alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Esteban RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Steve Rodriguez, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1972.

Law Offices of Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and John A. Zebedee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

In this appeal one of the questions raised by appellant Rodriguez was whether the trial Court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on possession of lottery paraphernalia, as requested by appellant. We hold that this was prejudicial error, and reverse.

Rodriguez was convicted of a felony under the second count of an information which charged that he and another

> “ . . . did unlawfully aid or assist in the setting up, promoting or conducting of a lottery or a lottery drawing for money, commonly known as Bolita, Cuba, and/or Bond, a further description of which is to the County Solicitor unknown in violation of Section 849.09(1) (d), Florida Statutes, contrary to the *82form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”

There was no specific language in the accusatory pleading alleging the commission of the misdemeanor of possession, condemned in F.S. § 849.09(1) (f) F.S.A. The evidence, however, was more than sufficient to support a charge of possession of lottery paraphernalia, but the State was relying on this evidence in addition to other evidence to establish the felony charged.

At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant orally requested an instruction on the lesser offense of possession, the Court having waived the requirement that the instruction be in writing. The Court refused to give the instruction as not being applicable.

The law announced in the recent case of Anderson v. State, Fla.App., 255 So.2d 550, opinion filed December 3, 1971 (not yet reported), controls the question presented here. This Court in *Anderson*reversed the lower Court and ordered a new trial, holding that when a *defendant*seeks a charge on a lesser offense which may or may not be included in the offense charged, if there is some evidence from which the jury could have found that the lesser offense was the only offense committed notwithstanding a prima facie showing of the highest offense, the charge need only “comprehend” the lesser offense to the extent that it is within the general scope of the charge made.

Inasmuch as we have determined that the judgment must be reversed and the case retried, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions presented by appellant.

The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Howard S. Modlin, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, William G. Henry, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer, each of General
DataComm Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), do each hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:





(1) The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended  March 31, 2009 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officer.








/s/ Howard S. ModlinDate:     May 15, 2009
Howard S. Modlin,Chairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer/s/ William G. HenryWilliam G. HenryVice President, Finance and Administrationand Chief Financial Officer






27
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION





The
      undersigned, Bami Bastani, President and Chief Executive Officer of ANADIGICS,
      Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Annual Report of the Company
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated:
      February 27, 2007


By:
            /s/
                Bami BastaniBami
                BastaniPresident
                and Chief
                Executive Officer







This
      certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated
      by
      reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
      1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
      by reference.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by
      ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.
# C_2004217EN.01003701.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-268/04)

(2004/C 217/66)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, Spa (Belgium), represented by Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.

Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark 'SPA' for goods in Class 1 (Application No 911388) |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition. | The figurative and word marks 'SPA' registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32 and the company and trade names of the opponent. |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejection of the application for registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division |
| Pleas in law: | Breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/941. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited

Community trade mark sought:

Word mark 'SPA' for goods in Class 1 (Application No 911388)

Mark or sign cited in opposition.

The figurative and word marks 'SPA' registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32 and the company and trade names of the opponent.

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law:

Breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/941.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1)

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.21





CONSENT OF RICHARD ALLAN


March 28, 2011





Brigus Gold Corp.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Brigus Gold Corp.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection with the following reports, which are filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010 and (B) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2010 and (ii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889 and 333-162558), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.





Sincerely,




/s/ Richard AllanName: Richard Allan
__ tI; .: t

_ j 

# . .:~===- l ••• ~ I i •• ~~

_ 

## • , • ! !¥:::===- 

# _. 

# - -- • • .. ~~=====- ---- ~~ ;7, ~:: : :~ ~ ~ ~~:::7. ~ := ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~--- - P.O. BOX 1059· 505 WEST C • McCook. N

. E ; 69001.1059
. - pHONE (3P8) , 34.5·2022 · FAX (308) 345 ·1461

April 14, 2014
Kevin Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: McCook Ben Nelson Regional Airport Preferred Air Carrier and Priority Preference of Air Service Routes Dear Mr. Schlemmer: At a speci al City Council meeting on March 25, 2014 the McCook City Council, by unanim ou s vote , reaffirmed their decision to recommend to the Department of Transportation acceptance of the proposa l for Essential Air Service at McCook Ben Nelson Regional Airpo rt from Great La kes Aviation to continue 12 nonstop round trips per week to Denver International Airpo rt Thank you for this opportunity to submit this information for your consideration

. Cordially,
Kyle Potthoff Public Works D i rector/Asst. Airport Manager City of McCook
GPO Home
                Inspector General
                
            Report Fraud, Waste and Abuse
            
        
            Overview
            
        
            OIG Leadership
            
        
            Investigations
            
        
            Audits
            
        
            Inspections
            
        
            Semiannual Reports to Congress
            
        
            Plans and Reports
            
        
            Recommendations
            
        
            Whistleblower Protection Program
            
        
            FAQs about the OIG
            
        
            Complaint Form 
  GPO Home Inspector General
 Report Fraud, Waste and Abuse
                        
                    
                        Overview
                        
                    
                        OIG Leadership
                        
                    
                        Investigations
                        
                    
                        Audits
                        
                    
                        Inspections
                        
                    
                        Semiannual Reports to Congress
                        
                    
                        Plans and Reports
                        
                    
                        Recommendations
                        
                    
                        Whistleblower Protection Program
                        
                    
                        FAQs about the OIG
 Stay Informed - New OIG Reports Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Semiannual Reports to Congress
 September 30, 2023
 March 31, 2023
 September 30, 2022
 March 31, 2022
 September 30, 2021
 March 31, 2021
 Archives
 Fiscal Year 2020Fiscal Year 2019Fiscal Year 2018Fiscal Year 2017Fiscal Year 2016Fiscal Year 2015Fiscal Year 2014Fiscal Year 2013Fiscal Year 2012Fiscal Year 2011Fiscal Year 2010Fiscal Year 2009Fiscal Year 2008Fiscal Year 2007Fiscal Year 2006Fiscal Year 2005Fiscal Year 2004
 The GPO  responses to the Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Reports to Congress are available here .
 Facebook
    **
    Twitter
    **
    Instagram
    **
    You Tube
    **
    Pinterest
    **
    Linkedin
    **U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
Accessibility | Privacy | COOP  | Inspector General
#### The CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF TALLADEGA, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 74-1149.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 13, 1977.

