alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. A. L., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1526.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 1, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1981.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Joseph Corey, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The adjudication of delinquency under review is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant. Just as in A. *R. v. State,*393 So.2d 1174 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), the respondent’s unrefuted, exculpatory, and not unreasonable explanation of his possession of a stolen moped — that he bought it at a flea market — rendered the state’s case, which was based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979),1 without any additional incriminating circumstances, insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt. *Fisk*v. *State,*138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); *A. R. v. State, supra,*and cases cited; *Schectman v. State,*220 So.2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); see *State v. Young,*217 So.2d 567 (Fla.1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); compare *Burroughs v. State,*221 So.2d 159 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); *Borghese v. State,*158 So.2d 785 (Fla.3d DCA 1963).

Reversed.

1

. (2) Proof of possession of property recently stolen, *unless satisfactorily explained,*gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen, [e. s.]
HomeSwitzerland

# Switzerland

143 items

        -    		Switzerland (12946) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  April 22, 1998 
        -    TIAS  		Switzerland (97-1219) – Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income	  December 19, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		Switzerland (97-910) – Treaty on Extradition	  September 10, 1997 

previous page1…131415

Back to Top
#### Raymond SEKOSKY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1981.

*1181Thomas G. Murray, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Login v. State,*394 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); *State v. Grant,*392 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40692

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EARL JOHN O’DANIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 657

Filed: September 4, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Juneal C. Kerrick, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of five years, for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or 

seventeen years of age, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Earl John O’Daniel was found guilty of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or 

seventeen years of age. I.C. § 18-1508A. The district court sentenced O’Daniel to a unified 

term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, to be served 

concurrently with another sentence. O’Daniel appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, O’Daniel’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CFO PURSUANT TO 18S.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

**CERITFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of PurchaseSoft, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ThomasB. Marsh, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, solely for the purposesof complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of November 30,2003 and for the periods then ended.

 
| /s/ Thomas B. Marsh                              |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                             |
| Thomas B. Marsh, Secretary, Treasurer and Acting |
| CFO                                              |
| Dated January 14, 2004                      |

 

1

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

The undersignedcertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)          Theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2006,fully complies with the requirements of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Date:  | January 26, 2007 |   |   |                                                                                    | **/s/ Joseph C. Christenson** |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|   |             |   |   |   Joseph C. Christenson                                                       |
|   |             |   |   |   President, Chief Executive Officer

  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Joe MILLS, Jr., Respondent.

No. 58675.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 28, 1981.

H. Glenn Boggs, Asst. Staff Counsel, UPL, Tallahassee, Ronald R. Richmond, Chairman, Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, New Port Richey, and C. Clyde Atkins, Jr., Bar Counsel of Musleh, Bond, Arnett, Atkins & Krehl, Oca-la, for complainant.

Joe Mills, Jr., in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding, on a complaint of The Florida Bar against Joe Mills, Jr., contending he has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. This Court appointed the Honorable Wallace E. Sturgis, Jr., as referee to conduct a hearing. Judge Sturgis found that the respondent, a nonlawyer, prepared articles of incorporation for a client who was damaged by that work. Drafting articles of incorporation is the practice of law. *The Florida Bar v. Fuentes,*190 So.2d 748 (Fla.1966); *The Florida Bar v. Keehley,*190 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1966); *The Florida Bar v. Town,*174 So.2d 395 (Fla.1965).

The referee recommended:

> 1. The referee recommends that the respondent, Joe Mills, Jr., be enjoined *1369“ . .. from forming corporations for others, including the preparation of charters, by-laws, resolutions, and other documents incidental to the contractual rights of the corporation, its incorporators, and stockholders, and from advising others in respect thereto.” (See *The Florida Bar v. Town,*174 So.2d 395 (Fla.1965).

> 2. The referee recommends that the respondent, Joe Mills, Jr., be found guilty of indirect criminal contempt of the Supreme Court for violation of the Court’s rule against unauthorized practice of law by the respondent’s act of preparing the Articles of Incorporation for Ed’s Auto Supply, Inc.

> 3. The referee recommends that the Supreme Court withhold the imposition of any fine or imprisonment under the finding of guilty of indirect criminal contempt.

