alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 20, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KRIS HALL AND HOLLY J. JONES, LARRY BISHOP AND CYNTHIA 

BISHOP, GEORGE CLARK AND DEBORAH CLARK, GARY MCGREGOR 

AND TERI MCGREGOR, SOLEDAD PINEDA AND CAROL SEVERANCE, 

Appellants

NO. 14-12-00323-CV V.

JACKIE BEAN, DAN KELLOGG, KAY LEIPZIG, JANICE LUTHY, BOB 

MCDONALD, BRUCE REINHART AND KAREN VOLK, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Jackie Bean, 

Dan Kellogg, Kay Leipzig, Janice Luthy, Bob McDonald, Bruce Reinhart and 

Karen Volk, signed February 28, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order 

the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Jackie Bean, Dan Kellogg, Kay Leipzig, Janice Luthy, Bob McDonald, 

Bruce Reinhart and Karen Volk.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2014102EN.01003004.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-321/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/48

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Winston Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd.
      (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
      2008, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




August
                14, 2008
            /s/
                Winston JohnsonWinston
                Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer)
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Gurbachan Pal SONI, M.D. and Lakhuvinder K. Soni, M.D., his wife, Respondents.

No. 98-3223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

James K. Clark of James K. Clark & Associates, Miami, for petitioner.

No response required for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher,*705 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), *rev. granted,*719 So.2d 286 (Fla.1998). As we did in *Boecher,*we certify conflict with *Carrera v. Casas,*695 So.2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

DELL and GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00053-CR

DAVID LEE FAIRCHILD APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury found Appellant David Lee Fairchild guilty of fraudulent use or 

possession of identifying information with ten or more items of identifying 

information and assessed his punishment at thirty-five years’ confinement. The 

trial court sentenced him accordingly. In a single issue, Fairchild argues that 

Texas Penal Code section 32.51(b-1)(1) is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary 

and irrational in its application and wrongly shifts the burden of proof to the 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

defendant in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b-1)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Because 

Fairchild did not preserve his complaint for appeal, we will affirm.

To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the 

trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds 

for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, 

objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Layton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 

235, 238–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Further, the trial court must have ruled on 

the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining 

party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule. Tex. R. App. P. 

33.1(a)(2); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A 

reviewing court should not address the merits of an issue that has not been 

preserved for appeal. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2009).

Generally, constitutional errors are forfeited by failure to object at trial. 

Curry v. State, 910 S.W.2d 490, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see Mendez, 138 

S.W.3d at 342. Neither an “as applied” challenge nor a facial challenge to the 

constitutionality of a statute can be raised for the first time on appeal. Karenev v. 

State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding a defendant may not 

raise for the first time on appeal a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a 

statute); Curry, 910 S.W.2d at 496 (holding appellant waived his vague-asapplied challenge because he did not specifically object at trial).
3

Here, because Fairfield did not raise an as applied or a facial challenge to 

the constitutionality of penal code section 32.51(b-1)(1) in the trial court, he has 

not preserved this issue for our review. See Karenev, 281 S.W.3d at 434; Curry, 

910 S.W.2d at 496. Accordingly, we overrule Fairchild’s sole issue and affirm the 

trial court’s judgment.

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 24, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19789]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items From Jackson 
County, KS in the Possession of the Kansas State Historical Society, 
Topeka, KS

AGENCY: National Park Service.

ACTION: Notice..

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

    Notice is hereby given under the Native American Graves Protection 
and Repatriation Act, 43 CFR 10.10 (a)(3), of the intent to repatriate 
cultural items in the possession of the Kansas State Historical Society 
which meet the definition of ``unassociated funerary objects'' under 
Section 2 of the Act.
    The fourteen cultural items include silver conchos, silver 
pendents, a conch shell, two bead necklaces, a cowrie shell necklace, a 
powder horn, two pieces of beaded cloth, two leather tobacco pouches, 
and a distinctively shaped piece of limestone.
    In 1969, these items were donated to the Kansas State Historical 
Society by T.W. McDonald of Carbondale, KS. Information provided by the 
donor states the items were removed ``from graves approximately three 
miles southwest of Mayetta, Kans.'' The cultural items most likely date 
from the 1850s through the 1860s. The land that is three miles 
southwest of Mayetta, KS is within the Prairie Band Potawatomi 
Reservation which has been exclusively occupied by the Potawatomi since 
1848.
    Officials of the Kansas State Historical Society have determined 
that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), these fourteen cultural items 
are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual 
human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite 
or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to 
have been removed from a specific burial site of an Native American 
individual. Officials of the Kansas State Historical Society have also 
determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a 
relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced 
between these items and the Citizen Band of Potawatomi and the Prairie 
Band of Potawatomi Indians.
    This notice has been sent to officials of the Citizen Band of 
Potawatomi and the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians. Representatives 
of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally 
affiliated with these objects should contact Randy Thies, Archeologist, 
Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW Sixth, Topeka, KS 66606-1099; 
telephone (913) 272-8681 ext. 267 before August 27, 1997. Repatriation 
of these objects to the Citizen Band of Potawatomi and the Prairie Band 
of Potawatomi Indians may begin after that date if no additional 
claimants come forward.
Dated: July 21, 1997.
Francis P. McManamon,
Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
Manager, Archeology and Ethnography Program.
[FR Doc. 97-19789 Filed 7-25-97 ; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-F
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 Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
the period  ending  March 31,  2005 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof,  I, Jingan Wang,  Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report  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:  July 27, 2005


