alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 30 November 2005         

amending Decision 2005/734/EC laying down biosecurity measures to reduce the risk of transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by Influenza virus A subtype H5N1 from birds living in the wild to poultry and other captive birds and providing for an early detection system in areas at particular risk

(notified under document number C(2005) 4687)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/855/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), and in particular Article 10(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2005/734/EC is amended as follows:

Article 2

Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision and publish those measures. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29. Directive as last amended by Directive 2002/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 315, 19.11.2002, p. 14).

(2)OJ L 274, 20.10.2005, p. 95.

(3)OJ L 274, 20.10.2005, p. 105. Decision as amended by Decision 2005/745/EC (OJ L 279, 22.10.2005, p. 79).

----

ANNEX

In Annex I to Decision 2005/734/EC, the first indent of Part I is replaced by the following:

----
#### Willie Gene SWEET, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 29, 1971.

Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, and Paul L. Martz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s conviction of the crime of robbery and ten year sentence therefor, pursuant to a guilty plea voluntarily made by appellant, is affirmed, there being no demonstration of error in the record before us.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE *v.*ASBURY.

1. Criminal Law — Homicide—Self-Defense—Trial—Instruction —Burden of Proof.

In prosecution for murder, where defense is self-defense, burden is on people to convince jury beyond reasonable doubt that killing was not done in self-defense.

2. Same.

In prosecution for murder, instruction that, in order for defendant to avail himself of defense that he used weapon in defense of his lifej he must satisfy jury that defense was necessary to protect his own life, *held,*reversible error.

3. Same — Curing Error.

Nor was said error excused by other language of charge, where usual instruction on burden of proof was omitted.

On applicability of rule of reasonable doubt to self-defense in homicide, see annotation in 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 483, 492; 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1166.

Appeal from Otsego; Smith (Guy E.), J.

Submitted January 15, 1932.

(Docket No. 198, Calendar No. 35,900.)

Decided March 2, 1932.

Harlan Asbury was convicted of second degree murder.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

*298
      *Prentiss M. Brown,*for appellant.

*Paul W. Voorhies,*Attorney General, *Joseph A. Gillis*and *Edward A. Bilitshe,*Assistants 'Attorney General, and *Elmer G. Smith,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Clark, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and has appealed. He, admitting the killing, adduced evidence tending to show that it was done in self-defense. On this issue the direct evidence is in sharp conflict, and there is conflict, too, in circumstantial evidence.

In submitting the issue to the jury, the trial judge instructed:

> “Before a person can avail himself of the defense that he used a weapon in the defense of his life, he must satisfy the jury that defense was necessary to protect his own life, or to protect himself from such serious bodily harm as would give him reasonable apprehension that his life was in immediate danger. ’ ’

This is reversible error. This unfortunate instruction was given as requested by the assistant attorney general and the prosecuting attorney appearing in this' trial for the State. It was taken *verbatim*from *People*v. *Piper,*112 Mich. 644, where the instruction was held more favorable to defendant than he was entitled to, for the reason, as stated in the syllabus, that thé law of self-defense was not applicable to the case.

Under settled law of this State, the burden was upon the people to show such facts and circumstances as convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not done in self-defense. *People*v. *Coughlin,*65 Mich. 704. The burden was *299not upon defendant to satisfy the jury that he killed in self-defense. *People*v. *Cathey,*220 Mich. 628; *People*v. *Lintz,*251 Mich. 367. And the error cannot be excused by other language of the charge, as there was further unfortunate omission of usual instruction on burden of proof. *People*v. *Statkiewicz,*247 Mich. 260.

Reversed. New trial ordered. Defendant remanded to custody of sheriff.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 350

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation in the second session of the One Hundred Third

Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 7, 1994

Mr. MINETA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation in the second

session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Public Works and Transpor3 tation (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the

4 ‘‘Committee’’), including expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

•HRES 350 IH

1 (2) provision of assistance for members of pro2 fessional staff in obtaining specialized training under

3 section 202(j) of such Act;

4 there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

5 not more than $3,170,666.

6 (b) Not more than $50,000 of the amount specified

7 in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services re8 ferred to in paragraph (1) of such subsection and not more

9 than $30,000 of such amount may be used for specialized

10 training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.

11 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

12 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

13 Chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit14 tee on House Administration.

15 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu16 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

17 period beginning at noon on January 3, 1994, and ending

18 immediately before noon on January 3, 1995.

19 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

20 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre21 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
# C_2020201EN.01003001.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/30

---

Action brought on 23 March 2020 — JB v Cedefop

(Case T-159/20)

(2020/C 201/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: JB (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (‘CEDEFOP’)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul CEDEFOP’s implied rejection decision of 19 January 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul CEDEFOP’s implied rejection decision of 19 January 2020;

| — | order CEDEFOP to pay to the applicant the total sum of EUR 442 276,78. |
| --- | --- |

—

order CEDEFOP to pay to the applicant the total sum of EUR 442 276,78.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration by reason of the examination of the applicant's claim for compensation by an official of CEDEFOP with the status of an incriminating witness; infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration by reason of the examination of the applicant's claim for compensation by an official of CEDEFOP with the status of an incriminating witness; infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence in the context of the examination of the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, as confirmed by the implied decision rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence in the context of the examination of the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, as confirmed by the implied decision rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant downgraded the applicant professionally and decided not to promote her, in breach of the Staff Regulations and the principle of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant downgraded the applicant professionally and decided not to promote her, in breach of the Staff Regulations and the principle of impartiality.

---
EXHIBIT 22.1





SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT





Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of IncorporationSmartForce USA

DelawarePersonal Training Systems, Inc.

CaliforniaFidalco Limited

IrelandSmartForce (Ireland) Limited

IrelandSmartForce (UK) Limited

EnglandSmartForce Africa (Proprietary) Limited

South AfricaCBT Finance Limited

Grand CaymanCBT (Technology) Limited

IrelandSmartForce Canada Limited

CanadaSmartForce Deutscheland GmbH

GermanySmartForce Australia Pty Limited

AustraliaSmartForce Benelux, B.V.

The NetherlandsSmartForce Mentoring Group Limited.

CanadaSmartForce Middle East Limited

BahamasSmartForce Business Skills Limited

IrelandSmartForce Business Skills Inc.

DelawareSmartCertify Direct, Inc

FloridaIcGlobal

CanadaSkillScape Solutions, Inc.

Canada
# C_2020390EN.01004901.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/49

---

Action brought on 3 October 2020 — Mood Media Netherlands v EUIPO — Tailoradio (MOOD MEDIA)

(Case T-615/20)

(2020/C 390/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Mood Media Netherlands BV (Naarden, Netherlands) (represented by: A-M. Pecoraro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tailoradio Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MOOD MEDIA — European Union trade mark No 5 927 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2020 in Case R 1767/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked the contested mark for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked the contested mark for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;

| — | dismiss the application for revocation; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the application for revocation;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay all of the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Albert T. LENZ, Appellant, v. CHARLES A. LENZ INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-618.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Mar. 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE *vs.*PETER FRAME and DAVID FRAME, negroes.

Property in several; larceny of, how laid.

Indictment, larceny of forty bushels of Indian corn in the ear; the goods and chattels of David Burton and Burton Hall.

The proof was, that the corn taken belonged to Burton Hall and David Burton, tenants, and to Henry C. Waples, landlord, being part of a crop raised on shares and undivided.

*570
      *Mr. Cullen*

objected that the property should have been laid in Waples also. He cited, 3 *Johns. Rep.*215, 220; 8 *Ibid*151; 8 *Cow.*220; *Archb. Pl.*30.

*The Court*

being of this opinion, the defendants were acquitted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00342

- CV

Alma L. GOMEZ and Alberto F. Gomez, Individually and as Next Friend of Jorge Elias Gomez, a Deceased Minor, and on behalf of the Estate of Jorge Elias Gomez, a Deceased Minor; and Yolanda Medellin, Individually and as Next Friend of Jesus Medellin, Appellants

v.

AMER ICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. , INC.

, Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 02

- 26254

- MCV Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In acco rdance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order Granting American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion for No

- Evidence Summary Judgment and Motion to

Sever is AFFIRMED.

Costs of appeal are assessed against appellants.

SIGNED July 26, 2017.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Rosa Serrano , Appellant,

v. Pellicano Business Park LLC ,

Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 290

- C V

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2012

- DCV06341 )

ORDER Appellant, Rosa Serrano, has filed a “Motion to Join and Motion Extend Time” asking the Court to consolidate this appeal with cause number 08

- 16

- 00291

- CV. She also requests a ninety

- day extension of time to file her brief. In the motion, Serrano states t hat “jurisdiction of this proceeding has been removed under 28 U.S.C. 1446....” According to Serrano , she removed the underlying case to federal court on June 16, 2016 , but she has not provided the Court with a copy of the notice of removal

. The clerk of t he trial court recently provided the Court with a copy of Serrano’s notice of removal filed in federal cause number EP

- 16

- 0203

- DB . A copy of the notice of removal was filed in the office of the El Paso County District Clerk on July 22,
2016 in cause numbe r 2012DCV06341. The Court has obtained a copy of an order entered by the federal court reciting that the court dismissed cause number EP

- 16

- 0203

- DB on August 31 , 2016 . The case is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit (cause number 16

- 51335).
Even tho ugh we question whether jurisdiction of this appeal has been removed to federal
court, we will abate the appeal out of an abundance of caution. All appellate deadlines are
1stayed. No action will be taken on any pending motions, including Serrano’s “Motio n to Join

and Motion Extend Time

. ” The parties are directed to keep the Court informed regarding the
status of cause numbers EP

- 16

- CV

- 0203

- DB and 16

- 51335. Further, Serrano is ordered to provi de the Court with a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s order, judgmen t, or opinion disposing of
cause number 16

- 51335.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of Decem ber, 2016

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Hughes, J., not participating)

2
#### WILLIAM JOHNSON *vs.*SAMUEL TEMPLE, jr.

