alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rodolpho JARAMILLO, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF CORAL GABLES, Appellee.

No. 98-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Bradley R. Stark, Miami, for appellants.

Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson and Jonathan Goodman, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. § 932.701(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (1997); *City of Fort Lauderdale v. Baruch,*718 So.2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); *Munoz v. City of Coral Gables,*695 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
No. 43217.

#### Protests 963460-G, etc., of G. A. Westphal Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of animal figures in chief value of fur similar to those involved in Abstracts 30980 and 41823. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 was therefore sustained.
No. 74-5729.

#### Nunnery *v.*Barber, Commissioner, Alcohol Beverage Control Commission.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Third Division,

April 24, 1942

No. 47119.

#### Protests 961836-G, etc., of Silver Swan Liquor Corp. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Burke*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 276, C. D. 253) the liqueur was held dutiable as claimed.
No. 49472.

#### Protest 25782-K/12064 of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. ,1.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the figures in question are in chief valve of lead, not plated, similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(28 C. C. P. A. 196, C. A. D. 145), which record was incorporated herein, the claim that they are dutiable at 3 cents per-pound, but not less than 22)4 nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 397 as amended by the United Kingdom Trade Agreement, was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mack Berry, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 131]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.) rendered September 22, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree, six counts of robbery in the second degree and one count of petit larceny, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting uncharged crimes evidence. The three consolidated indictments emanate from a crime spree in which defendant and a codefendant robbed numerous newsstands. The challenged testimony of the victims as to their previous contact with defendant and the codefendant, including the commission of uncharged petty crimes, was highly probative of defendant’s identity by setting a context from which it could be determined that the victims had ample opportunity to focus their attention on defendant, familiarize themselves with his appearance, and correctly identify him *(see, People v Agostini,*239 AD2d 426, *lv denied*91 NY2d 939). The evidence was also relevant because it tended to establish that defendant and the codefendant were acquaintances, since persons are more likely to commit crimes with acquaintances than strangers *(see, People v Hurd,*160 AD2d 199, *lv denied*76 NY2d 789). Finally, the fact that the codefendant had been defendant’s prior partner in crime was relevant to refute one of the defenses defendant raised at trial *(see, People v Torres,*249 AD2d 19, *lv denied*92 NY2d 907). The court’s limiting instructions prevented any undue prejudice to defendant.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.
# C_2013164EN.01001603.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO)

(Case T-145/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ECO PRO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 164/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2012 (Case R 1418/2011-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign ECO PRO

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
No. 39222.

#### Protest 421170-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of articles in chief value of glass similar to those involved in *Paramount Bead Corp.*v. United *States*(19 C. C. P. A. 385, T. D. 45522). The claim at 55 percent under paragraph 218 was therefore sustained.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 25, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open SystemC Initiative (“OSCI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Maple Design Automation Co., Ltd., Gwacheon, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Texas Instruments Incorporated, Stafford, TX; and Virtutech, Inc., San Jose, CA have been added as parties to this venture.                 

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OSCI intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. 

                    On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350).                 

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 11, 2007. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 28, 2008 (73 FR 4918).                 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations,  Antitrust Division.

 [FR Doc. E8-10146 Filed 5-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 208 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 208

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the 100 percent 
          exclusion for gain on certain small business stock.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2011

 Mr. Kerry (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the 100 percent 
          exclusion for gain on certain small business stock.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON 
              CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 1202(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment 
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``January 
        1, 2013'', and
            (2) by striking ``and 2011'' and inserting ``2011, and 
        2012'' in the heading thereof.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to stock acquired after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2


