. S e eS ta tev. Ri

e we , 1 3 S .W .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); O l ivo v. S tate , 9 1 8 S .W .2 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 2

– 2 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); W i l l i a m s v. S tate , 76 S . W . 3d 20 7, 20 9 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 20 02 , n o pet . ) . Ther ef or e, because V a n d e rbu rg fa i l e d to ti m e l yfi l e h i s n o ti c e o f a p p e a l a n d fai l e d to p rov i d e u s w i th gr ound s f o rc o n t i n u i n g h i sa p p e a l , w e m u s td i s m i s st h e a p p e a l f o rw a n tof j ur i sd i ct i on. 2 S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 3 .2 (f).

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: W A LKER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 30, 2009
<PAGE>



                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-37665) pertaining to the Management Equity Plan of United 
Stationers Inc. of our report dated January 26, 1999 except for Note 18, as 
to which the date is March 17, 1999, with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements of United Stationers Inc. and Subsidiaries, included in 
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                    /S/ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 1999
TS- ACET10/20/30/40/50

Attachment # 9

Pt. 2, Sec. B

Additional Information on the Absence of Tank Truck Cleaning Opera tions
# EUR-Lex - 31991R3863 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31991R3863

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3863/91 of 16 December 1991 determining a minimum marketing size for crabs applicable in certain coastal areas of the United Kingdom **

*
Official Journal L 363 , 31/12/1991 P. 0001 - 0001 Finnish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 4 P. 0027 Swedish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 4 P. 0027 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3863/91 of 16 December 1991 determining a minimum marketing size for crabs applicable in certain coastal areas of the United Kingdom

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 104/76 of 19 January 1976 laying down common marketing standards for shrimps (Crangon crangon), edible crabs (Cancer pagurus) and Norway lobsters (Nephrops norvegicus) (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3162/91 (2), and in particular Article 7 (4) thereof,

Whereas exceptions to the minimum size laid down in Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 104/76 may be provided for in order to ensure the local or regional supply of crabs in certain coastal areas of the United Kingdom;

Whereas the exceptions to the minimum size of the species concerned must be differentiated to reflect the fact that production conditions in the said areas are not all the same;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The minimum marketing size for edible crabs shall be 12,5 centimetres in the coastal areas of Scotland, Wales from Cemaes Head to the northernmost point of its border with England, Kent, Essex, north-east England from the southern limit of Humberside to the northern limit of Northumberland, and north-west England from the southern limit of Cheshire to Haverigg Point in Cumbria at latitude 54°11,3 N.

2. The minimum size shall be 11,5 centimetres in the coastal areas of Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and the Cumbrian Sea Fisheries District.

Article 2

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1048/86 (3) is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 1991. For the Commission

Manuel MARÍN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 20, 28. 1. 1976, p. 35. (2) OJ No L 300, 31. 10. 1991, p. 1. (3) OJ No L 96, 11. 4. 1986, p. 14.
<PAGE>
 
                              MYCOGEN CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                STATEMENTS RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                           Three months ended                     Six months ended 
                                                      February 28,       February 29,        February 28,       February 29,
                                                         1997               1996                1997               1996
                                                     --------------     -------------       -------------      -------------
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>                 <C>                <C> 
Net income (loss) applicable to common shares.....   $        2,683     $     (24,544)      $      (7,545)     $     (32,340)
                                                     ==============     =============       =============      =============
Weighted average number of shares outstanding:
Average common  shares............................           30,828            24,426              30,768             21,937
Stock option equivalent shares....................            2,308                 - (1)               - (1)              - (1)
                                                     --------------     -------------       -------------      -------------
Average common shares for computation
  of primary net income (loss) per common share...           33,136            24,426              30,768             21,937
Additional stock option equivalent                
  shares..........................................              418                 - (1)               - (1)              - (1)
                                                     --------------     -------------       -------------      -------------
Average shares for computation of net income
  (loss) per common share assuming full           
  dilution........................................           33,554            24,426              30,768             21,937
                                                     ==============     =============       =============      =============
Net income (loss) per common share:
  Primary.........................................   $          .08     $       (1.00)      $        (.25)     $       (1.47)
                                                     ==============     =============       =============      =============
  Assuming full dilution..........................   $          .08     $       (1.00)      $        (.25)     $       (1.47)
                                                     ==============     =============       =============      =============
</TABLE> 

(1)  Additional shares from stock option equivalents were not included in the 
calculation of net loss per common share as  the effect was antidilutive.
Diagram of use at sites controlled by others
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6913

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALVIN BERNARD TRUESDALE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:92

