alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors of EnergyNorth, Inc.:

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-3, File No. 33-58127 of our reports dated November 1, 1996,
included in EnergyNorth, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year ended
September 30, 1996, and to all references to our firm included in
this registration statement.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 20, 1996
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1643]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas,*                     Greater Kansas City Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 15, has requested an expansion of the scope of manufacturing authority on behalf of Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A., Inc. (KMMC), operator of Subzone 15E at the KMMC engine manufacturing plant in Maryville, Missouri (FTZ Docket 59-2008, filed 10-14-08);                

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (73 FR 62950, 10-22-08) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore,*                     the Board hereby orders:                          ( print page 46088)    

                    The application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 15E, as described in the application and                     **Federal Register**                     notice, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of August 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9-21622 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3045

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for the

appointment in each Federal judicial circuit Court of Appeals, of at

least one resident of each State in such circuit, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 1996

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to

provide for the appointment in each Federal judicial

circuit Court of Appeals, of at least one resident of

each State in such circuit, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. STATE RESIDENCY OF JUDGES OF FEDERAL

4 COURTS OF APPEALS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44(c) of title 28, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(c)’’; and
2

•HR 3045 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following

2 new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(2) In each circuit (other than the District of Co4 lumbia or Federal judicial circuit) there shall be at least

5 one circuit judge in regular active service appointed from

6 the residents of each State in that circuit.’’.

7 (b) APPOINTMENTS.—As vacancies occur and judge8 ships are created for Federal circuit judges, the President

9 shall make appointments under section 44(a) of title 28,

10 United States Code, in a manner to meet the requirements

11 of subsection (c)(2) of such section (as added by sub12 section (a) of this section) at the earliest practical date.

Æ
#### M. Lucius WALKER et ux., Appellants, v. Ulysses C. GLOVER and City of Jacksonville, Appellees.

No. VV-128.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 17, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1980.

E. K. Mcllrath, Jacksonville, for appellants.

William E. Falck, of Greene & Greene, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Considering the nature of the proceeding in which the controversy between Walker and Glover arose and was adjudicated, we find that this court’s decision on an earlier appeal, *Walker v. City of Jacksonville,*360 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and our remand for further proceedings consistent with that decision, did not foreclose the trial court from finding beneficial title vested in Glover by means of a constructive trust arising when Walker’s adverse claim was asserted. *Lucom v. Potter,*131 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1961).

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Stem Holdings,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended
September 30, 2022 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|January 13, 2023 |                            
|---------------- | ---------------------------
|                 |                            
|                 | /s/ Matthew J. Cohen       
|                 | Matthew J. Cohen           
|                 | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to STEM HOLDINGS, INC. and will be retained by STEM HOLDINGS, INC. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, as Chief Executive
Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates
and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Larry G. Gerdes    
|Larry G. Gerdes        
|Chief Executive Officer

Date: October 31, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: CONDEMNATION BY NEWTOWN 

TOWNSHIP DELAWARE COUNTY, 

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, OF A 

PERMANENT EASEMENT ACROSS THE 

PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4700 W. 

CHESTER PIKE, NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP, 

DELAWARE COUNTY, PA FOLIO 

NUMBER: 30-00-02906-01 TAX MAP 

NUMBER: 30-34-001-00 DOROTHY 

RAFFERTY, CONDEMNEE NEWTOWN 

TOWNSHIP, DELAWARE COUNTY, 

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONDEMNOR

PETITION OF: DOROTHY RAFFERTY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 123 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Gulliford *v.*Skinner.

Where a promissory note is payable to A. or bearer, A. is not incompetent as a witness, within the rule of Walton *v.*Shelly, unless he has endorsed the note. A subsequent holder who has transferred the note without endorsement, is a competent witness for the drawer.

In error from the Common Pleas of Erie.

Assumpsit on a note payable to Levi Guilford or bearer, and by him endorsed. The defendant, the drawer, called Guilford, who was rejected on a general objection. Eor what purpose he was offered, did not appear. *i*

The defendant then called Palmer (and also his wife), who was the first holder of the note, but had not endorsed it. They were rejected on a similar objection.

*Galbraith*and *Walker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Marshall,*contó.

*Oct.*11.

Gibson, C. J.

A plaintiff who sues as the bearer of a promissory note, sues as an immediate payee, designated by description. The promise is disjunctive, to pay to the person named or his substitute by delivery, either of whom answers the descrip*335tion of the promisee. In this instance, the person named would have been a competent witness, without colour of objection, to invalidate the note on any ground whatever, had he not endorsed it and brought himself within the rule in Walton and Shelly; which, however, excludes an, endorser only from proving want of consideration or any other fact that would invalidate it between the original parties. He was offered, not to prove any such matter, but to prove that it was discharged after it had been negotiated. Then he would be liable on his endorsement only in case the holder should fail to recover from the maker, and he was consequently offered to testify against his own interest; for his testimony, in this suit, would not help him in an action on the contract of endorsement.

