alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
34040.

#### BAKER v. BAKER.

Hall, Justice.

Appellant John Baker and appellee Lynn Baker purchased a house and lot as tenants in common in 1973. In 1978, John Baker brought a suit requesting equitable partition of the property. In a separate action, Lynn Baker sued for divorce and alimony, based on the parties’ alleged common law marriage. The cases were consolidated for trial and were submitted to the jury for a special verdict. The jury found that the parties were not married and that each owned fifty percent of the property. The trial judge ordered the property sold, and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. John Baker argues in this appeal that he has been denied an equitable accounting. We agree and reverse.

The claim for equitable partition and sale was properly allowed in this case because division of the property would destroy its value. Code Ann. § 85-1511; *Hames v. Shaver,*229 Ga. 412 (191 SE2d 861) (1972). The trial court ordered the proceeds divided equally between John Baker and Lynn Baker following sale of the property and satisfaction of all liens. Each party is, however, entitled to have his accounts and claims adjusted by the court after sale and before distribution of the proceeds. *Taylor v. Sharpe,*221 Ga. 282 (144 SE2d 390) (1965). In making the accounting, the court should consider expenditures of either party for improvements to the *526property, taxes or other expenses, and income received by either party from rental of the property. *Taylor v. Sharpe,*supra; *Borum v. Deese,*196 Ga. 292 (26 SE2d 538) (1943).

Submitted September 15, 1978

Decided November 7, 1978.

*Loggins, Murray & Lovell, Fay R. Loggins,*for appellant.

*Strother, Hicks & Wallace, Glenn H. Strother,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
1 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1703

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Kevin Dewayne Mills, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 14, 1999 Filed: September 24, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. KevinDewayne Mills was tried by jury in the District Court 2 and convicted on one count of

conspiracy to distribute approximately fifty ounces of cocaine base and on one count

of distribution of approximately one ounce of cocaine base. On appeal,-2-

Mills argues that the District Court erred in allowing the government (1) to introduce evidence that Mills had failed to contest the civil administrative forfeiture of $8,880 seizedas a result of the execution of a search warrant and (2) to comment on that evidence in closing argument. According to Mills, this evidence and comment violated his constitutional right to remain silent. Because at trial Mills did not object to the admission of the evidence in question onthe constitutional ground now asserted and made no contemporaneous objection to the government's comment on the evidence, Mills has failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Accordingly, we review only for plain error. Having carefully considered the case, we conclude that the error, if any (a question that we need not and do not decide), certainly was not plain error. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case No. 10,007.

#### NAN et al. v. MOXLEY et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 523.) 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1808.

Slavery — Petition for Freedom — Affidavit to Support — By whom Made.:

The affidavit of a manumitted negro is sufficient ground for an order to issue a summons-returnable immediately upon a petition for .freedom.

Petition for freedom [by the negress .'Nan and children against D. Moxley and others]. Affidavit of the negro Charles, a manumitted negro, that his wife Nan (the petitioner), was about to be removed out of the District. '•

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(PITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, *1148absent,)

allowed a subpoena, returnable immediately, to answer the petition just filed by Mr. F. S. Key.
#### In the Matter of Michael R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 724]

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated February 9, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated December 11, 1997, made after a hearing, found that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order and the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the appellant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that the police officer who ultimately seized a gun from a van was justified in approaching that van, which had been standing with its engine idling, and directing its occupants to exit, based upon his rea*390sonable suspicion that the occupants of the van were smoking marihuana *(see, People v McLaurin, 70*NY2d 779, 781-782; *People v Heston,*152 AD2d 999; *People v Barnes,*149 AD2d 359; *People v Hill,*148 AD2d 546; *People v Cunningham,*141 AD2d 557). Because the officer had the right to be in the position from which he observed the gun on the rear seat of the van, the plain view doctrine applied *(see, People v Diaz,*81 NY2d 106, 109-111; *People v Shapiro,*141 AD2d 577), and the seizure of the gun was appropriate. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.
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 report on Form 10-Q/A of Advanced Technologies Group,
Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

     (1)  The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: January 26, 2010


                                           /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Alex Stelmak
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 3 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, June 19, 2007, from 11:30 a.m. ET. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7979. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 3 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, June 19, 2007, from 11:30 a.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include: Various IRS issues. 

 Dated: May 7, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9158 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 45224.

#### Protests 768239-G, etc., of Maple Leaf Petroleum, Ltd. (Great Falls).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the protests were dismissed.
No. 74-5769.

#### Jimenez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
23.1
    CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We
consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10-K of Seychelle Environmental
Technologies Inc. of our report dated May 22, 2009 on our audit of the financial
statements of Seychelle Environmental Technologies Inc. as of February 28, 2009,
and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows
for the years then ended, and the reference to us under the caption
“Experts.”
 
 /s/ Moore & Associates,
Chartered
 Moore
& Associates Chartered
 Las
Vegas, Nevada
 May 22,
2009
        6490 West Desert Inn Road, Las Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7499 Fax
(702)253-7501
No. 96-5991.

