alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Miami Beach, *et al.,*v. The Texas Company, a corporation under the laws of Delaware.

178 So. 109.

Division B.

Opinion Filed January 8, 1938.

*J. Harvey Robillard*and *Loftin, Stokes & Calkins,*for Appellants;

*Evans, Mershon & Sawyer, M. L. Mershon*and *W. 0. Mehrtens, for Appellee.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court denying a motion to dismiss appellee’s bill and granting a temporary injunction restraining the en*581forcement of an ordinance recently adopted by the appellant City of Miami Beach, which in effect prohibits the bulk storage of gasoline and other petroleum products anywhere in the City of Miami Beach North of the Government channel. It cannot be said that the bill is entirely without equity and the chancellor was therefore without error in denyingi the motion to dismiss. It follows that there was likewise no error in granting the temporary injunction. Having reached this conclusion we deem it inappropriate to discuss in advance of a final hearing on pleadings and proof, the several questions which have been so ably briefed and argued in this Court.

The interlocutory order appealed from will accordingly be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Ellis,. C. J.,' and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Poteet, Appellant.

Submitted January 6, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Eagen, O’Bbien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Clarence Edward Poteet,*appellant, in propria persona.

*John T. Miller,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *John F. Rauhcmser, Jr.,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*231April 23, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

Appellant and his codefendant Troup were jointly tried and convicted of robbery in 1963. At the trial, a confession of Troup which inculpated appellant was admitted into evidence. No appeal was taken, but in 1966, after appellant claimed that he had been denied his appeal rights, an appeal was granted. The Superior Court affirmed appellant’s conviction in a per curiam order, Judge Hoffman dissenting in an opinion in which Judge Spaulding joined, and we granted allocatur.

Subsequent to the Superior Court’s decision, the Supreme Court of the United States decided *Bruton v. United States,*391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620 (1968), which held that the admission into evidence of a co-defendant’s inculpating statement deprived a defendant of his right of confrontation if the codefendant did not take the stand and could thus not be cross-examined. *Bruton,*which overruled *Delli Paoli v. United States,*352 U.S. 232, 77 S. Ct. 294 (1957),* a case in which the foregoing procedure had been held proper if accompanied by a proper jury instruction, was made fully retroactive by *Roberts v. Russell,*392 U.S. 293, 88 S. Ct. 1921 (1968).

The case is squarely controlled by *Bruton*and *Roberts.*Thus appellant is entitled to a trial at which the statement of his codefendant cannot be introduced into evidence unless appellant has the opportunity to cross-examine his codefendant.

The order of the Superior Court is reversed, the judgment of the Court of Quarter Sessions of York *232County is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.**

Mr. Justice Cohen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

*

 Prior to *Bruton*we had noted in. *Commonwealth ex rel. Berbery v. Myers,*429 Pa. 378, 384-85, n. 4, 239 A. 2d. 805, 807-08, n. 4 (1968), that the continued vitality of the *Delli Paoli*rule was questionable after *Jackson v. Denno,*378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774 (1964).

**

 Appellant was convicted in three separate cases which were consolidated for appeal by the Superior Court. We granted his petition for allowance of appeal from his conviction on Bill No. 262 and denied his petitions for allowance of appeal on Bills Nos. 260 and 261. Thus our granting of a new trial applies only to the conviction on Bill No. 262.
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATIONS




EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008 (the "10-Q Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-Q Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.


Date: August 5, 2009                     /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                       --------------------------------
                                           Roger N. Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 5, 2009                    /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                      ---------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
No. 53611.

protests 724650-G, etc. (New York).

#### Austin Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Order entered March 17, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01235 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01237 - CR JOHN CLOUD, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No s . F93 - 61603 - N and F93 - 60604 - N



### O RDER Appellant’s December 10, 2013 petition for judicial notice is DENIED. The Court has the record in the above case before it and will review the trial court’s ruling based on the record. We DIRE CT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to John Cloud, TDCJ No. 749521, Powledge Unit, 1400 F.M. 3452, Palestine, Texas 75803. We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Dallas County Distri ct Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Duane Martin, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Universal Food & Beverage Company (the “Registrant”); 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.    The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining 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 disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c)    disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the fourthcalendar quarter of 2005 in the case of this report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.    The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b)    any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DEREK THOMAS KELLY,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00044-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 2

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20170C09263)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
(Reap. Dec. 10169)

#### Wheeler & Miller *v.*United States

Entry No. 10499, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson & Golhurn*for the plaintiff.

*'William S. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

Tbe proper dutiable value of certain knives is tbe subject of appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part hereof.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact, wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> 1. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated on Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade in the principal markets of Germany.

> 2. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade in the principal markets of Germany for exportation to the United States.

> 3. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the principal markets of the United States to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade.

> 4. That the cost of production as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is as follows:

> (a) With respect to those items appraised in Deutsche marks in red-ink figures less 33%% less the proportionate part of the items marked X, packed: the indicated red-ink figures in Deutsche marks less 33%% less 3% less 4% plus the proportionate part of export packing.

> (b) With respect to those items not showing red-ink values and appraised in United States dollars at the invoice unit values, plus 10%, packed: the indicated invoice unit values, in United States dollars, net, packed.

*555Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1980 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the knives covered by the appeals for a reappraisement, above referred to, and that such value is as follows :

> (a) With respect to those items appraised in Deutsche marks in red-ink figures less 33% % less the proportionate part of the items marked X, packed: the indicated red-ink figures in Deutsche marks less 33%% less 3% less 4% plus the proportionate part of export packing.

> (b) With respect to those items not showing red-ink values and appraised in United States dollars at the invoice unit values, plus 10%, packed: the indicated invoice unit values, in United States dollars, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
March 17, 1978

#### Greenfield Construction Company, Inc v Department of State Highways.

(Docket No. 56686.)

*Schmier, Fealk & Ellis*for plaintiff-appellant. *Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, and *Louis J. Caruso*and *Curtis G. Beck,*Assistants Attorney General, for defendant-appellee.

Rehearing denied.

Reported at 402 Mich *ante,*p 172.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8415 

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 

Services to evaluate the cybersecurity practices and protocols of the 

Department, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself, Mr. SCHIFF, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. RYAN, Ms. 

SPANBERGER, Mr. PAPPAS, and Mr. TRONE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Inspector General of the Department of 

Health and Human Services to evaluate the cybersecurity 

practices and protocols of the Department, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Cyber5 security in Health Care Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF HHS CYBERSECURITY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:58 Jun 22, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8415.IH H8415

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8415 IH

1 after, the Inspector General of the Department of Health 

2 and Human Services shall evaluate the cybersecurity prac3 tices and protocols of the Department through the conduct 

4 of penetration tests and other testing procedures to deter5 mine how systems processing, transmitting, or storing 

6 mission critical or sensitive data by, for, or on behalf of 

7 the Department is currently, or could be compromised 

8 and— 

9 (1) expose patient data, including Medicare 

10 numbers of individuals; or 

11 (2) impact patient safety. 

12 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 2 years after the date 

13 of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter— 

14 (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Serv15 ices shall submit to Congress a report that describes 

16 how the Secretary will update the cybersecurity 

17 practices and protocols of the Department of Health 

18 and Human Services to adapt to the latest 

19 cyberattack strategies; and 

20 (2) the Inspector General of the Department of 

21 Health and Human Services shall submit to Con22 gress a report that describes— 

23 (A) how the Inspector General is currently 

24 using Federal funds of the Inspector General to 

25 carry out subsection (a); and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8415 IH

1 (B) legislative changes required for the In2 spector General to maintain the evaluation de3 scribed in subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IB 

Union Calendar No. 636 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8219 

[Report No. 118–770] 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the 

suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the Lahaina 

National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Ms. TOKUDA (for herself, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. NEGUSE, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. 

CASE, Mr. HUFFMAN, and Mr. SABLAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 26, 2024 

Additional sponsor: Mrs. RADEWAGEN

NOVEMBER 26, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 1, 2024] 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8219 RH

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 

to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating 

certain land as the Lahaina National Heritage Area, 

and for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8219 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lahaina National Her5 itage Area Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior. 

10 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

11 of Hawaii. 

12 (3) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ means 

13 the census-designated place of Lahaina in Maui 

14 County in the State. 

15 SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY. 

16 The Secretary, in coordination with the County of 

17 Maui and in consultation with State and local historic 

18 preservation officers, State and local historical societies, 

19 State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate orga20 nizations and governmental agencies, shall carry out, in ac21 cordance with section 120103(a) of title 54, United States 

22 Code, a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of des23 ignating the study area as a National Heritage Area, to 

24 be known as the ‘‘Lahaina National Heritage Area’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 636 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8219 

[Report No. 118–770] 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

Heritage Area, and for other purposes. designating certain land as the Lahaina National a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of 

NOVEMBER 26, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### William N. Brockway, *Respondent, v.*Jefferson Godell, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bocees, J.
March 2, 1978

#### Falk v State Bar of Michigan.

(Docket No. 60722.)

*Allan Falk, in propria persona,*plaintiff. *Bushnell, Gage & Reizen*for defendant.

The plaintiff’s petition for special relief and motion for stay and the defendant’s motion for instruction are considered. Former Judge Maurice E. Schoenberger is appointed as a fact finder before whom the parties shall present evidence, including testimony on the issue plaintiff raises. Former Judge Maurice E. Schoenberger shall make findings on any factual matters controverted by the parties and submit his findings to this Court. In light of defendant’s willingness to defer collection of plaintiff’s dues pending adjudication of the issue raised, instruction becomes moot by entry of this order and is denied.
#### Gross Estate.

Argued January 8, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*B. Paul Lessy,*with him *Robert M. Shay, J. Victor O’Brien,*and *Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Franhel,*for appellants.

*J. II. Ward Hinhson,*with him *Charles H. Hinhson,*and *Hinhson & Cantlin,*for appellees.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed at appellants’ cost.
No. 55327.

#### Rev. C. A. Miller *v.*United States,

protest 157109-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
(Reap. Dec. 8580)

#### H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 901628.

(Decided May 11, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of hard rubber combs exported from Germany.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany for export to the United States.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany for home consumption.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption.

> That the values set forth in Schedule A represent the cost of production for the items enumerated at such value as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

*571SCHEDULE A

*Items Cost of Production*

11 D. M. 8.10 Per Doz. less 41 J4% plus cost of cases as invoiced

15 D M 9 *il lt i( <l u ({ u tl u ct*

41 D. M. 8.80 “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ «

That the instant appeal to reappraisement is limited to the items enumerated in Schedule A and abandoned in all other respects and that the instand [sic] appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of items 11, 15, and 41 herein, and that such values were as follows:

*Items Cost of 'production*

11 D. M. 8.10 Per Doz. less 41)4% plus cost of cases as invoiced

15 D. M. 9.

41 D. M. 8.80

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 63185.

#### Metallurg, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/7755 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 50133.

#### Protests 113005-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*239Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited cases the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) Tape measures similar to those the subject of Abstract 43372, as household utensils, and dime savings banks similar to those the subject of Abstract 42749, as hollow ware, at 40 percent under paragraph 339; (2) electric Christmas wreaths similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *N. Minami*(29 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 188), and brass base shells similar to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607), as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, at 35 percent under paragraph 353 where the merchandise was entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to the effective date of the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T. D. 49753), or at 25 percent under said provision where the merchandise was entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement; and (3) marcel irons similar to those the subject of Abstract 38680, and paperweights similar to those the subject of *Woolworlh*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20), at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils. The protests were sustained to this extent.