alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Salvietti *vs.*Michael Gormley.

Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,

April Term, 1926.

Wi-ieeler, C. J., Curtis, Maltbie, Haines and Hinman, Js.

Argued April 20th

decided May 7th, 1926.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before *Nickerson, J.;*the defendant moved for a judgment of nonsuit, which the court granted, and from the court’s refusal to set aside the judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff appealed.

*Error and new trial ordered.*

*Alfonse C. Fasano,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Harry L. Brooks,*with whom, on the brief, was *Charles L. Brooks,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

At defendant’s request, the plaintiff, a boy of fourteen, was helping him gather apples by *742catching the apples, which defendant, who had climbed the tree, threw to him, and by placing them in a basket. The act of negligence set up in the complaint was either the throwing by the defendant of an apple without having given the plaintiff warning, as he had promised to do, that he was to throw the apple, or the throwing of it when defendant ought to have known the plaintiff was not ready to catch it. The court granted a motion for a nonsuit upon the ground that no reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence that the defendant threw the apple. The court correctly stated the rule of law governing the granting of a motion for a nonsuit, but, as we think, incorrectly applied the rule to the facts in evidence. Weighing the evidence in the light of our rule, that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff must be assumed to be true, and then drawing every favorable inference of fact that might be reasonably drawn from it, the-jury might reasonably have found that the defendant threw the apple which injured the plaintiff. *Cook*v. *Morris,*66 Conn. 196, 33 Atl. 949; *Fritz*v. *Gaudet,*101 Conn. 52, 124 Atl. 841; *Colvin*v. *Delaney,*101 Conn. 73, 79, 124 Atl. 841.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### §§ 363.127-363.129 [Reserved]
# L_2019303DE.01004501.xml

| 25.11.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 303/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 303/45

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2019/1084 der Kommission vom 25. Juni 2019 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 142/2011 hinsichtlich der Harmonisierung der Listen zugelassener oder registrierter Betriebe, Anlagen und Unternehmer sowie der Rückverfolgbarkeit bestimmter tierischer Nebenprodukte und Folgeprodukte

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 171 vom 26. Juni 2019
  )

Seite 103, Anhang, Nummer 1 Buchstabe a zur Änderung von Anhang VIII Kapitel III Nummer 6 Buchstabe f Ziffern iv bis vii der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 142/2011, Ziffer vi:

Anstatt:

| „vi) | Name und Anschrift des Herkunftsbetriebs bzw. der Herkunftsanlage des Materials und die Zulassungs- oder Registrierungsnummer, die gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 bzw., falls zutreffend, gemäß den Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 852/2004 oder (EG) Nr. 183/2005 vergeben wurde;“ |
| --- | --- |

„vi)

Name und Anschrift des Herkunftsbetriebs bzw. der Herkunftsanlage des Materials und die Zulassungs- oder Registrierungsnummer, die gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 bzw., falls zutreffend, gemäß den Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 852/2004 oder (EG) Nr. 183/2005 vergeben wurde;“

muss es heißen:

| „vi) | Name und Anschrift des Bestimmungsbetriebs bzw. der Bestimmungsanlage und die Zulassungs- oder Registrierungsnummer, die gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 bzw., falls zutreffend, gemäß den Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 852/2004 oder (EG) Nr. 183/2005 vergeben wurde;“. |
| --- | --- |

„vi)

Name und Anschrift des Bestimmungsbetriebs bzw. der Bestimmungsanlage und die Zulassungs- oder Registrierungsnummer, die gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 bzw., falls zutreffend, gemäß den Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 852/2004 oder (EG) Nr. 183/2005 vergeben wurde;“.

---
#### § 515.543 Proof of origin.