A ca. sa., cannot issue against a white inhabitant of this State without the evidence of his inability to pay, required by the act of 1785; and *also*the affidavit of fraud required by the act of 1841.

Ca. sa., on a judgment rendered against the defendant. The plaintiff made oath as required by the act of 1841, (9th vol. 423,) and the defendant was committed to prison.

*Mr. Wales,*

at the next term, moved to quash the writ of ca. sa., on the ground that no previous execution process had issued against the goods, and no return of nulla bona had been made. *(Dig.*215.)

*By the*Court.

—The act of 1785 *(Dig.*215,) reciting that “ per*447sonal liberty is one of the greatest privileges that freemen enjoy, and ought not to be violated in any case whatsoever, unless where substantial justice absolutely requires it,” provides, that the writ of ca. sa., shall not be issued on any judgment against any defendant, “ being an inhabitant of this State,” until it shall have been ascertained by the return to a writ of fieri facias, or by the oath of the plaintiff in such judgment, that the defendant has not sufficient personal or real property to satisfy such judgment.

*Bayard*and *Rogers,*for plaintiff.

*Wales,*for defendant.

The act of 1841 provides, that no writ of ca. sa., shall be issued upon a judgment against any free white citizen of this State until the plaintiff, or some credible person for him, shall swear or affirm that the defendant is justly indebted to him in a sum exceeding $50, and that he verily believes the defendant has secreted, conveyed away, assigned, settled or disposed of, either money, goods, chattels, stocks, securities, &c., of more than $50 value, with intent to defraud his creditors.

These acts are consistent with each other. The latter carries out the object of the former, and extends it. There is no inconsistency between them; and no reason why the last act should be taken as a . substitute for the first, or in any way to repeal it. The legislature of 1841 intended to prevent imprisonment for debt, not only where the defendant *has*sufficient real or personal property to pay the debt, but also where he has *not*sufficient property unless he has been guilty of fraud in disposing of his property. And, therefore, leaving the act of 1785 in full force, they provided additionally, that the writ of ca. sa., should not be issued without an affidavit charging the defendant with fraud. The writ, therefore, in this case, having been issued without having previously ascertained the defendant’s inability to pay the debt, in the manner directed by the act of 1785, cannot be sustained against an inhabitant of this State.

A question remained, whether it appeared that the defendant was “ an inhabitant of this State;” and, upon that question, the case finally turned.
<PAGE>

                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS

 2.1  Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 31, 2001, among Santa Fe
      International Corporation, Silver Sub, Inc., Gold Merger Sub, Inc. and
      Global Marine Inc. (Incorporated herein by this reference to Exhibit 10.1
      of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 4, 2001.)

 2.2  Shareholder Agreement dated as of August 31, 2001, between Global Marine
      Inc. and SFIC Holdings (Cayman), Inc. (Incorporated herein by this
      reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K
      dated September 4, 2001.)

10.1  Global Marine Personal Financial Planning Assistance Program for
      Senior Executive Officers, adopted August 16, 2001.

10.2  Global Marine Personal Financial Planning Assistance Program for Key
      Employees, adopted August 16, 2001.

10.3  Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of August 16, 2001,
      among the Company, Global Marine Corporate Services Inc. and Robert E.
      Rose; and First Amendment thereto dated August 31, 2001.

10.4  Form of Severance Agreement dated August 16, 2001, between the Company
      and six executive officers, respectively.

10.5  Global Marine Severance Program for Shorebased Staff Personnel, as amended
      and restated effective August 16, 2001.

10.6  Resolution of the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of
      Directors dated August 16, 2001, regarding Modification of Performance
      Stock Awards.

10.7  Resolution of the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of
      Directors dated August 16, 2001, regarding Grant of Restricted Stock.

10.8  Resolution of the Company's Board of Directors dated August 31, 2001,
      regarding Director Compensation.

15.1  Letter of Independent Accountants regarding Awareness of Incorporation
      by Reference.
#### Portia BRADFORD v. John DOE and New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

No. 61947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 2, 1978.

In re: New Orleans Public Service, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 613.

Denied.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 396

Concerning the exercise of the powers and duties of the chairman of the

Committee on Appropriations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 1994

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Concerning the exercise of the powers and duties of the

chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

1 Resolved, That the powers and duties conferred upon

2 the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations by the

3 rules of the House shall be exercised by Representative

4 Obey of Wisconsin, as acting chairman, until otherwise or5 dered by the House.

Æ
H. Res. 267

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 4, 1993.

Resolved, That Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware be, and is hereby, elected to the Committee on Education and Labor.

Attest:

Clerk.