alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry J. MARTOCCI, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Frances Marie MARTOCCI, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 80-139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 2, 1981.

*1339Henry J. Martocci, Cocoa, pro se., and James Theriac, III, Merritt Island, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Peter Haddad and Carl W. Pearson, Ti-tusville, for appellee/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a marriage dissolution action. It is affirmed in all respects except the requirement that the husband make car and rent payments for the wife’s benefit. These payments were not terminable upon the wife’s remarriage or the husband’s death, as periodic alimony must be. *Kirchman v. Kirchman,*389 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

We vacate that portion of the judgment requiring the car and rent payments and remand this cause to the lower court in order to permit it to reconsider the amounts of periodic alimony and child support awarded, in view of this opinion. Remanding and allowing reconsideration of the alimony and child support awards by the trial court is particularly indicated in this case because the judge clearly conceived of the rent and car payments as forms of alimony and child support.1

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

1

. The following dialogue took place at the trial:

> THE COURT: ... Let me talk about the car. I’ve kind of got it down to what she needs. She needs a house and she needs a car. So, if somebody can figure out what I ought to call it, I’m also going to provide that Mr. Martocci pay for the car that he has provided for his wife, on two or three theories. One is that he bought it and furnished it to her, and it’s certainly not unfair, she’s entitled to a car, needs one to take care of the children, for her to earn money, which will reduce his responsibility for her anyway; because if she doesn’t earn any money, he’s going to have to pay a higher support.

> MR. MARTOCCI: Pay the monthly note, Your Honor; is that it?

> THE COURT: Whatever is owed on it. I don’t know how you owe the money thing on it, it’s just that she won’t have to pay any money for a car. So that leaves her for herself, for food, all the utilities, gas, and all of her other necessities of life, minus her earnings; and I’m talking about those things in keeping with your earning ability here, she’s entitled to have alimony set as everybody else is, in keeping with your ability, with your ability minus her ability, considering the fact that the kids are contributing their share to keep up with it.

> MR. HADDAD: So, it’s the house payment and the car payment?

> THE COURT: That’s correct. And whatever it is, it’s just so she won’t have the obligation.

> MR. THERIAC: Would that be characterized as alimony?

> THE COURT: Yeah, I think he needs to. Yeah, why don’t you do that ....
HomeUruguay

# Uruguay

83 items

        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Uruguay	  September 13, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Uruguay National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 28, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Human Rights and Democracy  		Expanding the Global Equality Fund and Protecting Human Rights with New International Partners	  August 25, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Press briefing with Todd D. Robinson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs	  Todd D.  RobinsonJuly 10, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Uruguay	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Uruguay	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uruguay	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		U.S. National Statement for Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee(INC) -1 on Plastic Pollution	  Monica MedinaNovember 28, 2022Intergovernmental Negotiating CommitteePunta del Este, Uruguay 
        -    Media Note  		First Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution	  November 25, 2022 

previous page1234…9next page

Back to Top
README Document

This CD contains the intstallation file for EPA's Optimization model for reducing 

Emissions of Greenhouse gases from Automobiles (OMEGA), and the input and output files 

used to support EPA’s Greenhouse Gas emission control program for cars and light trucks. 

EPA has established a webpage for OMEGA on the EPA agency website, 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/models.htm. This webpage will provide additional 

information about the OMEGA model, including both the model for downloading and use and 

model documentation.
# C_2006007EN.01000101.xml

| 12.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 January 2006

(2006/C 7/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2088 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,31 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4573 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68840 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3499 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5474 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,03 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0310 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9554 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5737 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,753 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7742 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6285 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,48 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,380 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6210 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6061 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4073 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3702 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7392 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9702 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 187,04 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,3825 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7556 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3851 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 441,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,529 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,583 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,4140 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,100 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2088

