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

(Two Appeals in One Record)

[No. 50,

September Term, 1962.]

*34
      *Decided November 7, 1962.*

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

*Howard J. Needle,*with whom were *Sidney A. Needle*and *Needle, Witten & Needle*on the brief, for the appellant.

*35
      *Melvin S. Silberg,*with whom was *Samuel S. Levin*on the brief, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon a careful reading of the record extract we find that the evidence supports the decree of Judge Byrnes, dated January 10, 1962, dismissing a wife’s bill for permanent alimony which charged cruelty. Cf. *Egress v. Egress,*202 Md. 510. We think, however, that Judge Harris was in error in signing a letter to counsel docketed on April 9, 1962, disallowing the wife’s claim for the payment of costs of appeal and a counsel fee on appeal. The record shows that while the wife was employed and earned a moderate salary, the husband conducted his own business and, in addition to his earnings, had a net worth of some $24,000. We do not find that the appeal was so completely without merit on the facts, or that the wife was so affluent, as to warrant a denial of costs or fee. Cf. *Cohen v. Cohen,*170 Md. 630, 639, *Timanus v. Timanus,*178 Md. 640, 644 and *Smith v. Smith,*196 Md. 219, 221. We may note that costs and a fee of $200.00 were allowed by Judge Byrnes in the trial below. We think a fee of $200.00 on appeal would be adequate under the circumstances. Cf. *Egress v.*Egress, *supra.*

In regard to the appellee’s motion to dismiss the original appeal, which we denied, and his contention that the letter of Judge Harris was not a final order, it is sufficient to note that Judge Byrnes did not treat his Memorandum Opinion as final and actually later signed an order of dismissal and that Judge Harris’ letter was evidently intended to serve the purpose of a final order. He apparently was not requested to, and in any event did not, sign a separate order. Such an order should have been obtained promptly after Judge Harris’ letter was received. However, the insufficiency of Judge Harris’ letter as an order was not raised in the appellee’s motion to dismiss above referred to, and at one point in his brief is conceded to have been a final order, though he also now contends that it was not. In the circumstances we think that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case now for the entry of a *36"formal order and that we should treat the letter as the parties have done, that is, as a final order.

*Decree of January 10, 1962, affirmed; order of April 9,1962, reversed and case remanded for the passage of an order for the allowance of a fee as herein stated, costs to be paid by the appellee.*
May 20, 2020 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

To: Vitaly Potapov 

CEO

RSCom LTD

238 Wellington Street East

Suite 210 

Aurora ON L4G 1J5, Canada 

Re: Official Correspondence from the Federal Communications Commission and 

Federal Trade Commission

Dear Mr. Potapov, 

We have determined that RSCom LTD (RSCom) is apparently routing and transmitting 

Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) scam robocall traffic originating from Voice Are Us, 

Ltd. We request that you cease routing and transmitting such traffic immediately.

On March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency concerning the COVID19 outbreak.1

 Fraudsters and unscrupulous actors have taken advantage of this national health 

crisis to send scam robocalls to consumers across the United States. These unwanted robocalls 

include fraudulent offers of government financial relief and/or refunds. This activity has the 

potential to inflict severe harm on consumers. Our agencies will aggressively pursue legal action 

against unlawful robocallers and, where appropriate, pursue legal action against voice providers 

routing or transmitting such traffic on their networks.2

Investigations conducted by our agencies, in conjunction with the USTelecom Industry 

Traceback Group, revealed that RSCom is a gateway voice provider for apparently fraudulent 

COVID-19 robocalls originating from Voice Are Us, Ltd, based in the United Kingdom. We 

will take all necessary and appropriate action to prevent these robocalls from entering U.S. 

networks. 

 

1 Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) 

Outbreak, The White House (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamationdeclaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. 

2 The Federal Trade Commission recently obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction 

against a VoIP provider, Globex Telecom, for assisting and facilitating illegal robocalls. https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2019/12/court-halts-operations-voip-service-provider-after-ftc-ohio. 
If after 48 hours of issuance of this letter RSCom continues to route or transmit 

harmful robocall traffic from Voice Are Us into the United States, the FCC will authorize 

U.S. voice providers to block all calls from RSCom and take any other steps as needed to 

prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from RSCom, and we will evaluate whether 

further action is appropriate in connection with your activity.