                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 American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A2 for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-QSB/A2"), I, Andrew P. Calerich, Chief Financial 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 Form 10-QSB/A2 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A2 fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Date:  March 10, 2004
/s/ Andrew P. Calerich
Andrew P. Calerich
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
DRILLING FUND 1983-1 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         174,678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,560
<PP&E>                                       9,240,487
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,817,328 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,634,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,634,719<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,634,719  
<SALES>                                        346,246<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               346,246
<CGS>                                          351,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  351,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.35)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>OTHER - SE IS COMPOSED OF PARTNERSHIP EQUITY.
<F2>THE SALES LINE INCLUDES 8,568 OF NET INTEREST INCOME.
<F3>EPS - PRIMARY IS BASED UPON LIMITED PARTNERS SHARE OF NET INCOME DIVIDED BY THE
OUTSTANDING PARTNERSHIP UNITS OF 11,077.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

923/11 

KA 08-02581 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARNELL NORTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered May 6, 2008. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first

degree. The judgment was affirmed by order of this Court entered

September 30, 2011 (87 AD3d 1310), and defendant on December 16, 2011

was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of

this Court (18 NY3d 861), and the Court of Appeals on May 8, 2012

reversed the order and remitted the case to this Court for

clarification of the basis of this Court’s decision (___ NY3d ___ [May

8, 2012]).

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,

It is hereby ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of 

Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: In a prior appeal (People v Norton, 87 AD3d 1310,

revd ___ NY3d ___ [May 8, 2012]), we summarily affirmed the judgment

convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §

160.15 [2]). Defendant had contended that his sentence was unduly

harsh and severe. In reversing our order, the Court of Appeals

concluded that this Court may not summarily affirm the judgment

“without indicating whether [we] relied on the waiver [of the right to

appeal] or determined that the sentencing claim lacked merit” (Norton,

___ NY3d at ___). The Court remitted the matter to this Court “for

clarification of the basis of [our] decision” (id. at ___).

Upon remittal, we clarify that we previously reviewed the merits

of defendant’s contention, having determined that there was no valid

waiver of the right to appeal, and we concluded that the sentence is

not unduly harsh or severe. Although Supreme Court referred to a

waiver of the right to appeal at the time of the plea, no oral waiver
-2- 923/11 

KA 08-02581 

was elicited from defendant. In addition, neither the written waiver

of the right to appeal in the record nor the court’s brief mention of

that waiver during the plea proceeding distinguished the waiver of the

right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea

of guilty. Consequently, the record failed to “establish that the

defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct

from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty”

(People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256).

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 46435.

#### Protest 53189-K of Penson & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

• At the trial the case was submitted on the official papers. In view of the collector’s amended report stating that his office was now of the opinion that the repairs were made in the United States, the claim for free entry was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Clifford Wildes, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                       /S/ CLIFFORD WILDES
                                       -------------------
Date: February 8, 2005                 Clifford Wildes, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1

The Board of Directors of

NATCO Group Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-71480, 333-111298, 333-117164, 333-138847 and 333-32020) on Form S-8 of NATCO Group Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2007, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of NATCO Group Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2006, and related financial statement schedule, and managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of NATCO Group Inc.

Our report
refers to a change in the method of accounting for asset retirement obligations.



|              
|--------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP  
|              
|Houston, Texas
|March 14, 2007
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/17/2010 01:14 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US                                                                                                                
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                                                             
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Cathy Coats/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                                                              
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |02/17/2010 12:58 PM                                                                                                                       
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Memo for CI RICE NESHAP docket - for economic spreadsheet data                                                                            
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|





Melanie,

Attached for inclusion in the CI RICE docket is 1) a spreadsheet containing 
data used in the economic impact, energy impact, and small entity analyses, 
and 2) a memo to the docket explaining the spreadsheet's contents.  Please let 
me know if you have questions.
Thanks.

(See attached file:
CINESHAP_RIA_final_economicenergyandsmallentitydata.xls)(See attached
file: MemoDocketEIAenergyRFACIRICENESHAP.doc)

Larry Sorrels
Economist
US EPA/OAQPS/HEID/ABCG
C439-02
RTP, NC 27711
(919) 541-5041
fax:  (919) 541-0839