alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James OWENS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17197.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 14, 1963.

Decided March 21, 1963.

*205Mr. Bernard Gordon, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. Robert D. Devlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and William C. Pryor, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Wilbur K. Miller and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted on the charge of grand larceny. The only point raised on this appeal is that the value of a television set, the subject of the charge, was not shown to have been $100.00 or over,1 and that, consequently, appellant should only have been convicted of the crime of petit larceny [Title 22, § 2202, D.C.Code (1961)].

Appellant claims that the only Government witness who testified as to value, and who was the manager of the Philco showroom from which the television set was stolen, was not qualified as an expert as to value; and that, therefore, there was not sufficient evidence of the value of the set to justify a conviction of the crime of grand larceny.

Our examination of the record convinces us that, as held by the District Judge, the witness was properly qualified and that his evidence, if believed by the jury (as it apparently was), was sufficient to prove value in excess of $100.00.

It follows that the judgment of the District Court must be and is

Affirmed.

1

. Title 22, § 2201, D.C.Code (1961) : *“Grand larceny.*Whoever shall feloniously take and carry away anything of value of the amount or value of $100 or upward, including things savoring of the realty, shall suffer imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.”
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00108-CR

IN RE John Michael POPE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice 

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator filed a pro se “Writ of Mandamus Compelling District Court to Act on Filed 

Motions and Set for Trial,” in which he complains the trial court has failed to rule on his pro se 

motions, including a motion for speedy trial. Relator is represented by trial counsel below; 

therefore, he is not entitled to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se 

mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id.; see also 

Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). 

Accordingly, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CR12867, styled The State of Texas v. John Michael Pope, Jr., pending 

in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000729976
<NAME>                        ENCIBAR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,052
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,052
<PP&E>                                         5,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                 275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,158
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,907
<OTHER-SE>                                    (9,784)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,278
<SALES>                                        212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               212
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,888)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)



</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

234) ll-K- (I) -47 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56 AM Sheet 234 of 325 
P.2 

THIRD ROUND IFCAM RESULTS. 

EEA, Inc. 

February 5, 1980. 

II-K-(I)-47 

77 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-47
# Official Journal C 274/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 274 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 649 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 274

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 649 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 274/01 | Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘End the Cage Age’ | 1 |
| 2021/C 274/02 | Commission Notice on marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products for which the expiry of the 5-year period of validity falls on or after the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 | 14 |
| 2021/C 274/03 | Initiation of proceedings (Case M.10078 — Cargotec/Konecranes) (
  1
  ) | 17 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 274/01

Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) ‘End the Cage Age’

1

2021/C 274/02

Commission Notice on marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products for which the expiry of the 5-year period of validity falls on or after the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2019/6

14

2021/C 274/03

Initiation of proceedings (Case M.10078 — Cargotec/Konecranes) (
  1
  )

1

17

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 274/04 | Euro exchange rates — 8 July 2021 | 18 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 274/04

Euro exchange rates — 8 July 2021

18

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 274/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10345 — Equistone Partners Europe/CVG) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 19 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 274/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10345 — Equistone Partners Europe/CVG) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

