alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McKENZIE *v.*STATE

[No. 143,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided February 4, 1963.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, Prescott, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

*Morris Lee Kaplan,*with whom was *Michael Lee Kaplan*on the brief, for appellant.

*Gerard Wm. Wittstadt, Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, William J. O’Donnell, Stale’s Attorney,*and *Dene L. Lusby, Assistant Stale’s Attorney,*on the brief, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

On this appeal from a conviction on a charge of assault in a case tried before the court sitting without a jury, we see no basis upon which we could hold that the findings of fact of the trial judge were clearly erroneous. The only question before us is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of guilt.1

*514The victim of the assault testified that he had talked with the appellant just before the attack and that as he turned away from the appellant, the latter grabbed him from behind around the neck and held him while two others, who had just crossed the street, attacked him from in front. A police officer testified that when he and another officer arrived on the scene he saw three men struggling with the prosecuting witness, one of whom had his arm around the latter’s neck. The three assailants ran and the officers gave chase. The appellant was arrested in the immediate vicinity of the attack. The only evidence to the contrary was the appellant’s own testimony. Even he admitted having talked with the prosecuting witness, but he denied having assaulted him, and asserted that he was walking, not running, when arrested. His principal contention on the facts is that during the attack the prosecuting witness did not actually see the assailant who was then behind him. We think it clear, however, that the evidence for the State, above set out, if believed, was sufficient to warrant the trial court in concluding that this assailant was the appellant; and the trial judge did believe the State’s testimony and reached the conclusion just stated. The matter of credibility is peculiarly one for determination by the trial court. See Md. Rule 886 a; *Dyson v. State,*226 Md. 18, 20-21, 171 A. 2d 505; *Mason v. State,*225 Md. 74, 75-76, 169 A. 2d 445.

*Judgment affirmed.*

1

. The appellant’s motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of the State’s case, which was granted as to another count *514but denied as to the assault count, was withdrawn when he offered testimony in his own behalf. Md. Rule 755 b; *Forrester v. State,*224 Md. 337, 344, 167 A. 2d 878 (applying the similar, former Md. Rule 741 b). The denial of the motion, strenuously asserted as error in the appellant’s brief, is not properly before us. *Kellum v. State,*223 Md. 80, 84, 162 A. 2d 473. The sufficiency of the evidence as a whole is reviewable under Md. Rule 886 a, even though the motion was not renewed. *Forrester v. State, supra.*
# Official Journal C 119/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 119 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4919 May 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 119

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4919 May 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2006/C 119/1 | Special report No 2/2006 concerning the performance of projects financed under TACIS in the Russian Federation together with the Commission's replies | 1 |
| 2006/C 119/2 | Report by the Court of Auditors on the audit of the operational efficiency of the management of the European Central Bank for the financial year 2004 together with the replies of the European Central Bank | 17 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Auditors

2006/C 119/1

Special report No 2/2006 concerning the performance of projects financed under TACIS in the Russian Federation together with the Commission's replies

1

2006/C 119/2

Report by the Court of Auditors on the audit of the operational efficiency of the management of the European Central Bank for the financial year 2004 together with the replies of the European Central Bank

17

---

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

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           9
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,232,618
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          59,483
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               182,944
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                54,946
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 10,944,317
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,028,881
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,062,445
<LOANS>                                     24,314,765
<ALLOWANCE>                                    472,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,693,953
<DEPOSITS>                                  30,561,639
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,222,870
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            721,565
<LONG-TERM>                                    606,148
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              949
<PREFERRED>                                     94,671
<COMMON>                                       158,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,327,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              40,693,953
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,582,485
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              548,484
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                28,314
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,159,283
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             751,121
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             974,975
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,184,308
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   64,842
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,924
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,154,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                602,113
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     382,521
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   382,521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.44
<LOANS-NON>                                    164,029
<LOANS-PAST>                                    40,858
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,370
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                749,200
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               452,560
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   89,570
<RECOVERIES>                                    42,835
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              472,161
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           472,161
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004127EN.01S00301.xml

| 1.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

NOTICE TO READERS

A special edition of the Official Journal of the European Union containing the texts of the Acts of the institutions and of the European Central Bank adopted before accession will be published in the Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene languages. The volumes of this edition will be issued gradually between 1 May and the end of 2004.