Please direct any inquiries regarding this letter to Kristi Thompson of the FCC at 

kristi.thompson@fcc.gov or 202-418-1318; or to James Evans of the FTC at 

james.evans@ftc.gov or 202-326-2026.

Sincerely,

Rosemary C. Harold

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

Lois C. Greisman

Associate Director, Division of Marketing 

Practices

Federal Trade Commission
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 77 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 77

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require as a 
 condition of participation under the medicare program that hospitals 
       provide parents of newborn children with information and 
              recommendations on childhood immunizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mr. Hoagland introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly 
      to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require as a 
 condition of participation under the medicare program that hospitals 
       provide parents of newborn children with information and 
              recommendations on childhood immunizations.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIRING HOSPITALS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON CHILDHOOD 
              IMMUNIZATIONS AS CONDITION OF PARTICIPATION UNDER 
              MEDICARE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1866(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (N);
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
        (O) and inserting a comma;
            (3) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (P);
            (4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (Q) 
        and inserting ``, and''; and
            (5) by inserting after subparagraph (Q) the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(R) in the case of hospitals and rural primary care 
        hospitals, to provide written information on generally accepted 
        recommendations for childhood immunizations (including a 
        schedule describing the recommended timing and frequency for 
        such immunizations) to the mother of each child born at the 
        hospital at the time the child is discharged from the 
        hospital.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to agreements with providers of services and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  annual  report  of  HyperDynamics  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB Amendment No. 1 for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Kent  P. Watts, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Sec.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.

Date:May 9, 2005                    By:     /s/ Kent P. Watts
                                            -----------------
                                                     Kent P. Watts
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 209/26 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 209 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4826 August 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 209

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4826 August 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 209/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 209/2 | Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 2 |
| 2005/C 209/3 | Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2005 to 31 July 2005(Published pursuant to Article 12 or Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 209/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 209/2

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2

2005/C 209/3

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2005 to 31 July 2005(Published pursuant to Article 12 or Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93)

(Published pursuant to Article 12 or Article 34 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93)

3

---

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

EN
#### Norman W. GOODMAN, Appellant, v. Dolores L. GOODMAN, Appellee.

No. 706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 17, 1967.

*22E. Louis Fields, of Fields & Gaines, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

G. H. Martin, Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee.

WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judge.

Plaintiff in the trial court appeals a final judgment rendered for defendant, the suit being upon a promissory note executed by defendant to plaintif-f at a time when they were husband and wife. The parties were divorced later, and sometime following entry of the divorce decree plaintiff brought suit upon the note.

The case went to trial before the court without a jury. Defendant interposed these separate defenses: 1. Statute of Limitations ; 2. Discharge of the note by virtue of a property settlement agreement incorporated in the divorce decree; 3. Accord and satisfaction; 4. Lack of consideration.

The court made a specific finding in the judgment that plaintiff’s claim was discharged by virtue of the property settlement agreement. Nothing was said by the court regarding any other defense.

Appellant now argues that the reason thus given by the trial court as a basis for the judgment is an insufficient one and that therefore the judgment should be reversed. In this position appellant has neglected to take into account the rule that a judgment will be affirmed, notwithstanding insufficiency in any particular finding, if, upon the entire record — pleadings and evidence — there is any theory under which the judgment can be' supported. See Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So.2d 222; Oper v. Air Control Products, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 561; Smith v. Bettinghaus, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 201; Best Concrete Corporation v. Oswalt Engineering Service Corporation, Fla.App. 1966, 188 So.2d 587.

*The*record reveals substantial evidence supporting other defenses, or at least one of .them, upon which the judgment might have been entered and, hence, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
# C_2020087EN.01002602.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/26

---

Action brought on 29 January 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX)

(Case T-49/20)

(2020/C 87/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rothenberger AG (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paper Point Snc di Daria Fabbroni e Simone Borghini (Arezzo, Italy)

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 word mark ROBOX — Application for registration No 16 462 971

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 210/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by EUIPO, and, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by EUIPO, and, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law

| — | 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 32.2

                                                            [BORDERS GROUP LOGO]


                         STATEMENT OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,
    SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Edward W. Wilhelm, certify that the Form 10-K for the year ended January 23,
2005, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Borders Group, Inc.


Date: April 8, 2005


/s/ EDWARD W. WILHELM
-------------------------------------------------
Edward W. Wilhelm
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Borders Group, Inc.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard Earl BUTLER.

No. 63026.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

In re: Richard Earl Butler applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus and stay order.