The case of Tyler Palmer, through whose hands the note had passed from the original payee to the plaintiff, is still stronger. It had passed to and from him by delivery, and he did not become liable for the payment of it, even as an endorser. Had he paid it away for a precedent debt, he would have remained liable on the original contract till the note had been discharged; but the fact hasjnot been alleged; and if it were part of the case, it would show no more than that he was produced to swear against his interest. Not having been the bearer at the time of presentment, he does not stand as an intermediate party between the plaintiff and the defendant; and it is scarce necessary to say that his wife also was a competent witness, even without the release given to her husband.

Judgment reversed, and a *venire de novo*awarded. •
HomeUkraine

# Ukraine

1744 items

        -    TIAS  		Ukraine (18-313) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  March 13, 2018 
        -    TIAS  		Ukraine (17-1206) – Extension to Agreement of December 4, 2006 on Scientific and Technological Cooperation	  December 6, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ukraine (Crimea)	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ukraine	  August 15, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Ukraine (17-801) – Renewal of Arrangement of April 10, 2006 Regarding Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  August 1, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ukraine	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ukraine	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Humanitarian Assistance  		Evaluating the Effectiveness of PRM Multilateral Partners in Ukraine to Assist Internally Displaced Persons and Prepare for the Eventual Transition from Relief to Development [PDF]	  June 1, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ukraine (Crimea)	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Report  		Ukraine	  March 3, 2017 

previous page1…169170171172173…175next page

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meetings with Republic of Korea Minister of Unification Kwon and Vice Minister Kim

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meetings with Republic of Korea Minister of Unification Kwon and Vice Minister Kim							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

June 8, 2022

The following is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met separately with Republic of Korea (ROK) Minister of Unification Kwon Young-se and Vice Minister of Unification Kim Ki-woong on June 8 and condemned the DPRK’s ballistic missile launches as a violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions and as deeply destabilizing to the region.  The Deputy Secretary underscored the importance of close cooperation between and among the United States, the ROK, and Japan to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The Deputy Secretary, Minister, and Vice Minister also expressed concern about the impact of the DPRK’s COVID-19 outbreak on the North Korean people.  Deputy Secretary Sherman expressed support for efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the DPRK, including inter-Korean cooperation efforts.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDenuclearizationDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateNorth KoreaOffice of the SpokespersonSecuritySouth KoreaUnited Nations

Back to Top
#### Robert Mack GALLOWAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-434.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

*279John E. Karvonen, of Piper & Casler, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

MANN, Judge (Ret.).

Galloway’s driver’s license was suspended pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 322.261 (1973) in the county court for Pinellas County. He appealed the order of suspension to the Circuit Court which dismissed the appeal on motion on the ground that certiorari was the only appropriate remedy relying on Akins v. State, Fla.App. 2d 1971, 249 So.2d 778. The brief reported order in *Akins*has been misunderstood. That case related to an attempted appeal to this court from an appellate proceeding in the Circuit Court. It is correct that common law cer-tiorari is the appropriate vehicle for such review. Dresner v. Tallahassee, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 208. It is also true, contrary to the court’s intimation in *Atkins*that an appeal improvidently taken may be treated as a petition for certiorari, Blacharski v. Watts, Fla.App. 4th 1972, 268 So.2d 465. To be the extent that *Akins*implies to the contrary, we recede from such implication. The question then before us is whether the Circuit Court should have dismissed an appeal when Fla.Stat. § 322.31 denominates certiorari • as the appropriate method of seeking review. We think that in the light of Fla.Const. Art. V, § 2(a), the denial of review in this instance was erroneous. That section, in granting to the Supreme Court the authority for the adoption of rules, specifically provides that those rules must include “a requirement that no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.” We think the spirit of that constitutional mandate militates against an excessively technical interpretation which would deny judicial review for a simple case of misnomer. Our Supreme Court has recently said:

> “A party is afforded his ‘day in court’ with respect to administrative decisions when he has a right to a hearing and has the right to an appeal to a judicial tribunal of the action of an administrative body.” 1

We think the right to judicial review has been improvidently frustrated in this case.

The writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the Circuit Court dismissing the *280appeal is quashed with directions to treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari within the meaning of Fla.Stat. § 322.31 (1973) in the consideration of which any further objections to the timeliness or appropriateness of review, intimated in respondent’s brief, may be raised in the Circuit Court.