JPY

Japanese yen

138,31

DKK

Danish krone

7,4573

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68840

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3499

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5474

ISK

Iceland króna

74,03

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0310

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9554

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5737

CZK

Czech koruna

28,753

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7742

RON

Romanian leu

3,6285

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,48

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,380

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6210

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6061

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4073

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3702

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7392

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9702

KRW

South Korean won

1 187,04

ZAR

South African rand

7,3825

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7556

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3851

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 441,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,529

PHP

Philippine peso

63,583

RUB

Russian rouble

34,4140

THB

Thai baht

48,100

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005330EN.01001903.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v OHIM

(Case T-379/03) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark Cloppenburg - Absolute grounds for refusal to register - Descriptive character - Geographical origin - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 330/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented originally by U. Hildebrandt, subsequently by P. Lange, P. Wilbert and A. Auler and, subsequently by P. Lange, P. Wilbert, A. Auler and J. Steinberg, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented originally by D. Schennen and G. Schneider, and subsequently by A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant(s):

Application for

Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 August 2003 (R 105/2002-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign Cloppenburg as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 August 2003 (R 105/2002-4); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 August 2003 (R 105/2002-4);

| 2) | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.

1

---
# C_2005217EN.01002902.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in 1. ..., 2. ... and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria

(Case C-272/05)

(2005/C 217/57)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. ..., 2. ... and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria on the following question:

| 1. | ‘Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, are deemed to be the “same acts”, as referred to in Article 54 of that Convention?’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, are deemed to be the “same acts”, as referred to in Article 54 of that Convention?’

---
**Exhibit No. 21.1**

** **

** **

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

**As of June 30, 200**9

 

1.       Providential Capital, Inc.

Percentage of ownership: 100%

Business activity:  Consulting and M&A advisory services

 

2.       Providential Vietnam, Ltd.

Percentage of ownership: 100%

Business activity: Consulting

 

3.       Philand Ranch Limited –  UK

Percentage of ownership: 75.50%

Business activity: real estate development

 

4.       PHI Mining Group, Inc., formerly DDC Industries, Inc.

Percentage of ownership: 82.71%

Business activity: Mining

 

5.       Providential Energy Corporation

Percentage of ownership: 100%

Business activity: Independent Oil & Gas, Alternative Energy

 

6.       Provimex, Inc

Percentage of ownership: 85%

Business activity: Trading and Imports/Exports

 

7.        Vietnam Media Group, Inc., formerly Touchlink Communications, Inc.

Percentage of ownership: 85%

Business activity: Multi-media

 

 

----
#### Isadore D. BRICKMAN, M.D. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WEST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL et al.

No. 65062.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Isadore D. Brickman, M.D., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 372 So.2d 701.

Writ denied.
HomeRussia

# Russia

1816 items

        -    Remarks  		Fireside Chat at IHS CERAWeek	  John KerryMarch 2, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 2, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 2, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Imposing Sanctions on Russia for the Poisoning and Imprisonment of Aleksey Navalny	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 2, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		U.S. Sanctions and Other Measures Imposed on Russia in Response to Russia’s Use of Chemical Weapons	  March 2, 2021 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Hillary Clinton, “You and Me Both with Hillary Clinton” Podcast	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 2, 2021Via Teleconference 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 1, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 1, 2021Washington, D.C.  
        -    Press Statement  		Honoring Boris Nemtsov on the Sixth Anniversary of his Murder	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 27, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Crimea Is Ukraine	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 25, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 25, 2021	  February 25, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Religious Freedom Concerns in Russia	  Ned PriceFebruary 25, 2021 

previous page1…169170171172173…182next page

Back to Top
HomeLibya

# Libya

130 items

        -    Special Briefing  		Special Online Press Briefing with Ambassador Richard Norland, U.S. Special Envoy for Libya	  October 5, 2023Dubai Hub 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 28, 2023	  Matthew MillerSeptember 28, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Informal Consultations on Supporting Libya’s Political Process on the Margins of the U.N. General Assembly	  September 20, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 14, 2023	  Matthew MillerSeptember 14, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Flooding in Libya	  Matthew MillerSeptember 11, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – September 11, 2023	  Matthew MillerSeptember 11, 2023Washington, D.C.  
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Amendment of the Terrorist Designations of Real IRA and ISIL-Libya	  June 29, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Libya	  June 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Libya	  June 15, 2023 

previous page1234…13next page

Back to Top
#### Luis STABINSKI, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Appellants, v. PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.

No. 78-1669.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 8, 1979.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1979.

Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega and Regina F. Zelonker, Miami, for appellants.

George & Thompson and Charles K. George, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate J udge.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an order entered by the trial court dismissing with prejudice his class action complaint, as amended, seeking compensatory and punitive damages from ap-pellee, defendant below, for the breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent concealment involving his, and all other persons similarly situated, purchase of allegedly defective tires from appellee. We,affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant’s basic contention on appeal is that his amended complaint was legally sufficient and that its dismissal with prejudice was improper.

In our opinion, that part of the trial' court’s order dismissing with prejudice appellant’s amended complaint as a class action and as an action for breach of express warranty was proper. The only express warranty involved in the pleadings in this cause shows, on its face, that it applies to the use of appellee’s tires on only American automobiles, not foreign cars such as the one used by appellant; therefore, appellant is not within any class or covered by any express warranty alleged or shown in the record. See *Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy,*154 So.2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); and Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.220. Accordingly, those portions of the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice appellant’s amended complaint in regard to a class action and for breach of an express warranty are affirmed.

However, in regard to the other allegations in appellant’s amended complaint, we believe that it would serve the best interests of justice for him to be allowed to further amend his complaint to state any cause of action which he may have. See, e. g., *Rice*v. *Walker,*359 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we affirm the remaining portions of the trial court’s order *680dismissing appellant’s amended complaint, except, other than as provided for above, that portion doing so with prejudice. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
# Mauritania

68 items

        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mauritania	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Mauritania	  June 2, 2022 
        -    		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Foreign Ministers from Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Senegal Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 18, 2022United Nations HeadquartersNew York, New York 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mauritania	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Vulnerable Populations in Mali, Mauritania, and Niger	  April 5, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador Hussain Travels to Mauritania	  February 7, 2022 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL FY21 IRF: Advocacy to Preserve Religious and Cultural Heritage in the Trans-Sahel Region	  December 22, 2021 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2020: Mauritania	  December 16, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Mauritania’s National Day 	  Antony J. BlinkenNovember 28, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Mauritania	  July 21, 2021 

previous page1234567next page

Back to Top
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7005** 

L.C. BROWN, a/k/a L.C. Brown, Jr. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN REYNOLDS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:15

- cv - 00185

- TLW )

Submitted : October 28, 2015 Decided: November 2, 2015

Before KING and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. L.C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: L.C. Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district cou rt’s order accepting the recommen dation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by d emonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distric t court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We ha ve independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert HOWARD v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 65739.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1979.

In re Robert Howard, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of West Feliciana. No. 6626.

Writ denied.
# C_2006010EN.01003101.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/31

---

(2006/C 10/59)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

Past publications

OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
§ 401.108 CMS rulings. ( a ) After September 1981, a precedent final opinion or order or a statement of policy or interpretation that has not been published in the Federal Register as a part of a regulation or of a notice implementing regulations, but which has been adopted by CMS as having precedent, may be published in the Federal Register as a CMS Ruling and will be made available in the publication entitled *CMS Rulings.*
( b ) Precedent final opinions and orders and statements of policy and interpretation that were adopted by CMS before October, 1981, and that have not been published in the Federal Register are available in *CMS Rulings.*
( c ) CMS Rulings are published under the authority of the Administrator, CMS. They are binding on all CMS components, on all HHS components that adjudicate matters under the jurisdiction of CMS, and on the Social Security Administration to the extent that components of the Social Security Administration adjudicate matters under the jurisdiction of CMS.
[48 FR 22924, May 23, 1983, as amended at 70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005; 70 FR 37702, June 30, 2005]