Official Journal of the European Union

Pending publication, the electronic version of the texts is available on EUR-Lex.

The EUR-Lex site is at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/accession.html

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/accession.html

---
# C_2020087EN.01002401.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/24

---

Action brought on 20 January 2020 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)

(Case T-31/20)

(2020/C 87/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: West End Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor and C. Hall, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pernod Ricard SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark The King of SOHO in the colours golden, dark yellow, light yellow and cream — Application for registration No 11 539 103

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2019 in Case R 1543/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 42(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jerry A. Schneider, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ JERRY A. SCHNEIDER
-----------------------------------
Jerry A. Schneider
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
# Official Journal C 125/18 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --------------------------------------- | ----------------------- |
| Official Journal
of the European Union | C 125 |
| European flag | |
| English edition | Information and Notices |

---

| Contents | | page |
| -------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |
| | | |
| | EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2021-2022 SESSION Sitting of 1 March 2022 TEXTS ADOPTED | 1 |

---

| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions | |
| ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - |
| | RESOLUTIONS | |
| | European Parliament | |
| | Tuesday 1 March 2022 | |
| 2022/C 125/01 | European Parliament resolution of 1 March 2022 on the Russian aggression against Ukraine (2022/2564(RSP)) | 2 |

---

| Key to symbols used
*
Consultation procedure ***
Consent procedure ***I
Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading ***II
Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading ***III
Ordinary legislative procedure: third reading (The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the draft act.)
Amendments by Parliament:
New text is highlighted in bold italics. Deletions are indicated using either the ▌symbol or strikeout. Replacements are indicated by highlighting the new text in bold italics and by deleting or striking out the text that has been replaced. | * | Consultation procedure | *** | Consent procedure | ***I | Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading | ***II | Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading | ***III | Ordinary legislative procedure: third reading |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | --- | ----------------- | ---- | --------------------------------------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------------------- | ------ | --------------------------------------------- |
| * | Consultation procedure | | | | | | | | | |
| *** | Consent procedure | | | | | | | | | |
| ***I | Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading | | | | | | | | | |
| ***II | Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading | | | | | | | | | |
| ***III | Ordinary legislative procedure: third reading | | | | | | | | | |

| EN | |
| -- | |
# C_2019213EN.01000101.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 213/01)

Last publication

OJ C 206, 17.6.2019

Past publications

OJ C 187, 3.6.2019

OJ C 182, 27.5.2019

OJ C 172, 20.5.2019

OJ C 164, 13.5.2019

OJ C 155, 6.5.2019

OJ C 148, 29.4.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### Carmine PINTO and C. Pinto of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Juddie DRIGGERS, Appellee.

No. 73-631.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,974,688
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,484,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (100,940)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,989,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,268,013
<PP&E>                                      71,331,156
<DEPRECIATION>                             (27,310,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,316,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,350,362
<BONDS>                                     75,600,166
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,577,000
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (13,714,707)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                91,316,335
<SALES>                                     10,910,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,730,941
<CGS>                                        3,305,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,060,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                89,609
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,105,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,500,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                   876,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,623,938
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (288,600)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,207,182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   241.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   241.43
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 3.2


                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE
                        AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE
                         OF INCORPORATION OF FOHP, INC.