> 4. The referee recommends that the Supreme Court assess the costs of this proceeding against the respondent, such costs in the amount to be determined by appropriate affidavit to be submitted to the referee by the petitioner and forwarded to the Supreme Court for final approval.

We approve and adopt these recommendations as the order of this Court. The costs required to be paid are $361.51.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON and McDONALD, JJ.„ concur.

BOYD, J.:

I would enjoin respondent from practicing law and require payment of costs but I would not find him guilty of indirect criminal contempt.
§ 403.730 Condition of participation: Patient rights. An RNHCI must protect and promote each patient's rights. ( a ) *Standard: Notice of rights.* The RNHCI must do the following: ( 1 ) Inform each patient of his or her rights in advance of furnishing patient care.
( 2 ) Have a process for prompt resolution of grievances, including a specific person within the facility whom a patient may contact to file a grievance. In addition, the facility must provide patients with information about the facility's process as well as with contact information for appropriate State and Federal resources.
( b ) *Standard: Exercise of rights.* The patient has the right to: ( 1 ) Be informed of his or her rights and to participate in the development and implementation of his or her plan of care.
( 2 ) Make decisions regarding his or her care, including transfer and discharge from the RNHCI. (See § 403.736 for discharge and transfer requirements.)
( 3 ) Formulate advance directives and expect staff who furnish care in the RNHCI to comply with those directives, in accordance with part 489, subpart I of this chapter. For purposes of conforming with the requirement in § 489.102 that there be documentation in the patient's medical records concerning advanced directives, the patient care records of a beneficiary in an RNHCI are equivalent to medical records held by other providers.
( c ) *Standard: Privacy and safety.* The patient has the right to the following: ( 1 ) Personal privacy.
( 2 ) Care in a safe setting.
( 3 ) Freedom from verbal, psychological, and physical abuse, and misappropriation of property.
( 4 ) Freedom from the use of restraints.
( 5 ) Freedom from involuntary seclusion.
( d ) *Standard: Confidentiality of patient records.* For any patient care records or election information it maintains on patients, the RNHCI must establish procedures to do the following: ( 1 ) Safeguard the privacy of any information that identifies a particular patient. Information from, or copies of, records may be released only to authorized individuals, and the RNHCI must ensure that unauthorized individuals cannot gain access to or alter patient records. Original patient care records must be released only in accordance with Federal or State laws, court orders, or subpoenas.
( 2 ) Maintain the records and information in an accurate and timely manner.
( 3 ) Ensure timely access by patients to the records and other information that pertains to that patient.
( 4 ) Abide by all Federal and State laws regarding confidentiality and disclosure for patient care records and election information.
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.41 Requirement for payment. In order for home health services to qualify for payment under the Medicare program the following requirements must be met: ( a ) The services must be furnished to an eligible beneficiary by, or under arrangements with, an HHA that— ( 1 ) Meets the conditions of participation for HHAs at part 484 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Has in effect a Medicare provider agreement as described in part 489, subparts A, B, C, D, and E of this chapter.
( b ) The certification and recertification requirements for home health services described in § 424.22.
( c ) All requirements contained in §§ 409.42 through 409.47.
[59 FR 65494, Dec. 20, 1994, as amended at 85 FR 27619, May 8, 2020]
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4028 — Flaga/Progas/JV)

(2006/C 33/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
#### Paula Arnson, Appellant, *against*Max Abrahamson *et*al., Impleaded with Wolf Gekowsky, Respondents.

(Decided April 7th, 1890.)

It is no defense to an action against an indorser of a promissory note that the maker’s or prior indorser’s signature is a forgery, for he impliedly warrants the genuineness of such signatures.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the City of New York for the Fourth Judicial District.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*A. JET. Sarahson,*for appellant.

Larremore, Ch. J.

This was an action brought upon a promissory note against the defendant Gekowsky, the maker, and the defendants Max Abrahamson and Nathan Storm, two indorsers upon the note. It was insisted, as a defense that the note was a forgery; upon which an issue was -framed and tried, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendants. The indorsers claimed that they were discharged from liability on account of said alleged forgery.

