alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(78 South. 990)

#### CRANE CO. v. ONEONTA ICE L. & C. CO.

(6 Div. 474.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 18, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, *698Blount County; J. E. Blackwood, Judge.

Russell & Johnson, of Oneonta, for appellant. Ward & Weaver, of Oneonta, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 452.101 Sample ballots as notice.

Sample ballots together with information as to the time and place of the election and the offices to be filled, if mailed fifteen days prior to the election, will fulfill the election notice requirements.
# Úradný vestník C 171/1. j

| | ISSN 1725-5236 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 171 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 471. júla 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5236

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 171

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 471. júla 2004

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informácie |
| | Komisia |
| 2004/C 171/1 | Výmenný kurz eura | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

I   Informácie

Komisia

2004/C 171/1

Výmenný kurz eura

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

I Informácie

Komisia

| 1.7.2004 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2004

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 171/1

---

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

30. júna 2004

(2004/C 171/01)

1 euro=

| | Mena | Výmenný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Americký dolár | 1,2155 |
| JPY | Japonský jen | 132,40 |
| DKK | Dánska koruna | 7,4326 |
| GBP | Britská libra | 0,67075 |
| SEK | Švédska koruna | 9,1451 |
| CHF | Švajčiarsky frank | 1,5242 |
| ISK | Islandská koruna | 88,33 |
| NOK | Nórska koruna | 8,4365 |
| BGN | Bulharský lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyperská libra | 0,58150 |
| CZK | Česká koruna | 31,755 |
| EEK | Estónska koruna | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Maďarský forint | 251,60 |
| LTL | Litovský litas | 3,4529 |
| LVL | Lotyšský lats | 0,6570 |
| MTL | Maltská líra | 0,4263 |
| PLN | Poľský zlotý | 4,5236 |
| ROL | Rumunský lei | 40 626 |
| SIT | Slovinský toliar | 239,9900 |
| SKK | Slovenská koruna | 39,875 |
| TRL | Turecká líra | 1 805 300 |
| AUD | Austrálsky dolár | 1,7554 |
| CAD | Kanadský dolár | 1,6343 |
| HKD | Hongkongský dolár | 9,4803 |
| NZD | Novozélandský dolár | 1,9210 |
| SGD | Singapurský dolár | 2,0901 |
| KRW | Juhokórejský won | 1 404,45 |
| ZAR | Juhoafrický rand | 7,6177 |

Mena

Výmenný kurz

USD

Americký dolár

1,2155

JPY

Japonský jen

132,40

DKK

Dánska koruna

7,4326

GBP

Britská libra

0,67075

SEK

Švédska koruna

9,1451

CHF

Švajčiarsky frank

1,5242

ISK

Islandská koruna

88,33

NOK

Nórska koruna

8,4365

BGN

Bulharský lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyperská libra

0,58150

CZK

Česká koruna

31,755

EEK

Estónska koruna

15,6466

HUF

Maďarský forint

251,60

LTL

Litovský litas

3,4529

LVL

Lotyšský lats

0,6570

MTL

Maltská líra

0,4263

PLN

Poľský zlotý

4,5236

ROL

Rumunský lei

40 626

SIT

Slovinský toliar

239,9900

SKK

Slovenská koruna

39,875

TRL

Turecká líra

1 805 300

AUD

Austrálsky dolár

1,7554

CAD

Kanadský dolár

1,6343

HKD

Hongkongský dolár

9,4803

NZD

Novozélandský dolár

1,9210

SGD

Singapurský dolár

2,0901

KRW

Juhokórejský won

1 404,45

ZAR

Juhoafrický rand

7,6177

---

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 April 29, 2013

d0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146329

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146329

COA: 305671

Wayne CC: 10

- 007585

- FH

JERARD DUNN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of People v Earl (Docket No. 145677) is pending on appeal before this Court and

th at the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the

decision in that case.
#### § 452.89 Apprentices.

A labor organization may condition the right to vote upon completion of a bona fide program of apprenticeship training which is designed to produce competent tradesmen in the industry the union serves.
§ 36.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 1, 2012

d0125 

# Order

February 1, 2012

143120(53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143120 COA: 297192 Wayne CC: 09-027497-FH JAMES THOMAS WRIGHT, JR., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 21, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY 

### , J., would grant reconsideration.
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2014

No. 04-13-00207-CR

Roel CANTU,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-11-0261-CRA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is extended 

to February 20, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### DOYLE v GUARDIAN TRUST CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9967.