To:      Department of Treasury, Division of Revenue
         State of New Jersey

         This is to  certify  that  the  Amended  and  Restated  Certificate  of
Incorporation of FOHP, Inc. (herein referred to as the "Corporation"), which was
filed and  recorded in the Office of the  Secretary of State of the State of New
Jersey on April 17, 1997, is hereby  amended  pursuant to Section  14A:9-4(3) of
the New Jersey Business Corporation Act as set forth below:

         1. The name of the Corporation is FOHP, Inc.

         2. The Corporation's  Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
is hereby amended by deleting Article III,  Paragraph A. thereof in its entirety
and replacing it with the following (the "Amendment"):

                                   ARTICLE III
                                  CAPITAL STOCK

         A.  AUTHORIZED  CAPITAL  STOCK.  The total  number of shares of capital
         stock  which the  Corporation  shall  have  authority  to issue is five
         hundred million (500,000,000) shares. Of these shares, four hundred and
         ninety  nine  million  (499,000,000)  shares are  classified  as Common
         Stock,  par value  $.01 per share  ("Common  Stock"),  and one  million
         (1,000,000)  shares are classified as Preferred  Stock, par value $1.00
         per share ("Preferred Stock").

         3.  The  Amendment  was  approved  by the  Board  of  Directors  of the
Corporation and thereafter  duly adopted by the  shareholders of the Corporation
effective as of March 25, 1998.

         4. 100,000,000 issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock, par value
$.01 per share ("Common Stock"), of the Corporation were entitled to vote on the
adoption of the  Amendment,  and 97,913,161  shares  consented in writing to the
adoption  of the  Amendment  pursuant  to Section  14A:5-6(2)  of the New Jersey
Business Corporation Act. No shares of the Corporation's Common Stock were voted
against the  Amendment.  Notice of effective  date of the Amendment was given to
all shareholders of the Corporation as provided in Section 14A:5-6(2) of the New
Jersey Business Corporation Act.

         5. The Amendment shall become  effective  immediately  upon the date of
filing  of this  Certificate  of  Amendment  with the  Department  of  Treasury,
Division of Revenue, State of New Jersey.





<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FOHP, Inc. has caused this Certificate of Amendment
to be executed by a duly authorized officer on this 25th day of September, 1998.



                                           FOHP, Inc.

                                      By:  /s/ Thomas W. Wilfong
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Thomas W. Wilfong
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### THE STATE *vs.*CALEB THOMAS.

Public roads: evidence of dedication.

Kent sessions,

October term, 1845.

The defendant was indicted for obstructing a public road leading from Robinson’s Landing on Taylor’s Gut to Carrollown school-house. The State proved the existence of the road for more than twenty years as a public road, and that the defendant closed it; but opened another road, within a few rods, on better ground than the old one. The old road passed through private woodland uninclosed; and the defendant’s counsel contended that as there was no evidence that this road was ever *laid out as a public road*(though it had been used as such and repaired as such,) *569the State was bound to prove an *adverse*possession and occupation by the public for twenty years, or the defendant, who was the owner of the woodland, could not be convicted of a nuisance in changing the road for a better one, both being on his property. Neither was the fact of working on this road by the overseer conclusive that it was a public road. It should be shown by his order that he was authorized to work on the road where it is now obstructed.

*Gilpin,*attorney general,

replied, that the doctrine of conflicting claims as to lines, and of adverse or of mixed possession, did not apply to any other than questions of private right with which the public had nothing to do. In regard to the public the question is not who has the possession, but whether the public has the right of way, which may exist without any title to the soil. The question then is, whether by order of court, or by dedication, the public has acquired a right of way over the defendant’s land at this place; and the exercise of that right for twenty years without interruption is evidence of such dedication :—

And the

*Court,*

charged, remarking so that in case of roads not laid out by order of court, though the uninterrupted use of the road for twenty years would give a right of way; yet where several roads traverse a common, or uninclosed land, in the same general direction, but in different places, at the pleasure of the passengers, such a mode of use ought not to be satisfactory evidence of a dedication, to take away from the owner of the land the right to inclose it; unless, in respect to some one of the roads, the enjoyment and use can be shown to have been uniform and uninterrupted for at least twenty years.

The defendant was convicted.
#### Porter MATHIS, Jr. v. J. T. HARRISON, Sr.

77-374.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 21, 1978.

Lee B. Williams, Grove Hill, Edward P. Turner, Jr., Chatom, for appellant.

Wyman O. Gilmore, Grove Hill, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.