It is a well settled legal principle that an indorser impliedly warrants that the instrument is not forged; and if it is he is liable upon this warranty; he cannot question the signature of the maker or previous indorser, or take advantage of the fact that the signatures of the maker or previous indorser were forged *(Turner*v. *Keller,*66 N. Y. 66; *Herrick*v. *Whitney,*15 Johns. 240 ; *Shaver*v. *Ehle,*16 Johns. 201; *Morrison*v. *Curry,*4 Duer 79). The acceptor of a bill is presumed to know the signature of the drawer; and if the bill is accepted upon the faith of his indorsement he is liable to a *bona fide*indorsee or holder for value, even though the bill proves to be a forgery *(National Park Bank*v. *Ninth Nat. Bank,*46 N. Y. 77; *Bank of Commerce*v. *Union Bank,*
      *733 N. Y. 230. See also *Coggill*v. *American Exch. Bank,*1 N. Y. 113.)

It has been decided that where a note is indorsed for the accommodation of the maker or payee and is negotiated to a third person who pays value for it, the party receiving it and who pays value, is entitled to recover upon it against such indorser notwithstanding the purchaser took it with full knowledge, that it was accommodation paper *(Ross*v. *Bedell,*5 Duer 462; *Grant*v. *Ellicott,*7 Wend. 227; *Commercial Bank*v. *Norton,*1 Hill 501).

This case comes within the rule of *Fassin*v. *Hubbard*(55 N. Y. 465), as there was no limitation of the indorsers’ liability upon the contract.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed as to the defendants Max Abrahamson and Nathan Storm ; and judgment should be ordered against them in favor of the plaintiff, with costs.

Bischoff, J., concurred.

Judgment accordingly.
#### Keith ROBERTS, Appellant, v. INTER-AMERICA REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-1068.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 16, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2005171EN.01001401.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 4 May 2005

in Case T-359/02 Chum Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark STAR TV - Opposition of the owner of the international figurative mark STAR TV - Refusal to register)

(2005/C 171/23)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-359/02: Chum Ltd, established in Toronto (Canada), represented by M.J. Gilbert, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: P. Bullock and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Star TV AG, established in Schlieren (Switzerland) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2002 (Case R 1146/2000-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Chum Ltd and Star TV AG — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

1

---
# C_2006020EN.01000101.xml

| 27.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 January 2006

(2006/C 20/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2254 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4632 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68590 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2512 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5500 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,86 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0690 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5739 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,395 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,54 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8282 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6210 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,47 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,320 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6230 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6223 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4149 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5043 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7788 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9875 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 187,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4563 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8792 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3645 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 469,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,590 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,223 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,2830 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,664 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2254

JPY

Japanese yen

141,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4632

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68590

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2512

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5500

ISK

Iceland króna

74,86

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0690

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5739

CZK

Czech koruna

28,395

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,54

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8282

RON

Romanian leu

3,6210

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,47

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,320

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6230

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6223

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4149

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5043

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7788

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9875

KRW

South Korean won

1 187,41

ZAR

South African rand

7,4563

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8792

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3645

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 469,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,590

PHP

Philippine peso

64,223

RUB

Russian rouble

34,2830

THB

Thai baht

47,664

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
695 A.2d 781

#### In the Matter of Douglas Howard WEISS.

No. 319 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 13, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 1997, Douglas Howard Weiss having been disbarred from the practice of law in the *155State of New Jersey by Order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated January 28, 1997; the said Douglas Howard Weiss having been directed on April 3, 1997, to inform this Court of any claim he has that the imposition of the identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor; and upon consideration of the responses filed, the request for a hearing is denied, and it is

ORDERED that Douglas Howard Weiss is disbarred from the practice of law in this Commonwealth, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3029 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3029

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse in Washington, District of 
  Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3029

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse in Washington, District of 
  Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 3rd Street and Constitution 
Avenue, Northwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be 
designated and known as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``E. Barrett 
Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                        [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

                         CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY

     We consent to the use on Form 10-K of Sterling Gas Drilling Fund 1982 of
our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto
incorporated by reference of Form 10-K and to any reference made to us on Form
10-K as a result of such incorporation.



                                        Very Truly Yours,

                                        /s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                            PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



                                            RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                            PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


Denver, Colorado
March 10, 1997