alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LAFFERTY v. BEALE.

September 19, 1835.

*Jlfoiion for judgment quod par litio*fiat.

Where a defendant lias appeared to a summons in partition, the pbiinliff having filed no declaration; the court, will not render judgment *quod pvrtitío full.*

The plaintiff must file a declaration, and the defendant has a rii>ht, by pleading, to raise an issue in law or in fact, for the determination of the court or of a jury, according to the nature of the issue.

THIS was a summons in partition. The writ was duly served, and so returned. The defendant appeared. The plaintiff bad not filed a declaration.

*F. W. Hubbell,*for plaintiff,

moved for a judgment *quod partitio fiat,*under the act of the 7th of April 1807, sect. 1, which provides, that, *“upon appearance of the parties,*or on default being made, *the court shall proceed to examine the plaintiff’s title*and quantity of his part or purpart, and accordingly as they shall find his right or purpart tobe, they *shall give judgment,”*&c. He contended that this clause vested in the court the power to proceed as is done in chancery.

*J. H. Campbell, contra.*

Per Curiam.

The act has been construed differently. It is in amendment of the common law practice on writs of partition. That practice remains, except so far as it has been altered by acts of assembly. The second section provides, that upon application by a defendant, against whom judgment by default shall have been given, and cause shown within one year after finding judgment, the court may suspend or set aside their judgment, and admit *the party to appear and plead,*and the cause shall proceed *in due course of law,*that is, upon the plea, according to the course of the action at common law. Here the defendant has appeared, and insists upon his right to proceed in that way. There is quite as much reason that he should be allowed this course before default, as after default. The plaintiff insists upon a literal construction of the act. But even in that view, *52the words of the act are satisfied when the court proceeds to examine the title upon a declaration and plea filed, and an issue in fact or in law taken. The plaintiff’s construction might deprive the defendant of a trial by jury.

Motion dismissed.
# C_2013156EN.01002501.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/25

---

Action brought on 11 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-178/13)

2013/C 156/40

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities in respect of self-employed drivers or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3 to 7 and 11 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities in respect of self-employed drivers or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 3 to 7 and 11 of that directive;

| — | order Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 23 March 2009.

---
No. 96-5775.

#### Carmen et ux. *v.*Mayo Foundation et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 48259.

#### Protests 10681-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391) the protests claiming that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, and or grooving, were .sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9886)

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1027711.

(Decided December 29, 1960)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Ddub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *553IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that this appeal is limited to the tennis rackets, Item 884, as listed in the invoice covered by this appeal; that at the date of exportation of the merchandise involved, namely, tennis rackets, Item 884, manufactured in and exported from Japan to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised invoice unit value plus the pro-rated portion of inland freight, storage, lighterage and haulage, insurance premium and petties as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise at the date of exportation thereof as defined in Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of Í930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised invoice unit value, plus the prorated portion of inland freight, storage, lighterage and haulage, insurance premium, and petties, as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 22, 2020

No. 04-19-00226-CR

Jose Trinidad GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR0458

Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is set for oral argument submission on Tuesday, May 19, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.,

before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, and 

Justice Liza A. Rodriguez. In accordance with the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency orders in 

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the oral argument will be held through the Fourth Court of 

Appeals’ Zoom license. Counsel are instructed not to appear at the court’s physical address.

Counsel will receive a separate e-mail that will contain a link for the oral argument. 

Counsel are admonished as follows:

1. The link to Zoom is only for lead counsel of record and is not to be shared with any 

other person. Lead counsel will need a computer or other electronic device with a camera, a 

microphone, and access to the Internet. If lead counsel intends to present any exhibits during 

oral argument, any such exhibits must be electronically filed by noon on the day before 

argument.

2. The argument will be live streamed to the Court’s YouTube channel for the benefit of 

co-counsel, clients, and the public. The argument can be accessed using the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiaWJQ7eW5OQIALdyLN6s3A
3. Lead counsel are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Zoom platform. The 

clerk of the court will contact lead counsel no later than the week before argument to verify 

connectivity and equipment.

 4. Lead counsel must wear court-appropriate attire and choose an appropriate 

background.

The time for oral argument will be limited to twenty minutes for appellant’s opening 

argument, twenty minutes for appellee’s argument, and ten minutes for appellant’s rebuttal

argument. If any participant’s link is disconnected during argument, timing of the argument will 

stop until the participant is able to reconnect.

If either party no longer wishes to present argument, the party must notify this court in 

writing within seven days of receiving this notice.

Entered on this 22nd day of April, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN H. FLEMINGS, III, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

8 USCMA 729, 25 CMR 233

No. 10,888

Decided February 21, 1958

*Commander David Bolton,*USN, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Craig McKee,*USN, and *Commander Louis L. Milano,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

A Marine Corps special court-martial found the accused guilty of several offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The accused had entered a plea of guilty as to some offenses and not guilty as to others. The staff legal officer, in his post-trial review of the record, summarized the evidence presented at trial as to those offenses to which the accused had pleaded not guilty. The reviewer, however, failed to express an opinion as to the factual and legal sufficiency of the evidence. This was error. A post-trial review must do more than summarize; it must also advise. United States v Withrow, 8 USCMA 728, 25 CMR 232, paragraph *85b,*Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951.

