alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Andrew MATAVA, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1094.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1978.

Flynn *&*Rubio, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and James H. Greason, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Charles Andrew Matava, Jr., appeals the judgment of the court finding him guilty of a lewd, lascivious or indecent assault upon a child under fourteen years of age without intent to commit involuntary sexual battery. This offense is set forth in Section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1975).

On this appeal, the defendant presents two points. The first is directed to the denial of a tendered instruction and the second questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury. The burden under each of these points is that it was the duty of the State to prove that the assault was committed “without the intent to commit involuntary sexual battery.” Defendant relies upon *State v. Sumner,*157 Fla. 371, 26 So.2d 336 (1946); and *Bass v. State,*263 So.2d 611 (Fla.4th DCA 1972). Each of these cases construed a prior statute and each held that an information charging the offense must be in the language of the statute and must include the element of absence of intent to commit involuntary sexual battery.

We hold that these cases are not governing and that a defendant may not escape punishment for the offense upon the basis that his mental attitude or intention was actually to commit the higher crime of involuntary sexual battery. The Supreme Court of Florida has given the trial court the initial responsibility in construing the statute in the Standard Jury Instructions. See Instruction 2.07; *In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases,*327 So.2d 6 (Fla.1976); and *In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases,*240 So.2d 472 (Fla.1970). *Cf. Dorminey v. State,*314 So.2d 134 (Fla.1975); and *State v. Bryan,*
      *1117287 So.2d 73 (Fla.1973). The trial court in this instance met the requirement of this responsibility. This instruction does not require the proof of the negative under the crime for which defendant was convicted and, in this cause, the instruction was given. The judgment and sentence are, thereupon, affirmed.

Affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000939915
      0000939916
<NAME> NYNEX CABLECOMMS GROUP PLC
       NYNEX CABLECOMMS GROUP INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> POUNDS STERLING
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.7123
<CASH>                                          15,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,536
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,744
<PP&E>                                       1,213,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,248,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,705
<BONDS>                                        447,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,315
<OTHER-SE>                                     502,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,248,887
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,241
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,845)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,845)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.247)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.247)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2018050EN.01000101.xml

| 9.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2015-2016 SESSION

Sitting of 7 March 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 156, 18.5.2017
  .

The Minutes of this session have been published in

OJ C 156, 18.5.2017

2016-2017 SESSION

Sittings of 8 to 10 March 2016

The Minutes of this session have been published in

  OJ C 156, 18.5.2017
  .

The Minutes of this session have been published in

OJ C 156, 18.5.2017

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 12

                           GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED
               Statement of the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                                   Three Months Ended
                                                          March 31, 2000
                                                       --------------------
<S>                                                    <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income before extraordinary charge                   $               79.0
  Add - Income taxes                                                   43.6
          - Fixed charges                                              21.9
                                                       --------------------

Adjusted earnings                                      $              144.5
                                                       ====================

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                     $               19.8
  Portion of rent expense
      representing interest                                             2.1
                                                       --------------------

Adjusted fixed charges                                 $               21.9
                                                       ====================


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                     6.60
</TABLE>
#### Jack Gray, Respondent, v Nicholas J. Gonzalez, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 776]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered May 30, 2000, in a wrongful death and medical malpractice action involving non-conventional treatment for cancer, inter alia, apportioning culpable conduct 49% against defendant physician and 51% against plaintiff’s decedent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The standard duty of care in a medical malpractice action is the same for all physicians in this State regardless of whether they practice conventional or non-conventional therapies *(see, Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Health,*232 AD2d 886, 888-889, *lv denied*90 NY2d 801). A different standard of care is not implicit in Education Law § 6527 (4) (e), which permits “[t]he physician’s use of whatever medical care, conventional or non-conventional, which effectively treats human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition,” or in a patient’s acceptance of non-conventional therapies, which, by itself, does not constitute an express assumption of risk *(see, id.; cf., Suria v Shiffman,*107 AD2d 309, 313, *mod on other*
      *293
      *grounds*67 NY2d 87). Nor does the record support a finding of an express, as opposed to an implied, assumption of risk, such as might have warranted a jury charge on express assumption of risk *(cf., Arbegast v Board of*Educ., 65 NY2d 161, 169-171). Instead, the jury was correctly instructed to consider whether plaintiffs decedent’s acceptance of and adherence to defendant’s non-conventional therapies was culpable conduct that implicitly assumed the risk entailed thereby, and, if so, the degree to which such conduct contributed to her injuries and death (see, *Charell v Gonzalez,*251 AD2d 72, *lv denied*92 NY2d 816). We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that the trial court’s bias deprived him of a fair trial, and find them to be unavailing or without merit. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.
# Official Journal C 171A/12 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 171A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5912 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 171A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5912 May 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2016/C 171A/1 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/322/16 — Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2016/C 171A/1

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/322/16 — Administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7)

1

---

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

EN
On remand, the district court made the following

determinations:

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good faith or the exercise of due diligence regarding the filing of a substitution of attorney [sic]. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the Court to extend the time period for filing a motion to substitute beyond the 90-day, limit NRCP 25(a)(1) imposes following a suggestion of death, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the nonmoving party would not suffer prejudice by an enlargement of the specified time. Based on these determinations, the district court concluded that excusable neglect had not been established and again dismissed appellant's case for failure to file a motion to substitute within NRCP 25(a)(1)'s time frame.