#### Miller *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2012258EN.01001001.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/10

---

Appeal brought on 29 May 2012 by Jarosław Majtczak against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2012 in Case T-227/09: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-266/12 P)

2012/C 258/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Jarosław Majtczak (represented by: J. Radłowski, radca prawny)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

By the present appeal the appellant asks the Court of Justice to:

| — | annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and dismiss the applicant's suit or in the alternative; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and dismiss the applicant's suit or in the alternative;

| — | annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 in case T-227/09 and refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | adjudicate the costs in favour of the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

adjudicate the costs in favour of the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment infringes article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark, as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) (on the Community trade mark), particularly with regard to the General Court's interpretation of the concept of ‘acting in bad faith’.

o

1

o

2

The appellant also submits that the General Court has breached procedure by making erroneous findings of fact and by being selective in its assessment of the evidence produced.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ L 11, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version)

2

OJ L 78, p. 1

---
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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/ John L. Skibski
-------------------------------------
John L. Skibski
Chief Financial Officer
November 4, 2005
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Eddie Capel, certify that: 

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of 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 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 annual 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Dated this 15th day of March, 2019 

 

|        |                                                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Eddie Capel                               |
|   | Eddie Capel, President and Chief Executive Officer |
1999 ME 103

#### Jack BUSSELL et al.1 v. CITY OF PORTLAND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs June 17, 1999.

Decided June 30, 1999.

Seth Berner, Portland, for plaintiffs.

Donna M. Katsiaficas, Associate Corporation Counsel, Portland, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, and ALEXANDER, JJ.

1

. The other plaintiffs are Fay Bussell, Sigalit Rupert, Erwin Rupert, Walter Fleury, Fred Roberts, and Seth Berner. Arthur H. Stephenson III was named as a defendant, but all counts involving him were dismissed by the court.

WATHEN, C.J.

[¶ 1] The City of Portland appeals from an order entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, *Cole, J.)*denying its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim against it for damages pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118 (1980 & Supp.1998). The City contends that the court erred in ruling that the City’s operation of a sound system in the Portland Exposition building could constitute the “operation of a public building” within the exception set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(2) (Supp.1998) to the general immunity provided governmental entities pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103 (1980). For purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we consider the material allegations of the complaint as admitted and review the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief pursuant to some legal theory. *See J.R.M., Inc. v. City of Portland,*669 A.2d 169, 161 (Me.1995) (citing *McAfee v. Cole,*637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me.1994)).

[¶2] The review of a claimed exception to governmental immunity often requires, as it does here, a close examination of the individual facts of the case. Accordingly, in order to avoid the time and expense of multiple appeals, parties should *863be sparing in their use of Rule 12(b)(6) to test the sufficiency of a complaint when resolution of the motion requires analysis of a claimed exception to governmental immunity.2

[¶ 3] Strictly as a matter of pleading, we cannot determine beyond doubt that plaintiffs are entitled to no relief under any set of facts they might prove to support their claim. *See id.*(citations omitted). On the record before us, we cannot say that the use or operation of the sound system could never constitute the operation of a public building within the meaning of 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A(2) (Supp.1998).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

2

. See, for example, *Webb v. Haas,*in which we affirmed an interlocutory order by the trial court denying the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), *see 665*A.2d 1005, 1008-11 (Me.1995), but later mandated entry of summary judgment after the defendant’s second appeal, based in part on a determination that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *See*1999 ME 74, ¶ 10, 728 A.2d 1261, 1266.
# Official Journal C 429/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 429 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6220 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 429

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6220 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 429/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 429/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 429/02 | State aid — Spain — State aid SA.50707 (2018/FC) — Air Nostrum fleet renewal — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 429/02

State aid — Spain — State aid SA.50707 (2018/FC) — Air Nostrum fleet renewal — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1498 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional reporting with respect to contributions to members of the Joint 

Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2011 

Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

provide for additional reporting with respect to contributions to members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CAMPAIGN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR 

4 MEMBERS OF THE JOINT SELECT COM5 MITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION. 

6 Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election Campaign 

7 Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1498 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) 

2 through (E) as subparagraphs (C) through (F), re3 spectively, and 

4 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol5 lowing new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF

7 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT

8 REDUCTION.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Each applicable 

10 committee of a member of the Joint Select 

11 Committee on Deficit Reduction estab12 lished under section 401(b)(1) of the 

13 Budget Control Act of 2011 shall notify 

14 the Secretary or the Commission, and the 

15 Secretary of State, as appropriate, in writ16 ing, of any contribution of $1,000 or more 

17 received by such committee or member 

18 during the period beginning on the date 

19 such member was appointed to such Com20 mittee and ending on January 31, 2012. 

21 ‘‘(ii) TIMING AND CONTENT.—The no22 tification under clause (i) shall be made 

23 within 48 hours after the receipt of such 

24 contribution and shall include the name of 

25 the member or committee to whom the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1498 IS

1 contribution was made, the identification 

2 of the contributor, and the date of receipt 

3 and amount of the contribution. 

4 ‘‘(iii) APPLICABLE COMMITTEE.—For 

5 purposes of this subparagraph, the term 

6 ‘applicable committee’ means— 

7 ‘‘(I) any authorized committee of 

8 a member of the Joint Select Com9 mittee on Deficit Reduction, and 

10 ‘‘(II) any leadership PAC (as de11 fined in subsection (i)(8)(B)) of such 

12 member.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS