alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Antoinette LaBELLA and Donna LaBella, as parent and natural guardian of Vincent Michael LaBella, a minor, Appellants, v. FOOD FAIR, INC., a foreign corporation, and the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 81-537.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1981.

*1217Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Ro-senthal & DeCastro and Richard A. Sicking, Miami, for appellants.

Adams, Kelley & Kronenberg and Steven P. Kronenberg, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

In 1973,. Michael LaBella, who is now 85 years of age, was seriously injured in an industrial accident while employed by Food Fair, Inc. He has received permanent total disability workers’ compensation payments ever since. In 1980, alleging they were his dependents and therefore the potential recipients of any compensation benefits payable for his death,1 LaBella’s wife, daughter and grandson brought an action in the circuit court for a declaratory judgment that the blanket five-year limitation in Section 440.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979) is unconstitutional. The provision states:

> 440.16 Compensation for death.

> (1) If death results from the accident within 1 year thereafter *or follows continuous disability and results from the accident within 5 years thereafter,*the employer shall pay . . . (emphasis supplied)

The trial court dismissed the complaint and we affirm that decision.

Mr. LaBella has not yet died. There is therefore no way of knowing either (a) whether any of the plaintiffs will survive him or, (b) even more obviously, whether his death will be a result of the 1973 accident. Both of these contingencies must occur for any death benefits to be recovered even if the appellants’ position on the constitutional question were upheld. It is well-settled, however, that Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the *possibility*of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical “state of facts which have not arisen” and are only “contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.” *Williams v. Howard,*329 So.2d 277, 283 (Fla.1976) and cases cited; *Robinson v. Town of Palm Beach Shores,*388 So.2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); *American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Credit Acceptance, Inc.,*147 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (“[T]he courts *1218may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur.”); *Harris v. Harris,*138 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 146 So.2d 374 (Fla.1962). The clear applicability of this principle to the present situation requires that the judgment under review be

Affirmed.

1

. See Sec. 440.16(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979).
# C_2005205EN.01000602.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel by judgment of that court of 25 May 2005 in 1. The Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Social Affairs, 2. The Belgian State, represented by the State Secretary for Public Health v BVBA De Backer

(Case C-234/05)

(2005/C 205/12)

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 te Brussel (Brussels Court of Appeal) (Belgium) of 25 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. The Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Social Affairs 2. The Belgian State, represented by the State Secretary for Public Health, and B.V.B.A. De Backer on the following question:

Is the Law of 14 July 1994 on financing for veterinary inspections compatible with Community law? Must the veterinary charges provided for in that national law be regarded as constituting both an impermissible restriction on intra-Community trade and an unlawful charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty and/or as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, and consequently be regarded as an aid measure which ought to have been notified to the Commission?

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Additional Violators of Price Cap Policy on Russian Oil and Taking Steps on Russian Diamonds

# 									Designating Additional Violators of Price Cap Policy on Russian Oil and Taking Steps on Russian Diamonds							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

February 8, 2024

The United States is taking additional action today to enforce the Price Cap Coalition’s policies by designating four entities and identifying one vessel as blocked property. Today’s action demonstrates that violating the price cap will result in consequences. Alongside our Price Cap Coalition partners, we are steadfast in our commitment to hindering evasion that helps Russia fund its illegal war against Ukraine.

The Department of Treasury also issued today two determinations related to restrictions on the importation of certain categories of diamonds mined in Russia and diamond jewelry exported from Russia.  These prohibitions are intended to implement the December 2023 G7 commitments to impose phased restrictions on the importation of diamonds mined or extracted in Russia.

*Today’s action includes an oil trader and a shipowner that transported Russian oil priced above the cap while utilizing covered Coalition services, as well as a fleet manager, Oil Tankers FZCO, which manages five vessels that have previously been sanctioned for violating the price cap, and a shipping company linked to the oil trader by common management.  The price cap policy prohibits Price Cap Coalition services related to the maritime transport of oil of Russian Federation origin unless that oil is bought and sold at or below specific price caps established by the Coalition.  The Department of the Treasury designations were taken pursuant to**Executive Order 14024**for operating or having operated in the marine sector of the Russian Federation economy. For more information on today’s action, see Treasury’s**press release**.*

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsMaritime MattersOffice of the SpokespersonRussia

Back to Top
§ 137.3 Effect on existing Tribal rights. Nothing in this part shall be construed as: ( a ) Affecting, modifying, diminishing, or otherwise impairing the sovereign immunity from suit enjoyed by Indian Tribes;
( b ) Terminating, waiving, modifying, or reducing the trust responsibility of the United States to the Indian Tribe(s) or individual Indians. The Secretary must act in good faith in upholding this trust responsibility;
( c ) Mandating an Indian Tribe to apply for a compact(s) or grant(s) as described in the Act; or
( d ) Impeding awards by other Departments and agencies of the United States to Indian Tribes to administer Indian programs under any other applicable law.
EXHIBIT 32

                              MAMMATECH CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Mammatech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Henry
S. Pennypacker, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director and Mary Bailey
Sellers, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


By: /s/ Henry S. Pennypacker                            Dated: March 27, 2009
    ----------------------------
    Henry S. Pennypacker
    Title: Chief Executive Officer

    /s/ Mary Bailey Sellers
    -----------------------
    Mary Bailey Sellers
    Title: Chief Financial Officer

     This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cytogen Corporation
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,   Christopher  P.  Schnittker,  Senior  Vice  President  and  Chief
Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, based upon 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Cytogen Corporation and will be retained by Cytogen Corporation
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.