*129James E. Clark, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

N. Lee Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., for Bodine, Byrson & Rolling.

David E. Hicks, Birmingham, Ala., for Independent Elevator.

John H. Morrow, Birmingham, Ala., for Naughton Equip. Co., Schwab Safe Co.

J. R. Forman, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for Republic Steel Corp.

William G. Somerville, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for City of Talladega.

Robert B. Stewart, Montgomery, Ala., for Pitman Bros.

Philip T. Shanks, Jr., Decatur, Ala., for Decatur Iron & Steel, et al.

Charles L. Howard, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for AECCO.

Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

By use of procedures provided by Alabama law, Alabama Constitution art. 6, § 140(b)(3), as amended 1973, we certified to the Supreme Court of Alabama issues of state law which we considered to be determinative of this case and for which there appeared to us to be no controlling precedents in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama. *Cincinnati Ins. Co.*v. *City of Talladega, Ala.,*529 F.2d 718 (1976). The statement of the case is set out in that opinion and need not be restated here.

By its opinion, *Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. City of Talladega,*342 So.2d 331 (1977), the Alabama Supreme Court answered the certified questions as follows:

> 1. Are the surety bonds void because of failure to comply with the statute of frauds, Tit. 20, § 3, Code of Ala.? The answer is “No.”

> 2. If the surety bonds are not void, are they enforceable against CIC? The answer is “Yes.”

> 3. If the bonds are valid and enforceable is Talladega entitled to an award of attorney fees with respect to either or both bonds? The answer is “Yes” with respect to the labor and materials bond and “No” with respect to the performance bond.

The result of the first two answers is that the judgment of the district court on the merits in favor of the City of Talladega, Alabama, is to be affirmed. The answer to the third question requires that the judgment of the district court with respect to attorney fees, awarding fees under both bonds, must be vacated and the cause remanded for entry of an award of fees under only the labor and materials bond.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. Costs are taxed three-fourths to Cincinnati Insurance Co., one-fourth to City of Talladega.
# L_2009009EN.01S00301.xml

| 14.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 9/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 9/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
S i l v i c u l t u r e Best Management Practices 

### 11 

# Application of SMZs: Intermittent Streams 

# Figure 2

### 12 S i l v i c u l t u r e Best Management Practices 

# Perennial Lakes and Sinkholes

A Primary Zone of 35' applies to all perennial lakes that are 2 acres or larger in size, and to sinkholes that maintain perennial surface waters. This Zone is measured from the lake or sinkhole, beginning at the break in slope at the top of the shoreline, out to the designated width. In addition, a Secondary Zone may apply to these waterbodies depending on the SSC associated with the harvest unit (Table 2). The Secondary Zone, if required, would begin at the outer boundary of the Primary Zone and continue outward from the lake or sinkhole the specified distance (See Appendix 1).



# Intermittent Lakes and Sinkholes

A Stringer and a Secondary Zone of at least 35 feet apply to all intermittent lakes that are 2 acres or larger in size and to sinkholes that maintain intermittent surface waters (Figure 3). Depending on the SSC associated with the project site, the Secondary Zone could extend out as much as 300 feet (Appendix 1).



# OFW, ONRW and Class I Waters

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) and Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs) are waterbodies that have been identified as having unique and/or exceptional values and therefore are afforded extra protection from potential sources of pollution. Class I Waters are those that have been designated as a drinking water supply and are also afforded extra water quality protection. For these reasons, a 200 foot Primary Zone applies to all OFWs, ONRWs and Class I Waters, regardless of the type or size of the waterbody. A list and location of these waterbodies is provided in Appendix 4. 

# Table 2: SMZ Widths for Lakes, Sinkholes & Special Waters

P erennial I ntermittent
Primary Z one	 Secondary Z one Primary Z one	 Secondary Z one Lakes 3 5’ v aries with SSC ( Stringer) m in. 35’

Sinkholes 3 5’ v aries with SSC ( Stringer) m in. 35’

OFW 2 00’ v aries with SSC 2 00’ v aries with SSC

ONRW 2 00’ v aries with SSC 2 00’ v aries with SSC

Class I 2 00’ v aries with SSC 2 00’ v aries with SSC 

# Application of SMZs: Lakes, Sinkholes and Special Waters
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Hutzenlaub, Appellant.

[737 NYS2d 300]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 25, 1999 *(People v Hutzenlaub,*265 AD2d 574), affirming two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County, both rendered June 10, 1997.

*565Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Ritter, Acting P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary  information extracted from  the Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000941547  
<NAME> HF BANCORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,426
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,672
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                92,535
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    273,430
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         193,928
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           186,363
<LOANS>                                        228,229
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 826,916
<DEPOSITS>                                     669,725
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,120
<LONG-TERM>                                     70,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 826,916
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,648
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               32,707
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                50,355
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,781
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,059
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,296
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,054
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,076
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,947
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,947
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.37
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,301
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   714
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,634
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,694
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      680
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,068
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,068
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,843
        

</TABLE>