Ordered accordingly.

McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.

1

. Scholastic Systems, Inc. v. LeLoup, Fla., 307 So.2d 166, Opinion filed October 24, 1974.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronald AILSWORTH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 80-KH-2008.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re Ronald Ailsworth, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans. No. 273-282.

Writ denied. Relator must first apply to the District Court.
HomeSwitzerland

# Switzerland

141 items

        -    Media Note  		U.S. Delegation to the Human Rights Committee on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)	  October 10, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Noyes Travels to Switzerland, Turkiye, and Croatia	  October 8, 2023 
        -    Remarks to the Press  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to the Press	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 18, 2023Palace HotelNew York City, New York 
        -    Media Note  		Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry’s Travel to Switzerland and United Kingdom	  August 21, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Switzerland’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 1, 2023 
        -    TIAS  		Switzerland (23-727) – Agreement on Mutual Recognition Relating to Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practice	  July 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Ambassador Fick’s Travel to Geneva and Berlin	  July 10, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Swiss State Secretary Leu	  July 6, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		LGBTQI+ Special Envoy Stern’s Travel to Geneva	  June 20, 2023 

previous page12345…15next page

Back to Top
# C_2005229EN.01002601.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/26

---

Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-254/05)

(2005/C 229/57)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by T. Schmidt-Kötters, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on State aid N 260b/2004 — Germany — Extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 — Germany); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on State aid N 260b/2004 — Germany — Extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 — Germany);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 in Case C(2005) 379 on State aid N 260/b/2004 — Germany. In the contested decision the Commission considered the extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002) to be compatible with the EC Treaty.

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC since no reasons are given as to why the measure is clearly beneficial to the environment. In addition, the applicant complains that the contested decision does not address the arguments regarding the original decision raised in the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested decision refers to an original decision which is invalid because it infringes essential procedural requirements.

The applicant, further submits that, in considering the measure to be clearly beneficial to the environment and thus compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC, the Commission's decision is based on an inadequate establishment of the facts.

Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision discriminates against the insulating material referred to by the Commission as ‘traditional’, in particular mineral fibre insulation material, and also insulating material from renewable raw materials which do not possess the natureplus quality mark, without any objective reason. According to the applicant, the decision thereby infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination and is thus contrary to fundamental principles of Community law.

---
#### GEORGE FORD, RESPONDENT, v. EARNEST CANELIDS, JAMES L. BROWN AND HORTON’S MOTOR LINES, INC., APPELLANTS.

Submitted May 26, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the plaintiff, *Howard Eastwood.*

For the defendant counter-claimant Earnest Canelids, *Benjamin F. Friedman.*

For the defendants James L. Brown and Horton Motor Lines, Inc., *Cecil W. Rotzell.*

Per Curiam.

This is the defendants’ appeal from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Burlington Circuit. The plaintiff, Pord, had a verdict against defendants Brown and the Horton Motor Lines, Inc., for $1,000. The defendant Canelids had a verdict in the sum of $3,500 on his counter-claim against the co-defendant Horton Motor Lines, Inc. The several suits arose out of two collisions between the motor vehicles of the parties, which resulted in personal injuries and property damages.

Prom the record it appears that the defendant Canelids was driving along highway route 25 on March 11th, 1931, at *322twelve o’clock at night. The weather was foggy. The Horton Motor Company vehicle, driven by defendant James L. Brown, ran into the rear end of Canelids’ truck and damaged it. Brown then proceeded to get his own truck off the highway by driving it in front of Canelids’ motor vehicle and over on to the shoulder of the road. The plaintiff, Eord, came along and crashed into the rear of Canelids’ stalled vehicle, which had been disabled by the first collision. Eord suffered personal injuries and property damage and Canelids likewise was injured.

The plaintiff brought suit against Canelids, Brown and the Horton Motor Lines, Inc. Horton Motor Lines, Inc., answered and counter-claimed against Canelids. Canelids answered and counter-claimed against Eord and Horton Motor Lines, Inc. Eord withdrew his suit against Canelids and Canelids withdrew his counter-claim against Eord. The jury returned the verdicts mentioned above.

The ground of appeal argued in the brief is that the court erred in rejecting the several motions for nonsuit and direction of verdict. After an examination of the record we think it was not error to have rejected these motions because the contrariety of fact appearing in the evidence presented by the several parties required that such disputed points be settled by a jury, which was done.

The judgments will be affirmed.

For *affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 15.

*For reversal*— None.