                                    /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker
                                    --------------------------------------------
Dated:   November 9, 2004           Christopher P. Schnittker, Senior Vice
                                    President and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Fund XVIII and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1

       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          938,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                       26,477,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (8,412,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               19,840,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                      19,127,000
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                      293,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 19,840,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              4,457,000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 2,785,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,469,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-QSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



---

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 14, 2007.

/s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger

C. Jayson Brentlinger

Chief Executive Officer
1

Vetter, Cheryl

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:08 PM

To: Rao, Raj; Vetter, Cheryl

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 - Determination for Certain 

Emission Units in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E013563_Source_Determinati....docx

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the EPA proposed rule

entitled, Determination for Certain Emission Units in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector.

Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.

Aaron L. Szabo

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

202‐395‐3621

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
#### Raymond LEARY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-2177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 2, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 23, 1981.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Robert E. Adler, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HERSEY, Judge.

Debra J. Koury was driving to work alone, in West Palm Beach, early one morning and stopped at a service station. She was approached by appellant, Raymond Leary, who told her that his car had broken down and he needed a ride. She obliged and a short time later Leary asked her to stop the car and let him out. She did so whereupon Leary began slapping her in the face. She ultimately succeeded in exiting the car and ran around to its rear while Leary demanded that she get back in the car. She approached a passerby who indicated the location of a telephone. As she proceeded in its direction Leary drove off in her automobile. Some time later the same day Leary was arrested while still in the automobile in Sebring, Florida.

After the presentation of evidence at Leary’s jury trial for robbery involving a motor vehicle, the court charged the jury on the applicable law, which included the instruction on robbery contained in the standard jury instructions.

Among other things, appellant Leary, argues on appeal that the standard jury instructions neglect to include and define “intent to deprive the owner of his property” as a necessary element of the crime of robbery. He further urges that this deficiency amounts to fundamental error, as he must since there was no proper objection to the charge in the trial court.

We agree that failing to charge on the element of intent is prejudicial error. *Bell v. State,*394 So.2d 979 (Fla.1981). We do not agree, however, that it is necessarily error of fundamental proportions. Where, as here, the evidence is clear and undisputed that property is taken from another by the use of force and transported to another locality, the undeniable inference is that there was an intention to deprive the owner *1223of that property. There was neither evidence nor argument raising specific intent as an issue in this case. Under such circumstances failure to instruct on intent does not amount to a deprivation of due process. *State v. Smith,*240 So.2d 807 (Fla.1970). The error here was not “fundamental.” *Williams v. State,*400 So.2d 542 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Appellant having failed to preserve the error by appropriate objection we are not obligated to recognize it as an operative factor on appeal. *Castor v. State,*365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978).

The additional points urged for reversal are similarly unmeritorious.

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
# C_2005229EN.01003901.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/39

---

Action brought on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc. against the European Central Bank

(Case T-295/05)

(2005/C 229/81)

Language of the case: English

An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc., established in Rochester, New York (USA), represented by C. Stanbrook, barrister, H. Sheroton and L. Cohen, solicitors, and B. Uphoff, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the ECB has infringed the patent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the ECB has infringed the patent;

| — | award damages and interest to be paid by the defendant to the applicant, such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry in respect of the infringing acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages and interest to be paid by the defendant to the applicant, such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry in respect of the infringing acts;

| — | award damages in lieu of an injunction in respect of banknotes printed for and on behalf of the defendant after the date of the judgement until expiry of the patent (such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry); |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages in lieu of an injunction in respect of banknotes printed for and on behalf of the defendant after the date of the judgement until expiry of the patent (such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry);

| — | award costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

award costs;

| — | order such further or other relief as the Court shall determine. |
| --- | --- |

—

order such further or other relief as the Court shall determine.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that his European Patent 0 455 750 B1, entitled ‘Method of making a nonreplicable document’, has been infringed by the defendant and seeks, in accordance with Article 288 EC, an award of damages by way of payment of a reasonable royalty for the use of the invention of the patent.

The invention of the patent consists of a method of designing and printing an original document that combats counterfeiting by digital scanning devices. The method involves determining the scanning pitch of a copying device to be protected against and creating an appropriate grid that would give rise to interference patterns, such as moiré patterns, when copied on that scanning device. The grid is overlayed on an original image to produce a printed genuine document in which the grid is usually not discernible to the naked eye.

According to the applicant, the invention of the patent was used in the designing and the printing of the Euro banknotes, under the authorization of the European Central Bank. The applicant claims furthermore that the issue, keeping and circulation of the Euro banknotes constitutes an infringement of his patent

---