alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O. T. McCOY v. Lloyd TOMS.

No. 80-C-1517.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 26, 1980.

On Reconsideration Oct. 20, 1980.

In Re Lloyd Toms applying for Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bienville, No. 14,147, 384 So.2d 518.

Denied.

DIXON, C. J., and BLANCHE, J.,

concur in the denial.

*1162Defendant has not possessed the property in dispute for 30 years. In order to acquire it by prescription, he therefore must tack his possession to the possession of his predecessors in title. Tacking is governed by articles which deal with 10 year acquisitive prescription. C.C. 3493-96. These articles apply alike to 30 year acquisitive prescription. C.C. 3505; *Stutson v. McGee,*241 La. 646, 130 So.2d 403 (1961). According to C.C. 3483-85, the title under which one must possess in order to acquire property by 10 year prescription is a title that transfers the ownership of the land. Defendant’s title does not convey the ownership of the disputed property, and for this reason defendant cannot tack the possession of his ancestors in title. Cf. *Pierce v. Hunter,*202 La. 900, 13 So.2d 259 (1943); *Hunter*v. *Forrest,*195 La. 973, 197 So. 649 (1940); *Harang v. Gheens Realty Co.,*155 La. 68, 98 So. 760 (1924); *Bendernagle v. Foret,*145 La. 115, 81 So. 869 (1919).

LEMMON, J., concurs for reasons assigned.

LEMMON, Justice,

concurring.

Defendant did not possess in the name of or for another; he simply acknowledged to third parties the name of the party he thought was the record owner, while possessing adversely to that party. Nevertheless, defendant’s possession did not span thirty years, and since his deed transferred only the improvements, he cannot tack on the adverse possession of his ancestor. The result is correct.

On Motion for Reconsideration.

In Re Lloyd Toms, applying for *reconsideration of*denied writ of September 26, 1980.

Not considered. See Rule IX, Sec. 6 and C.C.P: 2166.
#### § 403.1202 Pricing information.

Any advertisement for any prescription drug or biological product on television (including broadcast, cable, streaming, or satellite) must contain a textual statement indicating the current list price for a typical 30-day regimen or for a typical course of treatment, whichever is most appropriate, as determined on the first day of the quarter during which the advertisement is being aired or otherwise broadcast, as follows: “The list price for a [30-day supply of ] [typical course of treatment with] [name of prescription drug or biological product] is [insert list price]. If you have health insurance that covers drugs, your cost may be different.” Where the price is related to the typical course of treatment and that typical course of treatment varies depending on the indication for which a prescription drug or biological product is prescribed, the list price to be used is the one for the typical course of treatment associated with the primary indication addressed in the advertisement.
UAV MISSION CHECK LIST

FLIGHT #: _____________ DATE: ___________ AIRCRAFT: __________________________

TEMP: ______ WIND SPEED/DIRECTION: _______/_______ CLOUD COVER: ______________

Flying Home Productions LLC

Mission Planning

 Check environment:

o Nearest airport

o Weather forecast

 Wind direction and speed?

 Auto take off? Angle ___, Altitude ___

 Check default altitude ___

 Check altitude graph

 Check distance

 Check mission time

 Upload mission

 Download mission again and check

Pre-Flight Checklist:

 Check payload on

 Check UAV battery

 Check airspeed sensor clear

 Turn on transmitter

o Mode manual

o Power idle

 Check prop clear

 Power up UAV

o block airspeed sensor

o don't move UAV until elevator 

flicks 3 times

 Check telemetry

 Check 3D GPS fix

 Check altitude

 Check airspeed

 Perform compass calibration

 Check Home Location

 Check cruise speed

 Set home altitude to relative alt.

 Check moving surfaces [Manual]

 Check moving surfaces [Stabilize]

Take-Off

 Arm R/C

 Arm UAV

 Check prop thrust?

 Wind direction and speed

 Takeoff flight path clear of obstacles?

