alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Cunningham, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed February 23, 1923.

In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, where the information sufficiently charges an offense and there is evidence legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and errors, if any, in rulings upon the testimony and in giving and refusing charges and other proceedings could not reasonably have prejudiced the defendant in the trial, the judgment will be affirmed.

A Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County; Tom Norfleet, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

*Price*& *Price,*for Plaintiff in Error;.

*Rivers Buford,*Attorney General, and *J. B. Gaines,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Upon trial on an information charging in three counts the statutory offense of receiving stolen goods “all of the value of more than $50.00,” knowing them to have been stolen, the court denied a motion to require the State to elect on which count the prosecution would proceed, and the defendant on being found “guilty as charged” took writ of error to a judgment sentencing him to three years imprisonment in the State penitentiary. No error appears in the denial of the motion to elect between the counts since a conviction could properly be had on one or two or all of the counts, and the penalty would be determined by the value of the goods received by the defendant knowing them to. have been stolen. There *194was evidence adduced applicable to at least the first count that the value of the goods received was $50.00; and the State was subsequently required to elect and did elect to stand on the first count. This made the offense a felony and warranted the sentence under the statutes. Chap. 8563, Acts 1921, Secs. 5138, 5139, Rev. Gen. Stats., 1920.

There is evidence legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, and errors, if any, in rulings upon testimony and in giv- . ing and refusing charges and other proceedings could not reasonably have prejudiced the defendant in the trial.

No harmful errors appearing the judgment is affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., conciir.
§ 9.101 Providing investment advice for a fee. ( a ) *In general.* The term “fiduciary capacity” at § 9.2(e) is defined to include “investment adviser, if the bank receives a fee for its investment advice.” In other words, if a bank is providing investment advice for a fee, then it is acting in a fiduciary capacity. For purposes of that definition, “investment adviser” generally means a national bank that provides advice or recommendations concerning the purchase or sale of specific securities, such as a national bank engaged in portfolio advisory and management activities (including acting as investment adviser to a mutual fund). Additionally, the qualifying phrase “if the bank receives a fee for its investment advice” excludes those activities in which the investment advice is merely incidental to other services.
( b ) *Specific activities* — ( 1 ) *Full-service brokerage.* Engaging in full-service brokerage may entail providing investment advice for a fee, depending upon the commission structure and specific facts. Full-service brokerage involves investment advice for a fee if a non-bank broker engaged in that activity is considered an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 *et seq.*).
( 2 ) *Activities not involving investment advice for a fee.* The following activities generally do not entail providing investment advice for a fee: ( i ) Financial advisory and counseling activities, including strategic planning of a financial nature, merger and acquisition advisory services, advisory and structuring services related to project finance transactions, and providing market economic information to customers in general;
( ii ) Client-directed investment activities (*i.e.,* the bank has no investment discretion) where investment advice and research may be made available to the client, but the fee does not depend on the provision of investment advice;
( iii ) Investment advisory activities incidental to acting as a municipal securities dealer;
( iv ) Real estate management services provided to other financial institutions;
( v ) Real estate consulting services, including acting as a finder in locating, analyzing, and making recommendations regarding the purchase of property, and making recommendations concerning the sale of property;
( vi ) Advisory activities concerning bridge loans;
( vii ) Advisory activities for homeowners' associations;
( viii ) Advisory activities concerning tax planning and structuring; and
( ix ) Investment advisory activities authorized by the OCC under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) as incidental to the business of banking.
[63 FR 6473, Feb. 9, 1998]
EXHIBIT 10.9


March 5, 2003

Joan M. Robbins, Ph.D.
10265 Pinetree Drive
San Diego, CA 92131

Dear Joan:

Biokeys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is pleased to offer you the position of Chief
Technical Officer, reporting directly to me. Responsibilities will encompass
all aspects of moving our product portfolio from the research lab through
clinical development and regulatory authorities. This is a key position in the
Company, intended to take full advantage of your experience base, while
offering you an opportunity to grow in responsibility and be rewarded through a
lucrative compensation package as follows:

COMPENSATION PACKAGE

     1. Annual Salary of $170,000, paid every two weeks (You will be entitled
        to a compensation review at the one year anniversary of employment.)
     2. 300,000 Incentive Stock Options struck at 50 cents per share that
        expire on 12/30/08. 100,000 will vest upon acceptance of this offer,
        100,000 will vest at the one year anniversary of your employment and
        100,000 will vest at the two year anniversary of your employment.
     3. A Bonus Schedule of 5% for all government grants received by the
        Company to be paid in incentive stock options. (For example, if the
        Company receives a grant for $1,000,000, then we will reserve 50,000
        additional incentive options priced at the close of business on the day
        that the Company is notified of the grant. When the grant is received,
        you will receive the options.)
     4. A Bonus Schedule of 5% paid in incentive stock options for all capital
        received by the Company that is a direct result of your introduction,
        which does not require that you consummate the investment, but rather
        you only need refer the new party. (For example, if the Company
        receives an investment for $2,000,000 from an Investor that you
        introduce or refer to the Company, then we will issue to you 100,000
        additional incentive stock options priced at the close of business on
        the day that the investment is received.)
     5. You will receive four weeks paid vacation per year, which will begin to
        accrue at one week per quarter, plus paid holidays.
     6. You will be offered a paid healthcare benefits package if you do not
        have coverage.
     7. The Company will pre-pay or reimburse you for all pre-approved job
        related expenses for performance of your duties.

We believe you can contribute significantly to the success of our Company, grow
with us, and be rewarded appropriately for your accomplishments. Please let us
know if you want to join our team.

Sincerely,

Nicholas J. Virca
Chief Executive Officer
§ 624.4 Variation margin. ( a ) *General.* After the date on which a covered swap entity enters into a non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap with a swap entity or financial end user, the covered swap entity shall collect variation margin equal to the variation margin amount from the counterparty to such non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap when the amount is positive and post variation margin equal to the variation margin amount to the counterparty to such non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap when the amount is negative.
( b ) *Timing.* A covered swap entity shall comply with the variation margin requirements described in paragraph (a) of this section on each business day, for a period beginning on or before the business day following the day of execution and ending on the date the non-cleared swap or non-cleared security based swap terminates or expires.
( c ) *Other counterparties.* A covered swap entity is not required to collect or post variation margin with respect to any non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap described in § 624.1(d). For any other non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap between a covered swap entity and a counterparty that is neither a financial end user nor a swap entity, the covered swap entity shall collect variation margin at such times and in such forms and such amounts (if any), that the covered swap entity determines appropriately addresses the credit risk posed by the counterparty and the risks of such non-cleared swap or non-cleared security-based swap.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3516

To suspend temporarily the duty on 586 intermediate blended colorants in 

aqueous solution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Mr. WAXMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on 586 intermediate 

blended colorants in aqueous solution.

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

3 SECTION 1. 586 INTERMEDIATE BLENDED COLORANTS IN 

4 AQUEOUS SOLUTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading:
2

•HR 3516 IH 

‘‘ 9902.33.22 586 intermediate 

blended colorants 

in aqueous solution (provided for 

in subheading 

3905.12.00) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
### CMP-12

Revised: May 13, 2004 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Supplemental Application Form



# Conservation Management Practices: UNPAVED ROADS AND

UNPAVED VEHICLE/ EQUIPMENT AREAS FOR

CROPS

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to

Unpaved Road Mileage: Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Areas Acreage:

Unpaved

Roads If daily vehicle trips are ≥ 75 on unpaved roads, select at least one of the following controls (Reg. VIII compliance).
Dust Suppressant, mi Washed Gravel, mi Paving, mi Water, mi Road Mix, mi Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), mi Road Oil, mi
Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:

If daily vehicle trips are < 75 on unpaved roads, select at least one of the following controls (CMP compliance).
Chips/Mulches, mi Sand, mi

Less Than 1 0 Vehicle Trips on Any Day, mi Speed Limit Posted, mi
Mechanical Pruning, mi What Speed? mph (must be 

### ≤ 25 mph) Organic Materials, mi Track Out Control, mi Paving, mi Water, mi Polymers, mi Washed Gravel, mi Restricted Access, mi Wind Barrier, mi Road Oil, mi Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), mi
Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: CMP

12

### CMP-12

Revised: May 18, 2004 

### Unpaved

Vehicle/ Equipment

Areas If average daily vehicle trips (on an annual basis) are ≥ 50 on unpaved equipment yards, or if average daily trips (on an annual basis) are ≥ 25 by three or more axle vehicles, or if maximum daily trips on any day ≥ 1 50 during a 30 day period or less, select at least one of the following controls (Reg. VIII compliance).
Dust Suppressant, ac Vegetative Material, ac Paving, ac Washed Gravel, ac Road Mix, ac Water, ac Road Oil, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:

If average daily vehicle trips (on an annual basis) are < 50 on unpaved equipment yards, or if average daily trips (on an annual basis) are < 25 by three or more axle vehicles, or if maximum daily vehicle trips on any day are < 1 50 during a 30 day period or less, select at least one of the following controls (CMP compliance).
Chips/Mulches, ac Speed Limit Posted, ac

Less Than 1 0 Vehicle Trips on Any Day, ac What Speed? mph (must be 

### ≤ 1 5 mph) Organic Material, ac Track Out Control, ac Paving, ac Water, ac Polymers, ac Washed Gravel, ac Restricted Access, ac Wind Barrier, ac Road Oil, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Sand, ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:
# Official Journal C 280A/17 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 280A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4717 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 280A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4717 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2004/C 280A/2 | Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/1/04 to constitute a reserve pool of CLERICAL OFFICERS (C*1) (Conference technicians) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2004/C 280A/2

Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/1/04 to constitute a reserve pool of CLERICAL OFFICERS (C*1) (Conference technicians)

3

---

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

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3323 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3323

 To permit States to require insurance companies to disclose insurance 
                              information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2003

 Mr. Schiff (for himself and Mr. Radanovich) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit States to require insurance companies to disclose insurance 
                              information.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Armenian Victims Insurance Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR STATES TO REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF INSURANCE 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Any State may implement a law that--
            (1) requires insurance companies conducting business in the 
        State to disclose (and to make publicly available) details 
        regarding some or all covered policies described in subsection 
        (b) that were issued by that company or by any related company; 
        and
            (2) provides for appropriate penalties and sanctions for 
        noncompliance.
    (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) Covered policy.--A covered policy described in this 
        paragraph is a life, property, liability, health annuity, 
        dowry, educational, or casualty insurance policy that was 
        issued to a policyholder domiciled in the area of Europe or 
        Asia that was occupied or controlled by the Ottoman Empire and 
        that was in effect at any time between 1875 and 1923.
            (2) Related company.--The term ``related company'' 
        includes, with respect to an insurance company, any parent, 
        subsidiary, reinsurer, successor in interest, managing general 
        agent, or affiliate company, whether or not the company was 
        related during the time when a covered policy was sold.
    (c) Congressional Disapproval.--Any Executive branch policy or 
agreement that preempts State efforts to collect insurance information 
to resolve outstanding claims concerning covered policies described in 
subsection (b)(1) is explicitly disapproved by the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. AND CONSOLIDATEDAFFILIATES

 

 

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

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General ElectricCapital Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis D. Dammerman, Chairman ofthe Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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. |

  

> 
 

 

/s/ Dennis D.Dammerman                            

Dennis D. Dammerman******
Chairman of the Board

October 29, 2002

25
# C_2019112EN.01004402.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/44

---

Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

(Case T-60/19)

(2019/C 112/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — European Union trade mark No 12 172 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 2296/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in considering that it was correct to transpose the reasoning from previous General Court case law; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in considering that it was correct to transpose the reasoning from previous General Court case law;

| — | The Board of Appeal wrongly held that an earlier national mark wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal wrongly held that an earlier national mark wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion;

| — | The Board of Appeal failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks.

---
#### AUTAUGA MERCANTILE CO. V. SMITH.

(Decided December 16, 1913.)

Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

No counsel marked for either, party.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

l0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138609 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138609 

 COA: 282016 

Macomb CC: 2007-002168-FH 

TERRENCE MICHAEL KORBY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Official Journal C 136/3 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 136 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 513 June 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 136

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 513 June 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 136/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (Publication of titles and references of harmonized standards under the Directive) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 136/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (Publication of titles and references of harmonized standards under the Directive) (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonized standards under the Directive

1

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
#### COOPER V. THE STATE.

(Decided January 22, 1914.)

Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Sollie.

Winn & Winn, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit C 

Reimbursable Expenses

Data Acquisition - October 2022 Monthly Fee Statement 121.15 $ 

Data Acquisition - November 2022 Monthly Fee Statement 613.45 $ 

Data Acquisition - December 2022 Monthly Fee Statement 784.15 $ 

Data Acquisition - January 2023 Monthly Fee Statement 989.20 $ 

Total Reimbursable Expenses 2,507.95 $ 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23811-3 Filed:03/15/23 Entered:03/15/23 18:01:30 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 1 of 1
#### LONG V. CITY OF GADSDEN.

(Decided January 15, 1914.)

Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. E. Blackwood.

W. J. Boykin, for appellant. Goodhue & Brindley, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.