Writ denied. On the showing made, no abuse of discretion.
257 La. 856

#### LOOKAWAY FARM v. CALDWELL PORT ELEVATOR, INC., et al.

No. 51161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1971.

In re: Lookaway Farm, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caldwell. 242 So.2d 620.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,As adopted pursuant toSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Binding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2004, (the "Report"), I, Dennis J. Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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, as amended; and

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

By:
/s/ Dennis J. Martin
Dennis J. Martin
Chairman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer
  
May 7, 2004
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 925

To provide that any new tax increases shall not apply to individuals with

taxable incomes under $200,000.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. ZIMMER, and Mr. DELAY) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide that any new tax increases shall not apply to

individuals with taxable incomes under $200,000.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, notwithstanding any law enacted by the 103d Con4 gress, no tax increase shall apply to any individual whose

5 taxable income for the taxable year is less than $200,000.

Æ
#### Henrietta A. MARTIN, Appellant, v. Roger R. MARTIN, Appellee.

No. 72-524.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

ERNST & YOUNG


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 1997
pertaining to the shares issued in connection with the acquisition of CBT
Systems Benelux, B.V. and the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-
9430, 333-504 and 333-06409) pertaining to the CBT Group PLC (the "Company")
1995 Employee Share Purchase Plan, 1990 Share Option Scheme and 1994 Share
Option Plan, and the Personal Training Systems, Inc. 1991 Stock Plan, of our
reports dated January 20, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
Ernst & Young
Chartered Accountants

Dublin, Ireland
January 20, 1997
Project No.: 0172.0 7.029 .03 0 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 1 2 / 03 /0 9 Time: 2 : 00 p m EST

Company Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire

M errimack Power Plant Contact Name: Allen Palmer

Phone No.: ( 603 ) 634

- 2439

Name: Lydia Lambert Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : FGD Systems and FGD Wastewater T reatment Systems Operation and Verification



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM I left a message for Mr. Doug McDonald, who is the

environmental safety contact. In my message, I explained to Mr. McDonald that I was calling to collect

information regarding the operation of the FGD systems and FGD wastewater treatment systems at the

Merrimack power plant

.

On Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 2:00 PM I contacted Mr. Martin Murray, who is the public contact. Mr.

Murray transferred my call to Mr. Allen Palmer , who is the NPDES contact . I explained to Mr. Palmer that I

was calling to collect information regarding the operation of the FGD systems and FGD wastewater treatment

systems at the Merrimack power plant

.

Mr. Pa lmer explained that the power plant does not currently operat e a FGD systems or a FGD wastewater

treatment system. Mr. Palmer stated that the FGD system and FGD wastewater treatment system are currently

under construction and will not be completed for a c ouple of years. Mr. Palmer stated that the plant does not

know when the FGD systems will be g in operatin g

.
#### THOMAS EVANS, p. b. appellant *vs.*LEMUEL B. HUDSON, d. b. respondent.

On non est factum pleaded, the defendant cannot show that the bond signed was re. presented to be of a different amount.

He should plead *per fraudem.*

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in an action on a judgment note for $55 83. Judgment entered by warrant to justice. Plea, non est factum. There were two witnesses to the note, *who signed by mark.*

On the trial evidence was offered that the note, attested by the *367witness, was a note for $45, on which plaintiff objected, that nothing was in issue, under the plea of non est factum, but the *execution*of the note; and that supposing it to be a note for $45 instead of $55,, this could not be set up as a defence, unless the fraud was pleaded.

*Cullen,*for plaintiff.

*Houston,*for defendant.

*Mr. Houston*contended,

that if the note was executed under a false representation as to its amount, it would show that it was not the note the maker intended to sign, and it was not his deed. The evidence offered was also proof that this was not the note which he executed.

*By the*Court.

The plea puts in issue merely the execution of the note. Under it the plaintiff has to prove the execution of the identical paper. The attestation of the subscribing witness is prima facie evidence, upon which the paper may be read, but the jury will decide whether it is proved. If a note under seal or bond is proved, no paroi evidence can be received to change, alter or contradict it; or to show that it was for a less sum than that specified on its face. If given on a settlement between parties, it extinguishes their accounts ; they merge in the higher security; and the parties cannot afterwards abandon the note or bond, and to go into proof of the antecedent matters which constitute its consideration.

Verdict for plaintiff.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0328 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 3 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 29 2024

05/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0328