 Mode auto

 Check elevator (auto takeoff only)

 Launch against wind

Landing

 Check home altitude

 Check cruise speed

 Check wind direction and speed

Shut Down:

 Power idle

 Mode manual

 Disconnect Telemetry

 Power off UAV

 Power Off Transmitter
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Fund XVIII 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000704271
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XVIII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          26,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,705
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,737
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    146
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.76<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Mitchell D. Staples, principal financial officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United Bancorporation of Alabama, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;
          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based onsuch evaluation; and
          (c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 30, 2005   /s/ Mitchell D. Staples    Mitchell D. Staples  Principal financial officer
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Public Officials for Significant Corruption

# 									Designation of Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Public Officials for Significant Corruption							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

August 16, 2023

The United States is designating the following individuals as generally ineligible for entry into the United States, due to their involvement in significant corruption:
        - Cosma Wilungula Balongelwa, the former Director General of Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature (ICCN);
        - Leonard Muamba Kanda, the former Department Head of the DRC Management Authority for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and Director of ICCN; and
        - Augustin Ngumbi Amuri, the Director-Coordinator of the DRC CITES Management Authority and Legal Advisor to ICCN

As public officials responsible for wildlife protection, they abused their public positions by trafficking chimpanzees, gorillas, okapi, and other protected wildlife from the DRC, primarily to the People’s Republic of China, using falsified permits, in return for bribes. Their corrupt, transnational criminal actions not only undermined rule of law and government transparency in the DRC but also long-standing wildlife conservation efforts.

Today’s action demonstrates the United States stands with those in the DRC who work to disrupt wildlife trafficking and promote accountability for corrupt public officials and transnational criminals. These designations also reaffirm the United States’ commitment to combat corruption, which harms the public interest, hampers countries’ economic prosperity, and curtails the ability of governments to respond effectively to the needs of their people.

These public designations are made under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023. The Department is also designating Kanda’s wife, Rose Nsele Ngokali and Wilungula’s wife, Esther Mwanga Wilungula as generally ineligible for entry into the United States.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsCorruptionDemocratic Republic of the CongoDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsWildlife Trafficking

Back to Top
# C_2005182EN.01000101.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-301/02 P Carmine Salvatore Tralli v European Central Bank (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff of the European Central Bank - Recruitment - Extension of the probationary period - Dismissal during the probationary period)

(2005/C 182/01)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-301/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 26 August 2002, Carmine Salvatore Tralli (represented by N. Pflüger, Rechtsanwalt), the other party to the proceedings being the European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and M. Benisch, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Tralli to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Tralli to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

1

---
#### Danny Roy MALLOY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SS-281.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 1981.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

McCORD, Judge.

This appeal is from appellant’s conviction of grand theft for which he was sentenced to six years in prison. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case.

The subject of the theft was a broken wooden mantle clock owned by Lena Buchanan. Ms. Buchanan testified that she had bought the clock in 1915 and that it had been passed around in her family for many years. The only evidence as to value of the clock was Ms. Buchanan’s testimony that she “wouldn’t take $200 for it.” Appellant contends that the state failed to prove that the value of the clock was more than $100 and, therefore, his motion for judgment of acquittal of grand theft should have been granted.

The criterion for value in prosecutions for larceny (theft) is the market value of the property at the time of the theft. *Lambert v. State,*111 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); *Suarez v. State,*136 So.2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Testimony of the owner as to what he would take for the stolen property is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for grand theft. *Hicks v. State,*127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815 (1937).

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of conviction on lesser included offense of petit theft.

MILLS, C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court 30742 08-NOV-2010 02:07 PM
NO. 30742

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

ANTHONY GIGNAC, Petitioner,

vs.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I; and DOUGLAS S. CHIN, DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 95-2553)

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Kubo, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Anthony Gignac's "Motion for Appropriate Relief," filed on September 22, 2010, which is deemed a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the papers in support, it appears that the lodging of a detainer is within the discretion of the prosecuting officer and HRS Chapter 834 (Agreement on Detainers) is invoked only when a detainer is lodged. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief as to the respondent prosecuting attorney's decision not to lodge a detainer against petitioner and as to the circuit court's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss Cr. No. 95-2553 for violation of HRS Chapter 834. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; In re. Disciplinary Bd. Of the Hawaii Supreme Court , 91 Hawai ' i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693(1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). It further appears that the filing of documents is a ministerial duty of the circuit court and petitioner has an indisputable right to have his documents filed by the circuit court. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to mandamus relief as to the respondent circuit court's refusal to file, in Cr. No. 95­ 2553, petitioner's "Motion for Continuance/Lift Warrant" dated August 12, 2010. See Barnett v. Broderick , 84 Hawai ' i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as to: (1) the respondent prosecuting attorney's decision not to lodge a detainer against petitioner, and (2) the circuit court's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss Cr. No. 95-2553. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is granted as to the circuit court's refusal to file, in Cr. No. 95-2553, petitioner's "Motion for Continuance/Lift Warrant" dated August 12, 2010. The circuit court of the first circuit shall file such document upon petitioner's resubmission of the document for filing. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, November 8, 2010.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Edward H. Kubo, Jr.