19

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 38.730 Applications. To apply for a grant, an eligible entity must submit to VA a complete application package, as described in the NOFA. Applications will be accepted only through *Grants.gov* (*http://www.grants.gov*). A complete grant application, as further described in the NOFA, includes standard forms specified in the NOFA and the following: ( a ) *Project description.* Each project must serve a minimum of one VA national cemetery, State Veterans' cemetery, or Tribal Veterans' cemetery. The applicant must provide a narrative project description that demonstrates the best approach for attaining required results as set forth in the NOFA;
( b ) *Project team.* If applicable, the applicant must provide a narrative description of anticipated project team and any work partner(s), including the responsibilities of the principal investigator, the co-principal investigators, and any extramural partner entity;
( c ) *Project plan.* The applicant must include a detailed timeline for the tasks outlined in the project description and proposed milestones;
( d ) *Expertise and capacity.* The applicant must provide a description of the applicant's ability and capacity to administer the project. This may include evidence of past experience with projects similar in scope as defined by the NOFA, to include descriptions of the engagement model, examples of successful leadership and management of a project of similar scale and budget (or greater), or related work in this field;
( e ) *Match.* If specified as a requirement in the NOFA, the applicant must provide evidence of secured cash matching (1:1) funds or of its ability to secure commitments to receive such funds;
( f ) *Proposed budget.* The applicant's proposed budget should identify all costs and proposed expenditures, to include additional compensation and honoraria (and to whom); equipment costs; production costs; and travel costs. The applicant must provide a budget that specifies costs and payments, as well as indirect and other relevant costs. The budget will be submitted in a format specified in the NOFA; and
( g ) *Additional information.* Any additional information as deemed appropriate by VA and set forth in the NOFA.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 2400 note and 2 CFR 200.203)
```

[House Report 107-354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-354

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (S. 1762) TO AMEND THE HIGHER 
  EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 TO ESTABLISH FIXED INTEREST RATES FOR STUDENT AND 
  PARENT BORROWERS, TO EXTEND CURRENT LAW WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL 
  ALLOWANCES FOR LENDERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

  January 23, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Ms. Pryce, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 334]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 334, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of S. 1762, 
to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish fixed 
interest rates for student and parent borrowers, to extend 
current law with respect to special allowances for lenders, and 
for other purposes, under a closed rule. The rule provides one 
hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce. Finally, the rule provides one 
motion to commit.

                                  

```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: CAROLINA MAYORGA,

 

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00158-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN HABEAS CORPUS

O R D E R

The Court has before it Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for 

temporary relief. Relator is currently confined in the El Paso County Jail pursuant to a contempt 

order issued by the 388th District Court of El Paso County, Texas in trial court cause number 

2012DCM01701. The motion for temporary relief is GRANTED. Pending this Court’s final 

resolution of Relator’s petition on the merits and until further order of this Court, it is ORDERED 

that Relator, Carolina Mayorga, be released from the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County 

only upon her posting a personal recognizance bond in the amount of $5,000.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19

th day of July, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6119** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00006

- JPB

- RWT

- 1 ; 3:00

- cr - 00046

- JPB

RWT

- 1 )

Submitted : May 1 8 , 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Andrew Charles Jackson , Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished o pinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andrew Charles Jackson appeals the district court ’ s order denying his “ m otion to void and correct illegal sentence
. ” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, w e affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Jackson , Nos. 3:00

- cr - 00006

- JPB

- RWT

- 1; 3:00

- cr - 00046

- JPB

- RWT

- 1 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 4, 2016) . We deny Jackson’s motion to void judgment and we dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            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 annual Report of Radva Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 20034 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
19 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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.

Date: March 22, 2004




                                                     /s/ Luther I. Dickens
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Luther I. Dickens
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 22, 2004




                                                     /s/ William F. Fry
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     William F. Fry
                                                     Vice President-
                                                     Chief Financial Officer



                                      -12-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

K.G.,

 Respondent

 v.

E.D.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 199 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,103
<SECURITIES>                                   1,641
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                   88
<INVENTORY>                                    3,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,883
<PP&E>                                         11,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,442
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       20,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,206
<SALES>                                        2,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,313
<CGS>                                          1,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (785)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,629
<INCOME-TAX>                                   986
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,643
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,643
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .21
        


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.69 Foreign language oaths and declarations.

(a) Whenever an individual making an oath or declaration cannot understand English, the oath or declaration must be in a language that such individual can understand and shall state that such individual understands the content of any documents to which the oath or declaration relates.

(b) Unless the text of any oath or declaration in a language other than English is in a form provided by the Patent and Trademark Office or in accordance with PCT Rule 4.17(iv), it must be accompanied by an English translation together with a statement that the translation is accurate, except that in the case of an oath or declaration filed under § 1.63, the translation may be filed in the Office no later than two months from the date applicant is notified to file the translation.

(35 U.S.C. 6, Pub. L. 97-247)

[42 FR 5594, Jan. 28, 1977, as amended at 48 FR 2711, Jan. 20, 1983; 62 FR 53189, Oct. 10, 1997; 69 FR 56540, Sept. 21, 2004; 70 FR 3890, Jan. 27, 2005]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
# CA2005185EN.01000101.xml

| 28.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 185/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 185/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---