Appellant contends that the district court did not make any factual findings but instead simply concluded summarily that the four Moseley factors were not satisfied.' We agree. Similar to the first appeal in this case, the district court's order does not articulate a factual basis for its conclusion that appellant had not established excusable neglect. Cf. Jitnan v. Oliver, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 35, 254 P.3d 623, 629 (2011) ("Without an explanation of the reasons or bases for a district court's decision, meaningful appellate review. . . is hampered because we are left to mere speculation."). Accordingly, we

'We have not considered appellant's arguments that were not first raised in district court. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A (41004J. ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 2

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge Richard Harris Law Firm Nikolas L. Mastrangelo Moran Brandon Bendavid Moran Eighth District Court Clerk

2 0n remand, we instruct the district court clerk to reassign this case to a different department.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A e(fe
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 72072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 
131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is 
providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under Article X 
paragraph 3 of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy and the Agreement for 
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United 
States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.

DATES: This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
December 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of 
Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or email: 
Sean.Oehlbert@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This subsequent arrangement concerns the 
retransfer of 1,860 g of U.S.-origin atomized low-enriched uranium-7wt. 
% molybdenum powder, containing 365.638 g in the isotope uranium-235, 
19.658 percent enrichment, from the Korea Atomic Energy Research 
Institute (KAERI) in Daejeon, South Korea, to the Belgian Nuclear 
Research Centre (SCKCEN) in Mol, Belgium. The material, which 
is located at and was prepared by KAERI, will be used for the 
irradiation test of full-size fuel plates in the BR-2 research reactor 
by SCKCEN in cooperation with the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative program. KAERI originally obtained the material from the 
U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Y-12 
National Security Complex pursuant to export license XSNM3613.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement 
concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin 
will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United 
States.

    Dated: November 12, 2013.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anne M. Harrington,
Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2013-28769 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Anthony C. HATTEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42643.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 264 So.2d 16.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### BOULDIN, Jr. *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 49,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided January 30, 1963.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Manley below, the application for leave to appeal is hereby denied.

*Application denied.*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 00000053456
<NAME> JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        2,879,470
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        439,794
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             441,262
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           981,479
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,742,005
<COMMON>                                           153,713
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                          510,769
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                892,230
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,556,712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              216,500    <F1>
<PREFERRED>                                         37,741
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,173,244
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 106,800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       20,011
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           12,500
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                            102
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    86,214
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,532,181
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    4,742,005
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,591,569
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                85,466
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,250,453
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,335,919
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            255,650
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   1,210
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     256,860
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            85,993    <F2>
<NET-INCOME>                                       170,867
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          8,638
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      162,229
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            95,000    <F3>
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           90,506
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             298,705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
<F1> SECURITIES OF $125,000.
<F2> INCLUDES DIVIDENDS ON COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
<F2> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $8,025.
<F3> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00054 - CV IN RE REIDIE JAMES J ACKSON, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### February 2 6 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER , JJ. Relator Reidie James Jackson, appearing pro se, filed a petition asking the c ourt to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable Ana Estevez, judge of the 251st District Court of Potter County , to set for trial a case in which relator is plaintiff . The mandamus record shows relator requested that Judge Estevez rule on his trial setting request . See In re Goodson , No. 07 - 18 - 00114 - CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 3175 (Tex. App. — Amarillo May 4, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting required action relator must show in order to request mandamus compelling trial court ruling and trial court has reasonable time to consider and rule on request ).2

Judge Estevez has filed a written response to relator’s petition stating: “On February 13, 2019, this court set Relator’s case on the jury docket for the week of April 8, 2019. It will continue to be set on the jury dock et until it is reached following other cases that have been preferentially set.” The trial court has provided relator the relief he sought in this mandamus proceeding. His petition is dismissed as moot. Per Curiam
# C_2019187EN.01007601.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/76

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Fomanu v EUIPO — Fujifilm Imaging Germany Reresentation of a butterfly)

(Case T-323/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a butterfly - Genuine use of the mark - Partial revocation - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 187/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by: S. Reichart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fujifilm Imaging Germany GmbH & Co. KG (Willich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2018 (Case R 2241/2016-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Fujifilm Imaging Germany and Fomanu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fomanu AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fomanu AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000040834
<NAME> GENERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           24300
<SECURITIES>                                        90
<RECEIVABLES>                                   378300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     15900
<INVENTORY>                                     242600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                703300
<PP&E>                                          767100
<DEPRECIATION>                                  461300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1549900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           411300
<BONDS>                                         243200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         78400
<OTHER-SE>                                      644000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1549900
<SALES>                                        1045200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1045200
<CGS>                                           733200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   939300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1764
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  97900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     39200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              58700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     58700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Milton MINCEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 23, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Christine WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.