alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MICHAEL E. LEE ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 1401 LT Case No. 2018

- CF

- 933 STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed June 14, 2022 Appeal from t he Circuit Court f or Lake County, Mark J. Hill, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General , Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Santiago-Gonzalez v. State , 301 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 2020).

COHEN, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
23.0











CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-141058 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 24, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule
of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP and the effectiveness of Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners, LP’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP for the year ended
December 31, 2008.





DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP


Houston,
Texas


February
24, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24962]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Sickle 
Cell Disease Advisory Committee, January 29, 2024, 10:00 a.m. to 
January 29, 2024, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 
I, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the 
Federal Register on September 28, 2023, FR Doc 2023-21315, 88 FR 67324.
    This Notice is being amended to update the Registration Link. The 
event is free and open to the public; however, registration is 
required. Please use this included link to register: https://nih.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_X-5kA5CJQG6Qmk_ujQsqAw.

    Dated: November 7, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24962 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2017402EN.01002001.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Cabinet d’Orthopédie Stainier SPRL v Belgium State

(Case C-592/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 402/25)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

1

---
# C_2015294EN.01008101.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/81

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

(Case T-359/15)

(2015/C 294/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2015 in Case R 1021/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision in part;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 59951.

#### Dodwell & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 224598-K (New York).

*446Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The documents received in evidence established that the merchandise in question came from Macau, or Macao, which is a part of China that is under the domination or control of the Republic of Portugal, and that Portuguese domination or control is not Communist domination or control. Accordingly, it was held that the merchandise is not excluded by the Presidential proclamation, T. D. 52788, from trade agreement reductions in duty rates, and the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHU DUC NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM LOVE, THE DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF 

PHILADELPHIA AND THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 04-1665

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2023, upon consideration of the Petitioner’s Motion for 

Rule 60(b)(6) Relief, the Commonwealth’s Response thereto, Petitioner’s Traverse, the other 

documents filed by the parties, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United 

States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells and Petitioner having filed no timely 

objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The Rule 60(b)(6) Motion is DENIED, without an evidentiary hearing; and 

3. Petitioner has neither shown denial of a federal constitutional right, nor 

established that reasonable jurists would disagree with this court’s procedural disposition of his 

claims. Consequently, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Wendy Beetlestone, J. 

__

WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

Case 2:04-cv-01665-WB Document 39 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 1
Case Wo. 7,803.

#### KING et al. v. PHILLIPS.

[Pet. C. C. 350.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1816.

Pleading — Counts—Costs.

In an action on the case to recover the amount of an accepted bill of exchange, from the accept- or, the plaintiffs, who were payees and indorsers of the bill, cannot recover the damages and costs of suit which had been recovered against them by the indorsee of the bill, there being no money count in the declaration.

Judgment was confessed, subject to the opinion of the court, whether the defendant, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, is liable to the plaintiffs [King and Jones], the payees and indorsers of the bill, for the damages and costs of suit which were recovered against them by the indorsee? The declaration was in the common form, averring the acceptance by the defendant, and his subsequent refusal to pay, without noticing the recovery against the plaintiffs, and contained no money count.

Hr. Cliauncey, for plaintiffs,

cited 4 Taunt. 464; 1 Wils. 185.

1

 [Reported by Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.] 14FED.CAS. — 35

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

The question intended to be submitted to the court cannot arise on this declaration. It is simply an action on the case to recover the amount of an accepted bill of exchange, and the judgment can only be for that amount with interest; that being the sum demanded.
# C_2017151EN.01001302.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA v AAL Renting SA and Others

(Case C-253/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 96 TFEU - Applicability - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from offering individual seats - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from predetermining their destination - National legislation prohibiting taxi services from touting for custom))

(2017/C 151/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: FlibTravel International SA, Léonard Travel International SA

Appellants:

