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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 396 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 396

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 23, 1994.
    Resolved, That the powers and duties conferred upon the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations by the rules of the House shall be exercised by 
Representative Obey of Wisconsin, as acting chairman, until otherwise ordered by 
the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
J-S24017-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER DICKINSON

Appellant No. 959 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 29, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at Nos: CP-02-CR-0008066-2015, CP-02-CR-0010547-

2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 8, 2017

Appellant, Christopher Dickinson, appeals from the February 29, 2016 

judgment of sentence imposing an aggregate 36 to 72 months of 

incarceration followed by three years of probation. We vacate and remand 

for a new sentencing hearing. 

On December 14, 2015, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of robbery 

and one count each of simple assault, recklessly endangering another 

person, resisting arrest, and flight to avoid apprehension.1 At the February 

29, 2016 sentencing hearing, the trial court neglected to determine whether 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 2701, 2705, 5104, and 5126, respectively. 
J-S24017-17

- 2 -

Appellant was eligible for a Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”) 

sentence. Statutory law requires the trial court to make that determination. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b.1); 61 Pa.C.S.A. § 4505(a). “[W]here the trial court 

fails to make a statutorily required determination regarding a defendant’s 

eligibility for an RRRI minimum sentence as required, the sentence is 

illegal.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 870 (Pa. Super. 2014). 

The Commonwealth concedes this point.2 Commonwealth’s Brief at 6. We 

therefore vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new sentencing 

hearing. 

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/8/2017

____________________________________________

2

 The trial court did not address this issue because Appellant raises it for the 

first time on appeal. We will not deem the issue waived, because it 

implicates the legality of Appellant’s sentence. Commonwealth v. Tobin, 

89 A.3d 663, 669-70 (Pa. Super. 2014).
# C_2020255EN.01002602.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/26

---

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

(Case T-355/20)

(2020/C 255/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA — European Union trade mark No 15 371 305

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 1974/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### SNUG-FIT MARINE PRODUCTS, INC. et al., Petitioners, v. Leandro ALVAREZ et al., Respondents.

No. 41500.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. The Honorable Daniel J. McGEE, Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court.

No. 54635.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 9, 1974.

In re: Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline.

Writ denied. Adequate remedy by appeal.
EXHIBIT 99



                       Selected Information
                   Relating to the Receivables

               Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 1995-1


Total amount of 1995 distributions to 6.00% Asset Backed
Noteholders Class A-1 allocable to principal .............$ 108,203,043.77

Total amount of 1995 distributions to 6.00% Asset Backed
Noteholders Class A-1 allocable to interest...............$   2,969,276.84
 
Total amount of 1995 distributions to 6.35% Asset Backed
Noteholders Class A-2 allocable to principal .............$  12,154,811.66

Total amount of 1995 distributions to 6.35% Asset Backed
Noteholders Class A-2 allocable to interest...............$  21,718,440.40

Total amount of Administrative Agent Fees
paid in 1995 to Administrative Agent......................$   4,752,923.96
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   10,617,000
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,893,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 38,000
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         12,906,000
<PP&E>                                    2,033,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              863,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           16,889,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     3,816,000
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     14,946
<OTHER-SE>                               12,675,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             16,889,000
<SALES>                                   3,419,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          3,419,000
<CGS>                                       567,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             8,009,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             44,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (4,840,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (2,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (4,842,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (4,842,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.53)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.12




CONSENT OF RICHARD HOPE





March 31, 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 documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2010, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report 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 and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.





Sincerely,





/s/ Richard HopeName: Richard Hope
#### PINELLAS COUNTY WATER AND NAVIGATION CONTROL AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. James W. WILLIAMS and Muriel E. Williams, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-840.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 11, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
259 La. 751

#### In the Matter of the Succession of Lacy Brandon Petersen CHRISTENSEN.

No. 51572.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1971.

In re: Frank B. Wood applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 248 So.2d 45.