- cr - 00034

- RJC

- 1 )

Submitted : June 25 , 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Alvin Bernard Truesdale, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6913 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Alvin B ernard Truesdale appeals the district court’s order granting his motion to
reduce his sentence to time served and denying several pro se motions

. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Truesdale , No. 3 : 92

- cr - 00 0 34

- RJC

- 1 ( W .D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6913 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Submitted on record and briefs July 22, 1998,

affirmed November 10, 1999,

petition for review denied February 29, 2000 (330 Or 71)

#### In the Matter of Tyrone B. Maxwell, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*TYRONE B. MAXWELL, *Appellant.*

(57-97-09056; CA A99806)

988 P2d 939

Rebecca R. Davis filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, Deits, Chief Judge,* and Armstrong, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*

 Deits, C. J. *vice*Warren, P. J., retired.

*172PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from an order determining that he is mentally ill and committing him to the Mental Health Division for a maximum period of 180 days. We discuss only his argument that the failure to provide him with a copy of the examiner’s report at least 24 hours before the hearing, as ORS 426.074(3) requires, was error requiring reversal. Appellant’s attorney did not object to the late delivery of the report or to its admission at the hearing, nor did the attorney seek a continuance in order to examine the report and prepare a defense. *See*ORS 426.095(2)(c).

Appellant relies on *State v. Allison,*129 Or App 47, 877 P2d 660 (1994), in which we held that the trial court’s failure to give the appellant the full advice that ORS 426.100(1) describes required a reversal of the commitment order. The information at issue in *Allison*was essential to the allegedly mentally ill person’s understanding of the nature and purpose of the hearing and thus implicated serious due process concerns. For that reason, *Allison*held that an objection was not necessary to preserve the error for appeal. Here, however, the failure to provide the report on time is essentially a question of providing adequate and timely discovery so that the person and the person’s lawyer may prepare for the hearing. There is no reason why the preservation rules that apply to other discovery and evidentiary issues should not apply in this case.

Affirmed.
Khi có động đất xảy ra . . .

Xuống sàn nhà,Tìm nơi trú ẩn, và Giữ chặt.

FEMA 529V Vietnamese 9/2005

Tìm nơi trú ẩn dưới 1 chiếc bàn chắc chắn,

bám vào bàn hay chân bàn để bàn có thể che chắn,

cúi đầu xuống cho đến khi hết chấn động.

FEMA
Exhibit 32.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Momentum
Biofuels,  Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, I, George Sharp, Principal
Executive and Accounting  Officer of Momentum  Biofuels,  Inc., hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

a)   such  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of  Momentum  Biofuels,  Inc.  for the
     quarter ended March 31, 2011,  fully complies with the  requirements of
     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b)   the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Momentum
     Biofuels,  Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011,  fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of Momentum Biofuels, Inc.


Date: May 16, 2011


                             /s/George Sharp
                             ---------------
                             George Sharp, Chief Executive Officer
                             (Principal Executive and Accounting Officer)




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# L_2019157EN.01006701.xml

| 14.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 157/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 157/67

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1977 of 11 December 2018 opening and providing for the management of autonomous Union tariff quotas for certain fishery products for the period 2019–2020

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 317 of 14 December 2018
  )

On page 7, in the table of the Annex, Order No 09.2794:

for:

| ‘09.2794 | ex 1605 21 90 | 45 | Shrimps and prawns of the species Pandalus borealis, and Pandalus montagui, cooked and peeled, for processing | 7 000 | 0 % | 1.1.2019-31.12.2020’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | 62 |
| | 50 |
| ex 1605 29 00 | 55 |

‘09.2794

ex 1605 21 90

45

Shrimps and prawns of the species Pandalus borealis, and Pandalus montagui, cooked and peeled, for processing

7 000

0 %

1.1.2019-31.12.2020’

62

50

ex 1605 29 00

55

read:

| ‘09.2794 | ex 1605 21 90 | 45 | Shrimps and prawns of the species Pandalus borealis, and Pandalus montagui, cooked and peeled, for processing | 7 000 | 0 % | 1.1.2019-31.12.2020’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | 62 |
| ex 1605 29 00 | 50 |
| | 55 |

‘09.2794

ex 1605 21 90

45

Shrimps and prawns of the species Pandalus borealis, and Pandalus montagui, cooked and peeled, for processing

7 000

0 %

1.1.2019-31.12.2020’

62

ex 1605 29 00

50

55

---
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
      (e)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(f)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(g)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(h)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (c)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(d)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Uzi SassonUzi Sasson, President, Chief Operating Officer andChief Financial Officer