Specific licenses for importation of goods of Cuban origin are generally not issued unless the applicant submits satisfactory documentary proof of the location of the goods outside Cuba prior to July 8, 1963 and of the absence of any Cuban interest in the goods at all times on or since that date. Since the type of document which would constitute satisfactory proof varies depending upon the facts of the particular case, it is not possible to state in advance the type of documents required. However, it has been found that affidavits, statements, invoices, and other documents prepared by manufacturers, processors, sellers or shippers cannot be relied on and are therefore not by themselves accepted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control as satisfactory proof of origin. Independent corroborating documentary evidence, such as insurance documents, bills of lading, etc., may be accepted as satisfactory proof.

[39 FR 25317, July 10, 1974]
# Az Európai Unió C 40/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0979
  doi:10.3000/19770979.C_2012.040.hun |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 40 |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 55. évfolyam2012. február 11. |

ISSN 1977-0979

doi:10.3000/19770979.C_2012.040.hun

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 40

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

55. évfolyam2012. február 11.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Hirdetmények |
| | KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK |
| | Európai Parlament |
| 2012/C 040/01 | Határozat | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

V   Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Parlament

2012/C 040/01

Határozat

1

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

V Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Parlament

| 11.2.2012 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | C 40/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

C 40/1

---

HATÁROZAT

2012/C 40/01

AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENT FŐTITKÁRA,

tekintettel az Európai Unió tisztviselőinek személyzeti szabályzatáról, valamint egyéb alkalmazottainak alkalmazási feltételeiről szóló és legutóbb a 723/2004/EK, Euratom tanácsi rendelettel módosított 259/68/EGK, Euratom, ESZAK tanácsi rendeletre, és különösen e személyzeti szabályzat 30. cikkére,

tekintettel a legutóbb 2004. október 26-án módosított, a kinevezésre jogosult hatóság kijelöléséről szóló elnökségi határozatra,

tekintettel az alábbi versenyvizsga-kiírásokra és álláshirdetésekre:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/1/08, AD/3/08, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, B/174, B/175, B/176, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/2008, PE/69/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S,

tekintettel a Vegyes Bizottság 2011. október 26-i ülésén kiadott véleményére,

A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:

Egyetlen cikk

Az alábbi számú versenyvizsgák és felvételi eljárások keretében összeállított tartaléklisták érvényessége:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/1/08, AD/3/08, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, B/174, B/175, B/176, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/2008, PE/69/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S

2012. december 31-ig meghosszabbításra kerül.

Kelt Luxembourgban, 2011. december 18-án.

Klaus WELLE

főtitkár

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norvell Webster CRUMP, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6272.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

*618Norvell Webster Crump, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Norvell Webster Crump seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). Crump’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended relief be denied and advised Crump that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Crump failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Crump has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 24, 2023

NO. 03-21-00514-CV

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Elgin Independent School District; Board of Trustees of Elgin Independent School District; 

Dr. Jodi Duron in her Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Elgin Independent School 

District; and Byron Mitchell, Beth Walterscheidt, Angie Edmon, Juanita Valarie Neidig, 

Pete Bega, JD Harkins, and David Glass in their Official Capacities as Trustees of the 

Elgin Independent School District, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND THEOFANIS

VACATED AND DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION --

OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on October 6, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that appellant’s claims have become moot. Therefore, the Court 

vacates the district court’s judgment and dismisses the case for want of jurisdiction. Appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 342.8 Governing regulations.

Savings notes are subject to the regulations of the Department of the Treasury, now or hereafter prescribed, governing United States Savings Bonds, contained in 31 CFR part 315, also published as Department of the Treasury Circular No. 530, current revision, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
40214.

#### DENNIS v. THE STATE.

Decided November 14, 1963.

*Wesley R. Asinof,*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Boyd, Solicitor General, John I. Kelley, Solicitor, Eugene L. Tiller, Hinson McAulvffe, James L. Webb, Frank A. Bowers,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The only evidence adduced on the trial of the case connecting the defendant with the offense of lottery was evidence obtained from her home at the time she was arrested.