Respondents: AAL Renting SA, Haroune Tax SPRL, Saratax SCS, Ryad SCRI, Taxis Bachir & Cie SCS, Abdelhamid El Barjraji, Abdelouahab Ben Bachir, Sotax SCRI, Mostapha El Hammouchi, Boughaz SPRL, Sahbaz SPRL, Jamal El Jelali, Mohamed Chakir Ben Kadour, Taxis Chalkis SCRL, Mohammed Gheris, Les délices de Fes SPRL, Abderrahmane Belyazid, E.A.R. SCS, Sotrans SPRL, B.M.A. SCS, Taxis Amri et Cie SCS, Aramak SCS, Rachid El Amrani, Mourad Bakkour, Mohamed Agharbiou, Omar Amri, Jmili Zouhair, Mustapha Ben Abderrahman, Mohamed Zahyani, Miltotax SPRL, Lextra SA, Ismail El Amrani, Farid Benazzouz, Imad Zoufri, Abdel-Ilah Bokhamy, Ismail Al Bouhali, Bahri Messaoud & Cie SCS, Mostafa Bouzid, BKN Star SPRL, M.V.S. SPRL, A.B.M.B. SCS, Imatrans SPRL, Reda Bouyaknouden, Ayoub Tahri, Moulay Adil El Khatir, Redouan El Abboudi, Mohamed El Abboudi, Bilal El Abboudi, Sofian El Abboudi, Karim Bensbih, Hadel Bensbih, Mimoun Mallouk, Abdellah El Ghaffouli, Said El Aazzoui

Respondents:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 96(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not applying to restrictions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, imposed on taxi operators.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

1

---
No. 64779.

#### Old Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/878 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, G. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fiber or hemp articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63552, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                         SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                               1,448
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        12,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         68
<INVENTORY>                                                          12,601
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     27,072
<PP&E>                                                               203,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       18,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       219,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                14,075
<BONDS>                                                              171,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                           33,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         219,325
<SALES>                                                              78,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     78,461
<CGS>                                                                70,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        2,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   13,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (8,269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  (8,269)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      397
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (7,872)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2015337EN.01002401.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/24

---

Action brought on 13 July 2015 — EDF Luminus v Parliament

(Case T-384/15)

(2015/C 337/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EDF Luminus (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Verhoeven and O. Vanden Berghe, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible and well founded;

| — | Consequently, order the European Parliament: |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, order the European Parliament:

| — | to pay EDF Luminus the sum of EUR 4 39  672 ,95; |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay EDF Luminus the sum of EUR 4 39  672 ,95;

| — | to pay EDF Luminus the contractual interest on that sum from the date on which the invoices were payable; |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay EDF Luminus the contractual interest on that sum from the date on which the invoices were payable;

| — | to pay the costs and disbursements. |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay the costs and disbursements.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicable legal and contractual conditions and the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, since the Parliament refuses to reimburse the applicant for the contributions relating to the electricity which it paid to the Région de Bruxelles — Capitale. The applicant submits that the disputed contributions must fall to be paid by the Parliament since they were brought about by the supply of electricity to the Parliament.

---
No. 51291.

#### Protests 52232-K(A), etc., of Salvatore A. Laraja (New York).

Opinion by

Keepe, ,1.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2J4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Gittelman, Appellant

*(No. 2).*

Appeal, No. 90, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Phila. Co., Oct. T., 1922, No. 361, on verdict of guilty in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Harry Gittelman.

Before Henderson, Trexlee, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

July 2, 1924:

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The charge against the defendant in this case was similar to that in No. 89, October Term, 1924, in which an opinion is now filed. The cases were tried and argued together and involve identical questions. The affirmance of the judgment in No. 89, October Term, 1924, requires a similar action in this case.

The assignments are overruled; the judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the court below and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24961]



[[Page 77597]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Review.
    Date: November 27-28, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Li Jia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS/
NIH/DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3208D, Rockville, MD 20852, 
301-451-2854, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#026e6b2c686b63426c6b6a2c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd7d295d1d2dafbd5d2d395dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: November 7, 2023.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24961 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2017392EN.01000801.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

(Case C-149/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of pay and working conditions))

(2017/C 392/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra

Applicants:

Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to engage in the consultations provided for in Article 2 when it intends, to the detriment of the employees, to make a unilateral amendment to the terms of remuneration which, if refused by the employees, will result in termination of the employment relationship, to the extent that the conditions laid down in Article 1(1) of that directive are fulfilled, which is for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thAT:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2005 (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.

Dated: November 14, 2005

                               /s/ Scott D. Dorfman
                               ---------------------------
                               Scott D. Dorfman
                               President, Chief Executive Officer and
                               Chairman of the Board
No. 50334.

#### Protest 710989-G of M. Wulfsohn & Co., Inc. (New York).

*231Opinion by

Oliver. P. J.

It was stipulated that the goatskins are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith • the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Hughes, Chief Financial Officer
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, to the best of 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.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Robert P. Hughes                      
|Robert P. Hughes                          
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff
|                                          
|May 15, 2006