alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHAEL A. MONAHAN, Airman Basic, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

No. 30,344

August 29, 1975

*Colonel William E. Cordingly*and *Major John A. Cutts, III,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. F. Bennett*and *Captain Alvin E. Schlechter*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

The accused stands convicted by a general court-martial before military judge alone of numerous offenses including a charge of desertion in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885. He entered pleas of guilty to all of the offenses except the charge of desertion to which he pleaded guilty only to the lesser included offense of absence without leave. We granted review to determine if the staff judge advocate’s review was prejudicially misleading where, after summarizing the evidence relating to the contested element of the appellant’s intent, he expressed only the following:

> I have found sufficient competent evidence of that offense to which the accused pleaded not guilty to uphold the military judge’s finding of guilty.

In *United States v Johnson,*8 USCMA 173, 23 CMR 397 (1957), we concluded a post-trial review was inadequate which merely contained the following paragraph relative to the convening authority’s responsibility to approve only those findings found to he correct in law and fact:1

> The conflict of evidence presented to the court was a factual matter to be resolved by them as triers of the facts. The court under the proper instructions given by the law officer was fully competent to evaluate the conflicting admissible evidence, and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. It was for the court to decide, and *where as here there is sufficient legally admissible evidence to support their Gndings, it should not be disturbed*(United States v McCrary (No. 4), 1 CMR 1).

Since the quoted language indicated an improper evidentiary standard for a convening authority’s review of a case,2 we reversed.

*540We perceive a similar deficiency in the post-trial review *sub judice.*

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review is reversed. The case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to the Court of Military Review, which may set aside the findings of guilty on the charge of desertion and reassess the sentence or order a new review and action.

1

 United States v Johnson, 8 USCMA 173, 176, 23 CMR 397, 400 (1957).

2

*See*United States v Grice, 8 USCMA 166, 23 CMR 390 (1957).
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Francis Poore, certify that:

 

1.                           I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (this “**Report**”) of CommerceHub, Inc.; and

 

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 make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report.

 
|                                               |   |                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Date:    April 27,   2018 | By:    | /s/ FRANCIS   POORE                  |
|                                               |   | Francis Poore                        |
|                                               |   | President, Chief   Executive Officer |
|                                               |   | (Principal Executive   Officer)      |

 

----
# C_2017112EN.01000802.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017(request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV

(Case C-507/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Coordination of the laws of the Member States - Belgian transposition measure - Commercial agency contract - Principal established in Belgium and agent established in Turkey - Choice of Belgian law clause - Applicable law - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Compatibility))

(2017/C 112/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Petersime NV

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents and the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation transposing that directive into the law of the Member State concerned, which excludes from its scope of application a commercial agency contract in the context of which the commercial agent is established in Turkey, where it carries out activities under that contract, and the principal is established in that Member State, so that, in such circumstances, the commercial agent cannot rely on rights which that directive guarantees to commercial agents after the termination of such a commercial agency contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Consumers Financial
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jack I. Ehrenhaus, Chief Executive 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 and belief:

         (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
                  the operation of the Company.


/s/ Jack I. Ehrenhaus
------------------------------------
Jack I. Ehrenhaus
Chief Executive Officer
January 12, 2005


                                       16
# C_2016048EN.01009601.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/96

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission

(Case F-17/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Appraisal - Appraisal report - Request for amendment - Refusal))

(2016/C 048/109)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arnulf Jäger-Waldau (Laveno, Italy) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Berscheid, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to amend the applicant’s 2013 appraisal report.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Declares that Mr Jäger-Waldau shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Jäger-Waldau shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 40.

1

---
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls
o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :
A2 0 A2 01 0 . SMI TH v
. TI BBI TTS, et a l
. Up o n co n s i d eration of a

p pe lle e ' s M O T I O N T O D I S M I S S a n d ap p el l an t 's s t at ed
l ack o f o p p o s i t i o n t o s am e, i t i s o rd ered t h at s ai d m o t i on b e h ereb y GRANTED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t l a n ta ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## September 02, 2020

09/02/2020
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: 

,. · sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr. SwansonTim Killeen <tkbluelake@hotmail.com> 

Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:35 AM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Brainerd airport 

We use BRD often for business and personal use and our hope is to have Sky West be the 

regional airline. Please consider them when making the decison. Thank you! 

Timothy J. Killeen, CFO Black Forest Pharmacy Services & Affiliates
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD MICKMAN,

Respondent

v.