2
## Summary of Interagency Working Com ments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review.  Subje ct to Further Policy Review.

1 EPA NPRM: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3,

GHG Plantwide Applicability Limitations and GHG Synthetic Minor Limitations

p. 49 Include comment bubble JES90 in footnote.

See new footnote 40.

p.50 Comment JES101 seems to contradict the phrase “unless EPA stipulates otherwise”. Please explain

in the text or footnote the degree of discretion implied by EPA’s ability to stipulate otherwise. Can EPA

stipulate whatever it wants, or does it face some constraints? DONE

p.51 comment JES108 contradicts the statement at the top of page 49 that states “can only issue a PAL

to a GHG

‐ only source when the source proposes to undertake such a change”. In your comment you

state that it is only after the change occurs. Which is it? Either correct p 49 or or change p.51 from “(1)

issue PALs to GHG

‐ only sources ;” to “(1) issue PALs to GHG

‐ only sources that are not proposing to

increase emissions by 75,000 tpy CO2e ;” DONE

p.59 typo “inder” to “under” DONE

p.59 please clarify in text what the “enhanced recordkeeping reporting and monitoring” of a PAL are.

This makes it sound like there is more monitoring, etc, whereas the earlier discussion seems to imply

that the rule would reduce monitoring. Do you mean “reduced” instead of “enhanced”?

(No changes to the preamble) The rule as a whole would reduce monitoring when implemented. The

PALs regulations do contain enhanced recording and monitoring provisions, but because of the reduced

number of permit actions resulting from the use of PALs the overall effect is burden reduction.

p.64 comment JES136 suggests that calling a source a “synthetic minor” does not make it a “minor”,

since its emissions will still be larger than the “minor” threshold. So it will be treated as a minor source

for a conventional pollutant would be, while still being above the minor threshold? Please clarify in text.

(No changes to the preamble) A source with a synthetic minor permit will not have emissions larger than

the minor thresholds. Synthetic minor limits are enforceable and have the effect of limiting the sources

emissions without changing the threshold.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis J. FitzSimons, the
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tribune Company, certify that (i)
Tribune Companys Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 26, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii)
the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 26, 2005 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations
of Tribune Company.



| | /s/ 
        Dennis J. FitzSimons         Dennis J. FitzSimons     
           Chairman, President and         Chief Executive Officer  
                  July 29, 2005
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 597.313 License.

Except as otherwise specified, the term *license* means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.
Exhibit 99.1

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

            This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of
Omega Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying
the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth
below, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

      1.    The 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.

         /s/ David B. Lee
      Chief Executive Officer               Date: 03/24/2003


                                       52
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Argentina Secretary of Mining, Fernanda Ávila, and Argentina Secretary of Energy, Flavia Royon, in Buenos Aires

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Argentina Secretary of Mining, Fernanda Ávila, and Argentina Secretary of Energy, Flavia Royon, in Buenos Aires							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

April 14, 2023

The below is attributable to Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met today with Argentine Secretary of Mining, Fernanda Ávila, and Argentine Secretary of Energy, Flavia Royon, during the bicentennial year of the U.S.-Argentina relationship. The leaders spoke of the importance of continuing to nurture the strong bilateral relationship between the United States and Argentina. They also discussed areas of mutual economic interest in the energy sector, including energy transition, critical minerals sector, and the Mineral Security Partnership. The conversation reaffirmed our shared global priorities and commitment to expanding economic opportunity and ensuring energy security.

Tags

ArgentinaBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the Spokesperson

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top