The evidence did not disclose a search made in connection with a legal arrest. There was no evidence of a crime having been committed in the presence of the officers before the search was instituted. There was no evidence of flight, and there was no evidence of an arrest under an arrest warrant. Therefore, the question is presented, all of such evidence having been properly objected to as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as to whether the search warrant was proper, and if not the evidence was inadmissible. In *Smoot v. State,*160 Ga. 744 (128 SE 909, 41 ALR 1533), it was held that a valid search warrant cannot be issued on the belief of the affiant, or based on his belief that probable cause exists for the issuance of the search warrant. While the search warrant in the present case states *647that it was issued “upon consideration of the allegations contained in the . . . affidavit, and upon facts submitted under oath” the evidence disclosed that no evidence under oath was submitted to the judicial officer issuing such warrant other than the affidavit based on the belief of the affiant that there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The warrant was not valid, and evidence seized under the same was improperly admitted over the defendant’s objections, and for such reason the superior court erred in overruling the certiorari. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (81 SC 1684, 6 LE2d 1081); *Brown v. State,*107 Ga. App. 672 (131 SE2d 146).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### § 363.11 Who is eligible to open a TreasuryDirect ® account?

Only an individual or an entity is eligible to open a TreasuryDirect account. In order to open a TreasuryDirect account, an individual or entity account manager must have a valid social security number (SSN), be 18 years of age or over, and be legally competent. An entity must have a valid SSN or employer identification number. The account owner must have a United States address of record and have an account at a United States depository financial institution that will accept debits and credits using the Automated Clearing House method of payment.

[74 FR 19417, Apr. 29, 2009]
# L_2020048EN.01000201.xml

| 21.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 48/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 48/2

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/237

of 14 February 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Bjelovarski kvargl’ (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Bjelovarski kvargl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Bjelovarski kvargl’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Bjelovarski kvargl’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Bjelovarski kvargl’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Bjelovarski kvargl’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. – Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 February 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 320, 24.9.2019, p. 9.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
§ 29.332 Unused sick leave. ( a ) For employees separated for retirement as of June 30, 1997, Federal Benefit Payments include credit for any unused sick leave that is creditable under the applicable plan.
( b ) For employees separated for retirement after June 30, 1997, no unused sick leave is creditable toward Federal Benefit Payments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (12,212)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      18,504,400
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,189,330)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,627,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          693,711
<BONDS>                                     12,630,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,303,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,627,430
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,060,680
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,316,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (75)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             215,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (470,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (470,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (470,544)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (23.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (23.55)
        

</TABLE>
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 of JACOBS  FINANCIAL  GROUP,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  November 30, 2009 (the  "Report")
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  I, John M. Jacobs,  Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's  Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Date: May 27, 2010


                  /s/John M. Jacobs
                  -------------------------------------------------------------
                  John M. Jacobs,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                  Officer
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
June 20, 2008

136217

MARK ANDERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee. Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

SC: 136217 CoA: 281128

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the entry fee, the application for leav e to appeal is dismissed.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 20, 2008
Clerk
UNITED STATES GRAVITY MAP

z
fe}
=
=
z
a

NOS 1711N-17G
5. £, BERING SEA E. of PRIBILOF |S.

pect st00

{CATION DEAN

caatree

caaver \tcee
ert: SMR
one Votes
lent throne
— sgn Yam
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...John Albert  Pinsonneault

# 				John Albert  Pinsonneault			

				Third-Party Contractor			

Deceased				October 14, 2004			

**Private collection image.**

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialIraq

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,**

**Petitioner**

**v. JOHN KLINGER MORT,**  **Respondent :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 2272 Disciplinary Docket No. 3**

**No. 110 DB 2015 Attorney**  **Registration No. 25826 (Juniata County)** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30 th**  **day of June, 2016, upon consideration of the Report a nd**  **Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, John Klinger Mort is suspended from the**  **Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year an d one day, and he is directed to**  **comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Resp ondent shall pay costs to the**  **Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).**