Decided May 13, 1929

Gerald A Doyle, Cleveland, for Doyle.

Rocker & Schwartz, Cleveland, for Trust Co.

VICKERY, PJ.

Now can the judgment, of a court be defeated by a mere statement which at best would be but a conclusion that the Guardian Trust Company did not own this note, without setting up any of the circumstances or reasons why, and even ii that was so, what would it avail Doyle, ii ne had no defense against whom he claims was the real party owning this note. We think, in order to avail himself of ans right to have this judgment vacated, ii was his duty to file an answer setting, up why the Guardian Trust Company was not the real party in interest, giving facts and circumstances and alleging that it was a mere sham, that the Guardian Trust Com pany was acting in collusion with Rosen thal to recover a judgment against Doylq when Rosenthal could not himself collect because there was- some defense against Rosenthal. But none of this having been set up, we do not see in what way the court could have done differently than it did do There was nothing before the court that would warrant it in setting aside or vacating. the judgment because there was no indication, either by pleading or by evidence that there was any real defense to this paper, and it being commercial papel and indorsed in blank and in the possession of the Guardian Trust Company, the Guardian Trust Company for all intents ana purposes was the real party in interest and could maintain this suit.

We, therefore, think the court below was right in refusing to open up this judgment and committed no error in not so doing.

The judgment of the court below will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
(75 South. 1006)

#### LONG v. CHITWOOD.

(7 Div. 454.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; *692W W. Haralson, Judge. Action between J. H. P. Long and A. P. Chitwood. From the judgment, Long appeals.

Affirmed.

Hunt & Wolfes, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.

BRICKEN, J.

This case is submitted on motion to affirm on certificate. The judgment was rendered in favor of appellee on the 18th day of August, 1916, and the appeal from said judgment was taken on the 15th day of November, 1916. No transcript having been filed m this case as required by law, the judgment of the lower court, upon motion of the appellee, is affirmed on certificate. Affirmed. •
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 68 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 68

    Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the Joint 
            Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 2008

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Bennett) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the Joint 
            Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL BY THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL 
              COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES.

    The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to be used 
on January 20, 2009, by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-
elect of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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

April 1, 2013

d0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

146702

WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD, LLP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146702

COA: 312779

Wayne CC: 09-014899-CK

RDD INVESTMENT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, ROMULUS

DEEP DISPOSAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

REMUS JOINT VENTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL

DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC., RONALD ZAJAC,

P.C., and F. LOGAN DAVIDSON,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2013 order 

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.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/27

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
§ 402.3 Filing of initial reports. ( a ) Every labor organization shall file with the Office of Labor-Management Standards the report and (subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, where applicable) a copy of its constitution and bylaws required by section 201(a) of the Act and § 402.2, together with one additional copy of each, within 90 days after the date on which it first becomes subject to the Act.
( b ) A labor organization subject to paragraph (a) of this section may adopt or may have adopted as its constitution and bylaws (whether by formal action or by virtue of affiliation with a parent organization) a constitution and bylaws of a national or international labor organization which the national or international organization is required to file under section 201(a) of the Act and this part. In such a case, a filing by the national or international labor organization of copies of such constitution and bylaws will be accepted as a filing of such documents by each such adopting labor organization within the meaning of section 201(a) of the Act and this part, if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The national or international labor organizations shows in its report filed under paragraph (a) of this section that copies of its constitution and bylaws are being filed on behalf of such adopting organizations as well as on its own behalf, and files such number of additional copies as the Office of Labor-Management Standards may request, and
( 2 ) The adopting labor organization shows in its report filed under paragraph (a) of this section that the national or international constitution and bylaws are also its constitution and bylaws and that copies are filed on its behalf by the national or international labor organization.
If the constitution and bylaws of the adopting labor organization include other documents, this shall be shown in such report and copies shall be filed as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. [28 FR 14381, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 35 FR 2990, Feb. 13, 1970; 40 FR 58856, Dec. 19, 1975; 50 FR 31309, Aug. 1, 1985]
#### Bobby Joe HARRINGTON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5655

473 S.W. 2d 911

Opinion delivered December 13, 1971

*H. Allan Dishongh,*for appellant.

*588Ray' *Thornton,*Attorney General; *James A. Neal,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of attempted burglary, a felony, and appeals on one point of alleged error. On cross-examination appellant was asked about having committed other crimes. He moved for a mistrial and contends the refusal to grant the motion was error.

With regard to other crimes the following questions were asked and answers given:

> Q. On June 2, 1971, were you guilty of the interstate transportation of stolen property* that property being a valuable coin collection?

> A. No.

> Q. Mr. Harrington, on October the 20th, 1969, were you guilty of the interstate transportation of stolen property?

> A. No.

Following the propounding of each question there was an objection and request for mistrial.

The point for reversal is without merit. Our rule is clearly stated in *Johnson*v. *State,*236 Ark. 917, 370 S. W. 2d 610 (1963):

> When the defendant takes the stand, as in the case at bar, he is subject to the same rules of evidence as other witnesses, and for the purpose of throwing light on his credibility, he may, in good faith, be asked about other crimes he may have committed and other convictions, but he cannot be asked if he has been charged, indicted, or accused of other crimes.

In the recent case of *Black*v. *State,*250 Ark. 604, 466 S. W. 2d 463 (1971), where questions of the same *589tenor were asked, we followed the holding in *Johnson.*In *Black*we said that on cross-examination the defendant may be asked if he was guilty of some particular offense. In *Hughes & Bridges*v. State, 249 Ark. 805, 461 S. W. 2d 940 (1971), Hughes was asked if he did in fact take some money from one Bobby Horne. We held the question to be proper, again reciting that on cross-examination the defendant may, in good faith, be asked about other crimes he may have committed and about other convictions.

With respect to good faith, first, it is not contended that the prosecutor manufactured the incidents which formed the basis of his two questions. Second, appellant’s credibility was a crucial issue in the case. Appellant contended the officers who testified that they saw appellant running from the direction of the building where the attempted burglary was committed, were lying. Appellant insisted that he did not go near the building. Belief of the appellant’s testimony would demand an acquittal, whereas the testimony of the officers, if believed, would establish a most essential point for conviction.

Affirmed.

Fogleman, J., not participating.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTHCOURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400                  -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.		   APPELLANT	

	V.

 OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE         PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF                    TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s [s’]’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  

	COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-08-207              -CV

	APPELLANT	

MoO KaAeEiInNiI, InNdDiIvViIdDuUaAlLlLyY aAnNdD aAsS 	APPELLANT

AuUtThHoOrRiIzZeEdD ReEpPrReEsSeEnNtTaAtTiIvVeE aAnNdD 

AsSsSiIgGnNeEeE oOfF JaAlLaAlL SaAjJaAdDiIaAnN, K&G 

PaArRtTnNeErRsShHiIpP aAnNdD KaAeEiInNiI FaAmMiIlLyY 

FiIrRsStT LiImMiItTeEdD PaArRtTnNeErRsShHiIpP

	V.

 FtT. WoOrRtThH ChHrRiIsStTiIaAnN ScChHoOoOlL, InNcC.		APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 153RD          DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT                     COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s [s’] TEHTHE the parties’ “Joint Motion To Dismiss Appeal ANnd Expedite tThe Issuance oOfMandaf Mandate.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal and tThe mandate is ordered issued this dayte.  See Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c), 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant[s], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). [OR the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.]

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:    DAUPHINIOTOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:    dECEMBERDecember November 303, 2009
#### In the Matter of the Crossing of James Street in City of Oneida over the Tracks of the New York Central Railroad. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant; City of Oneida, Respondent.

Argued October 1, 1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*C. D. Phillips*for appellant.

*Frank R. Nemeti, City Attorney,*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**EXPRESS
      SYSTEMS CORPORATION**


**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 of Express Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randle
      Barrington-Foote, President, CEO, and Director of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 result of operations of the
                Company.










/s/
      Randle Barrington-Foote


Randle
      Barrington-Foote


President,
      CEO, and Director


November
      2, 2005