The error in the review, however, *730relates only to those offenses to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, we may dispose of the case by returning the record to the board of review which may, in its discretion, set aside the findings of guilt of specification 2, Charge I, and Charge III and the specification thereunder, and reassess an appropriate sentence on the basis of the remaining approved findings of guilt or may order further proceedings pursuant to Articles 61 and 64 of the Code, supra. Cf. United States v Katzenberger, 8 USCMA 497, 24 CMR 307. It is so ordered.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
   2
    
    To the best of 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
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report.
 4
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer, Stephen A. Heit, 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
relation to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial
reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to
be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer, Stephen A. Heit, and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the Registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report 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: February 27, 2009
    /s/ DAVID EDELLDavid EdellChief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 10.1

NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JULY 25, 2002



---



E X T R A C T

Committee Matters

* * * * *

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the NNC Board of Directors

RESOLVED, That, effective immediately, the Chairman of the Audit Committee
of the NNC Board of Directors shall be paid, in addition to the members
retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of US$17,500 per annum, except that an
additional retainer fee of US$8,750 per annum shall be paid to the Chairman of
the NNC Audit Committee if he or she is also Chairman of the Audit Committee of
the Nortel Networks Limited (NNL) Board of Directors; and

RESOLVED, That the resolutions with respect to remuneration adopted by the
NNC Board of Directors on January 24, 2002 are hereby supplemented and amended
by the foregoing resolution, with the effect that any Chairman of a NNC Board
Committee, other than the Chairman of the NNC Audit Committee, who is not a
salaried employee of NNC or any of its subsidiaries, shall continue to be paid,
in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of US$7,500
per annum, except that an additional retainer fee of US$3,750 per annum shall
continue to be paid to the Chairman of any NNC Board Committee, other than the
NNC Audit Committee, who is also Chairman of an identical committee of the NNL
Board of Directors.

* * * * *

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the NNL Board of Directors

RESOLVED, That, effective immediately, the Chairman of the Audit Committee
of the NNL Board of Directors shall be paid, in addition to the members
retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of US$17,500 per annum, except that an
additional retainer fee of US$8,750 per annum shall be paid to the Chairman of





---



##### 



the Audit Committee if he or she is also Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) Board of Directors; and

RESOLVED, That the resolutions with respect to remuneration adopted by the
NNL Board of Directors on January 24, 2002 are hereby supplemented and amended
by the foregoing resolution, with the effect that any Chairman of a NNL Board
Committee, other than the Chairman of the NNL Audit Committee, who is not a
salaried employee of NNC, NNL or any of its subsidiaries, shall continue to be
paid, in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of
US$7,500 per annum, except that an additional retainer fee of US$3,750 per
annum shall continue to be paid to the Chairman of any NNL Board Committee,
other than the NNL Audit Committee, who is also Chairman of an identical
committee of the NNC Board of Directors.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5130

STANLEY C. SPERLING and RUTH A. SPERLING,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 02-CV-1523, Judge Lawrence

J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April

21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

APR 17 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s20

Jan Horbaly

Clerk uAttitalhrt

APR 17 2009

IAN HORBALY

CUM
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-646-000]

NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 23, 1997.
    Take Notice that on July 17, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. 
CP97-646-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211) for authorization to construct and operate a tap in Arkansas 
under NGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-348-000 and 
CP82-384-001 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    NGT proposes to install and operate a 1-inch tap and a first cut 
regulator on its Line JM-19 in Lee County, Arkansas. The total 
estimated volumes to be delivered to these facilities are 2,600 MMBtu 
annually and 16 MMBtu on a peak day. The estimated total cost of the 
project is $2,743.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19869 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Victor Industries, Inc., an Idaho
      corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
      2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Lana Pope, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/
      Lana Pope


Lana
      Pope


President


Chief
      Executive Officer





July
      21,
      2005
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE



UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Amendment to the Annual Report of Global-Tech Appliance Inc. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John C.K. Sham, President and 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:



(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 C. K. ShamJohn C. K. ShamPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: December 10, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40537-40538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19854]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Name of SEP: Pivotal Clinical Trials for Chemoprevention Agent 
Development.
    Date: August 18-19, 1997.
    Time: August 18--7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; August 19--8:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md 
20852.
    Contact Person: Ray Bramhall, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 636, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7410, Bethesda, Md 
20892-7410, Telephone: 301/496-3428.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review grant applications.

    Name of SEP: Chemoprevention in Genetically-Identified High-Risk 
Groups: Interactive Research and Development Project.
    Date: August 25-26, 1997.
    Time: August 25--8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; August 26--8:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, 1 Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, Md 20814.
    Contact Person: Ray Bramhall, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 636, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7410, Bethesda, Md 
20892-7410, Telephone: 301/496-3428.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review grant applications.
    These meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commerical property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395,

[[Page 40538]]

Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, 
Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, 
Cancer Control)

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-19854 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M