/S/ Jingan Wang
    -------------------
Jingan Wang
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10075]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that orientation and 
planning meetings of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the 
Commission will convene at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 
the Urban League of Rhode Island, located at 246 Prairie Ave. in 
Providence Rhode Island. The purpose of these meetings is to provide an 
orientation to new members and plan future activities of the committee. 
After the meeting, the committee will hear from presenters who will 
discuss fair housing issues in Rhode Island.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by June 13, 2008. The 
address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th St., NW., Washington, DC 
20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire 
additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 
202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9989e8b9c9c979cb98c8a9a9a8bd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1475736671717a715461677777663a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meetings.
    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of 
this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the 
above e-mail or street address.
    The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, May 2, 2008.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
 [FR Doc. E8-10075 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


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

----

| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  June 13, 2011 |   | /s/ Jamie L. Mancl            |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                            |   | Jamie L. Mancl                |
|                            |   | President                     |
|                            |   | (principal executive officer) |

----

----
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 13
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 13
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 13
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 13
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 13
Home | About GAO | Contact GAO | Site Map | E-mail Updates | Help

Advanced SearchSearch Only Legal Decisions

# 

        - Reports & Testimonies
        - Legal Decisions
        - Comptroller General
        - Topic Collections
        - Careers
        - FraudNet/Reporting Fraud
        - Multimedia

# Telecommunications: Surveys of Consumers and of State Utility Commissions about Wireless Phone Service (GAO-10-35SP, November 2009), an E-supplement to GAO-10-34
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6247

MAURICE B. STEWART, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. JOUBERT; DR. COLIN OTTEY; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES 

INC.; WARDEN PHILLIP MORGAN; ASSISTANT WARDEN HARRY MURPHY; 

CHIEF OF SECURITY MICHAEL P. THOMAS; DR. GETACHEW; NURSE 

MANAGER JEANETTE SIMMONS; ASSISTANT WARDEN RICHARD J. 

GRAHAM, JR.,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

WARDEN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-00427-JFM)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 22, 2012

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Maurice B. Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton 

Andrews, Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, 

Maryland; Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney 

General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Maurice B. Stewart, Jr. appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See Stewart v. Joubert, No. 1:11-cv-00427-JFM (D. Md. 

Jan. 31, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Before the First Division,

April 20, 1942

No. 47097.

#### Protest 76660-K of Thermal Syndicate, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

l At the trial it was agreed between counsel that the merchandise consists of globes for ordinary commercial illuminating purposes, that they are composed of fused silica and earthy or mineral substances, and that they are not decorated. In accordance with this agreement and in view of G. A. 7040 (T. D. 30708) the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 214 was sustained.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID ANTHONY VASQUEZ-MALAVE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-2325

August 21, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Samantha L. 

Ward, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Daniel Wehking, Special

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Clara V. Murga, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### United States *v.*N. Polkinhorn

No. 6184.

Pro forma invoice dated December 12,1942.

Entered at Calexico, Calif., December 12,1942.

Entry No. 709-A.

(Decided June 26, 1945)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Harper & Harper (Lawrence A. Harper*of counsel) for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon an oral stipulation entered into by and between counsel for the parties hereto, agreeing, in substance, that the proper value for the merchandise under consideration should be $32.75 per ‘ton.

Accordingly, I hold the proper value for the involved merchandise to be $32.75 per ton.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 49528.

#### Protest 105056-K of General Foods Corporation (New York).

Opinion by

Keeee, J.

An examination of the papers disclosed that the entry was reliquidated on March 23, 1942 and the protest filed May 22, 1943. In view of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the court dismissed the protest.
J. 

(0) 1947A 

not warranted, and we therefore deny the petition. NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 

107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. 

It is so ORDERED. 1 

Gibbons 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge 

Zachary B. Coughlin 

David Clifton 

'Having considered the various documents filed by petitioner, we 

conclude that all other requests for relief made in this matter should be 

denied. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40356-40357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19891]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:28 a.m. on 
Tuesday, July 22, 1997, the Board of Directors of the Federal

[[Page 40357]]

Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider certain 
corporate and supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Joseph H. Neely (Appointive), seconded by Director Eugene A. Ludwig 
(Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Nicolas P. 
Restinas (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Acting 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., that Corporation business required its 
consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the 
public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the 
public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a 
meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be 
considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), 
(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ``Government in the 
Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and 
(c)(9)(A)(ii)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19891 Filed 7-24-97; 11:04 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
# C_2015228EN.01001102.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/11

---

Order of the General Court of 7 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Adveo Group International (UNITED OFFICE)

(Case T-391/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 228/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and S. Paul, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Adveo Group International, SA, formerly Unipapel Industria, Comercio y Servicios, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2012 (Case R 745/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Adveo Group International, SA.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---