alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G. T. Armstrong v. The State.

*No. 6984*

*Decided May 23.*

1. Practice — Accomplice—Evidence. —A person charged as an accomplice to crime can not be convicted upon evidence which would not support the conviction of his alleged principal of the crime charged.

2. Same.—If the trial develops evidence which tends to support both of two counts in an indictment, the State can not be compelled to elect upon which it will prosecute.

Appeal from the County Court of Collin. Tried below before Hon. M. G. Abernathy, County Judge.

This conviction was for misdemeanor theft, and the penalty imposed by the verdict was a fine of $50 and confinement in jail for one hour.

For the purposes of this report it is sufficient to say that the proof shows that Andrew Armstrong was an employe of the defendant, and together with other employes, acting under the order of the defendant, took the blocks from the place where stored as the property of the defendant.

*H. C. Made*and *Abernathy & Beverly,*for appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

Andrew Armstrong and G. T. Armstrong, the appellant, were indicted for the theft of certain bois d’arc blocks—Andrew as principal, and appellant as accomplice. Appellant was tried, and being convicted, appeals.

There is no proof that Andrew Armstrong stole the blocks, and hence this conviction of G. T. Armstrong is wrong. If Andrew Armstrong was not guilty of fraudulently taking the property, and G. T. Armstrong, knowing that he had no right to the property, did fraudulently advise, command, or encourage Andrew Armstrong to take the same, he would be a principal and not an accomplice. If there be doubt as to whether Andrew Armstrong was guilty, then the pleader should charge G. T. Armstrong as principal and as an accomplice; and, if the proof fails to establish Andrew Armstrong’s guilt, but shows that G. T. Armstrong did, with a view of stealing the property, advise, command, or encourage Andrew Armstrong to take the blocks, he would be guilty as principal. On the other hand, if the proof shows Andrew Armstrong’s guilt and that G. T. Armstrong fraudulently did advise, etc., Andrew Armstrong to take the blocks, then he would be guilty as an accomplice. And just here we would state, *and emphasize the statement,*that the State can not he compelled to elect upon which count it will prosecute if there be proof tending to support both counts. Of course if the evidence fails to support one count, or renders one count more certain than the other, the *527prosecuting officer will suggest to the jury the count relied on for conviction; or, the court may direct an acquital on one count and instruct the jury on the other.

Because there is not sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of Andrew Armstrong as principal, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### JACOB GOLD, PETITIONER, v. ABRAHAM KLIGMAN, RESPONDENT.

*736* ' * * ii: S:

The attorney for the petitioner having called as witnesses Jacob Gold, the petitioner, and Drs. Oscar Glass, Andrew T. Rnoff and Ambrose' E. Dowd, and the respondent having called Drs. Irving Willner and Edward W. Markens, and it appearing by the testimony that the petitioner, while raising one end of a scaffold to paint the side of a house, and it appearing that the scaffold stuck on a window ledge, and that petitioner while pulling on the scaffold suffered a cerebral hemorrhage; and it appearing that no unforeseen or extraordinary- event occurred, but that while petitioner was pulling on the scaffold he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage; and the petitioner having failed to present any corroborating testimony as to the happening of an accident; and it appearing from the medical testimony in the case that the petitioner was suffering from arterio sclerosis in an advanced stage and high blood pressure; and it also appearing by the petitioner’s own medical witnesses, Drs. Ambrose E. Dowd and Andrew T. Ruoff, that the petitioner might from his condition have suffered a cerebral hemorrhage regardless of what he was doing at the time, and Dr. Dowd having further testified that in his condition he might have suffered the cerebral hemorrhage while in bed; I find and determine that the petitioner’s injuries were not caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, but that he suffered an injury from other than accidental causes; and it is hereby ordered that the petition in the above-entitled cause be dismissed.

Harry J. Goas, *Deputy Commissioner.*
# C_2011194EN.01001502.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/15

---

Action brought on 18 April 2011 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)

(Case T-216/11)

2011/C 194/24

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Progust, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: M. E. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopralex & Vosmarques SA (Brussels, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Court to:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal in Case R 1036/2010-1 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal in Case R 1036/2010-1 in its entirety;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Progust, SL; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Progust, SL;

| — | order Sopralex & Vosmarques SA to pay the costs incurred by Progust, SL. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Sopralex & Vosmarques SA to pay the costs incurred by Progust, SL.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Progust, SL.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘IMPERIA’ (application for registration No 7.008.154), for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 43.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sopralex & Vosmarques SA.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 3.260.288), containing the word element ‘IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 29.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration refused.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014212EN.01002501.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI)

(Case T-599/11) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENI - Earlier Community figurative mark EMI - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))

2014/C 212/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Emi (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Case R 2439/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Emi (IP) Ltd and Eni SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
#### George M. Chapman, *Respondent, v.*John G. L. Boettcher, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Cullen, J.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FILED
November 13, 2001

No. 00-1252
CA-99-559
VIRGINIA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN LIFE. UNCORPORATED

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Defendant - Appellant

No. OO- 1332
CA-99-

59

VIRGINIA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN LIFE, INCORPORATED

Plaintiff - Appellant

Vv.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Defendant - Appellee

On Petition for

The appellant /cross-appellce’s petition for rehearing and
rehearing en banc was submitted to this Court AS no member of the
panel requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and

AS the panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of
the opinion that it should he denied.

IT TS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en


rs

banc is denied.

For the Court,

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

CLERK

o
wf

mh


. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
- FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LEWIS F. POWELL, JR. UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE ANNEX
PATRICIA S. CONNOR 1100 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 501 TELEPHONE
CLERK RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219-3517 18041916-2700

November 13, 2001

David Brett Kolker, Esq.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Office of the General Counsel
999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Richard Blair Bader, Esq
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSTON
Office of the General Counsel
999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Stephen E. Hershkowitz, Esq.
FEDERAL [TION COMMISS TON

Office of the General Counsel
999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

20. Hd 80g | Nor

James Robert Mason III, Esq.
BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South 6th Street

Terre Haute, IN 47808

James Bopp Jxr.. Esq
BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM
1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47808

Patrick Michael McSwecney. Esq.
MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP

11 South 12th Street

P.O. Box 1463

Richmond, VA 23218

John Lyons Marshall Jr... Esq
MCSWEENEY, BURTCH & CRUMP

11 South !2th Street

P. O. Box 1463

Richmond, VA 23218

Re: 00-1252 Virginia Society v. Federal Election
CA-99-559

00-1332 Virginia Society v. Federal Election
CA-99- S59
#### § 174.140 Specific applicability.

Each tugboat and towboat inspected under subchapter I of this chapter must comply with this subpart.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Humboldt Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-57856, 333-65317, 333-25827, 333-04745, and 333-64062) on Form S-8 of
Humboldt Bancorp of our report dated January 25, 2002, except as to note 25,
which is as of November 4, 2002, with respect to (a) the consolidated balance
sheet of Humboldt Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2001, and (b) the combination of
the consolidated financial statements of Humboldt Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000 and for each of the years in the two-year period then ended,
after restatement for the 2001 pooling-of-interests transaction, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K/A of Humboldt
Bancorp.

Our report refers to the restatement of the consolidated financial statements as
of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended.

Sacramento, California
February 20, 2003
§ 298.43 Applicability of the regulations. ( a ) The regulations in this part are effective August 21, 2000, and apply to all applications made, Letter Commitments, Commitments to Guarantee Obligations or Guarantees issued or entered into on or after August 21, 2000, under section 1104(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended.
( b ) The regulations in this part do not apply to any applications made, Letter Commitments, Commitments to Guarantee Obligations, or Guarantees issued under those regulations in effect before August 21, 2000. See 46 CFR, parts 200 to 499, edition revised as of October 1, 1996 and 46 CFR, parts 200 to 499, edition revised as of October 1, 1999 for regulations that apply to applications made, Letter Commitments, Commitments to Guarantee Obligations, or Guarantees issued before August 21, 2000.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending January 20, 2007

|Filer                                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|NORTHERN STAR FINANCIAL, INC.         | CIC           | Notice by Robert Donavon Weerts and Jennifer Lavon Weerts, both of Winnebago, Minnesota, to gain control of Northern Star Financial, Inc., Mankato, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly gain control of Northern Star Bank, Mankato, Minnesota.                                             | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/05/2007   
|Newspaper:                            | Not available
|Federal Register:                     | 02/05/2007   
|WESTERN HOLDING COMPANY OF WOLF POINT | CIC           | Change in control notice by Duane A. Kurokawa, and Rosella Kurokawa, both of Wolf Point, Montana, to acquire 25 percent or more of the shares of Western Holding Company, Wolf Point, Montana, and thereby indirectly acquire control of Western Bank of Wolf Point, Wolf Point, Montana. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                            | Not available
|Federal Register:                     | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2015213EN.01002501.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

(Case T-480/11) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents taken into consideration in the context of a financial audit on the performance of certain research contracts concluded during the course of the sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Overriding public interest))

(2015/C 213/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel); and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: initially D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, then D. Grisay and C. Hartman, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially P. Costa de Oliveira and C. ten Dam, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 30 June 2011 refusing Technion — Israel Institute of Technology access to documents taken into consideration in the context of a financial audit on the performance of certain research contracts concluded during the course of the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd are ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd are ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 340, p. 27.

1

---
§ 169.631 Separation of machinery and fuel tank spaces from accommodation spaces. ( a ) Machinery and fuel tank spaces must be separated from accommodation spaces by watertight or vapor tight bulkheads of double diagonal wood, marine plywood, steel plate, or equivalent construction.
( b ) On vessels less than 90 feet in length, segregation may be by means of a watertight or vapor tight engine box.
§ 30.10-71 Tankerman—TB/ALL. The following ratings are established in part 13 of this chapter. The terms for the ratings identify persons holding valid endorsements for service in the ratings issued under that part: ( a ) Tankerman-PIC.
( b ) Tankerman-PIC (Barge).
( c ) Restricted Tankerman-PIC.
( d ) Restricted Tankerman-PIC (Barge).
( e ) Tankerman-Assistant.
( f ) Tankerman-Engineer.
[CGD 79-116, 60 FR 17155, Apr. 4, 1995, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11264, Mar. 16, 2009]
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Exhibit 31.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**I, Clyde R. Wallin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.                     /s/ Clyde R. Wallin   Clyde R. Wallin   Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Finance   March 30, 2007