ELAINE MICKMAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 386 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Document

ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE
Pursuant to the engine sale agreement dated January 19, 2022 between FINNAIR AIRCRAFT FINANCE OY (“Seller”) and CONTRAIL AVIATION SUPPORT, LLC (“Buyer”) relating to two (2) used CFM56-5B3/2P engines bearing manufacturer’s serial numbers 779999 and 779969 (“Sale Agreement”) Buyer HEREBY UNCONDITIONALLY AND IRREVOCABLY CERTIFIES to Seller that:


1    Buyer did on the 19th day of April, 2022 inspect the Engines at Larnaca International Airport (LCA), Cyprus and Buyer confirms that the Engines conform with the description and are in the condition and equipped as required by the terms of the Sale Agreement;
2    Buyer hereby unconditionally and irrevocably accepts the Engines in an “AS IS WHERE IS” condition with all faults and defects (whether or not discoverable by inspection) and the provisions of Clause 8 of the Sale Agreement are repeated as if set out in full herein; and 
3    the condition of the Engines is satisfactory and compliant with the terms of the Sale Agreement in all respects, without reservation or exception, and Buyer has no rights or claims whatsoever against Seller in respect of the condition of the Engines or any of the other matters referred to in Clause 8 of the Sale Agreement.
Capitalised terms in this Acceptance Certificate but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as used in the Sale Agreement.
Date:     __April 20, 2022______________
By:    __/s/ Joseph G. Kuhn__________
Title:    _CEO______________________
Duly authorised, for and on behalf of
CONTRAIL AVIATION SUPPORT, LLC
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 124 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers’ 

Memorial Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2007 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. HOYER, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. TOM

DAVIS of Virginia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National 

Peace Officers’ Memorial Service. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL 

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fra6 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution 

7 referred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor 

8 a public event, the 26th annual National Peace Officers’ 

9 Memorial Service (in this resolution referred to as the 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HCON 124 IH 

1 ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the 

2 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty dur3 ing 2006. 

4 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on 

5 May 15, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of 

6 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

7 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 

8 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed 

10 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

11 Board, the event shall be— 

12 (1) free of admission charge and open to the 

13 public; and 

14 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of 

15 Congress. 

16 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall 

17 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

18 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

19 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

20 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap21 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol 

22 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 

23 other related structures and equipment, as may be re24 quired for the event. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HCON 124 IH 

1 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce3 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

4 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise5 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

6 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

7 Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Case No. 13,939.

#### THOMPSON v. AFFLICK.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 46.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1812.

Limitation or Actions — Plea—When to be Filed.

The court will not permit the plea of the statute of limitations to be filed after the rule-day, unless it be shown by affidavit to be necessary tor the justice of the case.

[See Case No. 13,940.]

[This was an action by Thompson's administrator against Afflick’s administrator.]

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

before the plea day, indorsed on the declaration, these words, “Non assumpsit; Stat. Lim.: set-off; account in bar,” as his pleas.

Upon the calling of the imparlance docket, Mr. Key objected to the plea of the statute of limitations because it was not written out at full length and filed at or before the rule-day.

Mr. Jones offered to file it nunc pro tunc.

But

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

refused to receive it, unless it should be shown by affidavit to be necessary for the justice of the case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0154

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TYLER GHARRETT WILKINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 3, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2020

06/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0154
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2919219-MAR-201208:04 AM
Exhibit
32


Certification
Pursuant to
 
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As
Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
  I, Gordon
R. Arnold, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  i.  The Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Sierra Monitor Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2010  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;
  ii. The information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Sierra Monitor Corporation.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sierra Monitor Corporation
and will be retained by Sierra Monitor Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date:
      May 12, 2010
            By: 
      /s/ Gordon R.
    ArnoldGordon R. ArnoldChief Executive Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.'S STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS FOR 
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<CASH>                                                412
<SECURITIES>                                          458
<RECEIVABLES>                                       1,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                           326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    2,913
<PP&E>                                             14,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                      6,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     13,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               5,295
<BONDS>                                             3,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                          1,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       13,578
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    4,109
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       3,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       166
<INCOME-TAX>                                           63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   103
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          103
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Carmelo Spinella, certify that:1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of 21st Century Insurance Group;2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible 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 the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):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 the registrant's ability to record, process and summarize financial information; andb)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting





Date:
April 22, 2004

/s/ Carmelo SpinellaCarmelo SpinellaSr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer






28
# C_2015146EN.01005002.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/50

---

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-30/15)

(2015/C 146/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision, adopted pursuant to the annulling judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2014 in Case F-53/13, Diamantopoulos v EEAS, not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise, and the claim for damages for the non-material and material harm allegedly sustained.

Diamantopoulos

EEAS

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare unlawful the decision of 29 April 2014 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare unlawful the decision of 29 April 2014 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 25  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 25  000;

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

—

order EEAS to pay the costs.

---