Writ refused. The result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
#### G. W. SALZER, Jr., d/b/a Scot Salzer, Appellant, v. George A. ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 69-1086.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 11, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1970.

Hylan H. Kout, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Broad & Cassel, and Lewis Horwitz, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was plaintiff below, having instituted this law suit to recover certain real estate commissions allegedly owing to him by virtue of the defendant’s sale of certain property. The trial judge entered a summary judgment in favor of the ap-pellee. The court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact, the essential findings being that the appellee had listed his property with the appellant, attaching certain terms of sale to the listing; that, subsequently, the appellant submitted an offer in the form of a deposit receipt on terms which materially differed from those *458in the listing and that the appellee rejected that offer. Certain changes were made on the deposit receipt, after which the offer was re-submitted to the appellee who nevertheless refused to accept the offer in the altered form.

We have carefully reviewed the record and have concluded that the trial judge correctly determined that the material facts were not at issue and that the applicable law required a summary judgment to be entered in favor of the appellee.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

143378(19) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143378 

 COA: 299974 

Genesee CC: 04-014477-FC 

TROY GRANT HALSTEAD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 28, 

2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 235 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 235

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 5, 1993.
    Resolved, That, for fiscal years 1994 through 1997--
            (1) the provisions of, and the procedures and points of order set 
        forth in, sections 16004(c)(2), 16005, and 16009 of H.R. 2264, as passed 
        the House (One Hundred Third Congress), shall, with respect to the House 
        of Representatives, apply to any special direct spending message the 
        President submits pursuant to a presidential order as if that message 
        were submitted pursuant to section 16004(c)(1) of that bill; and
            (2) for purposes of this application, any reference in section 
        16004(c)(2) to paragraph (1) or in section 16005 or 16009 to section 
        16004 shall be deemed to be to the appropriate provisions of that 
        presidential order.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2020247EN.01004701.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/47

---

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua (Vital like nature)

(Case T-351/20)

(2020/C 247/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (Dielheim, Deutschland) (represented by M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Raisioaqua Oy (Raisio, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark ‘Vital like nature’ — Application No 17 165 002

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 1279/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 60(1)(a) read in conjunction with Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 60(1)(a) read in conjunction with Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2020262EN.01003701.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/37

---

Action brought on 29 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rudolf Böckenholt (LLOYD’S)

(Case T-400/20)

(2020/C 262/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Böckenholt GmbH & Co. KG (Ostbevern, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark LLOYD’S — EU trade mark No 2 957 132

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 1119/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing the appeal brought by El Corte Inglés, S.A., it upholds the decision of the Cancellation Division partially upholding application No 18 381 C for a declaration of invalidity, and upholds the partial invalidity of EU trade mark No 2 957 132 LLOYD’S (figurative) for ‘goods made of these materials (leather and imitation of leather) and not included in other classes, excluding leather used for making footwear’ in Class 18; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing the appeal brought by El Corte Inglés, S.A., it upholds the decision of the Cancellation Division partially upholding application No 18 381 C for a declaration of invalidity, and upholds the partial invalidity of EU trade mark No 2 957 132 LLOYD’S (figurative) for ‘goods made of these materials (leather and imitation of leather) and not included in other classes, excluding leather used for making footwear’ in Class 18;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| — | Contradiction with the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 562/2006-1 of 23 October 2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Contradiction with the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 562/2006-1 of 23 October 2009.

| — | Contradiction and lack of consistency of the decision as regards the arguments on which it is based, and infringement of Article 32(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430. |
| --- | --- |

—

Contradiction and lack of consistency of the decision as regards the arguments on which it is based, and infringement of Article 32(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430.

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2012

d0416 

# Order

April 23, 2012

143378(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143378 COA: 299974 Genesee CC: 04-014477-FC TROY GRANT HALSTEAD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s December 28, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP, INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the 1998 Form 10-K of CBT Group PLC of our report dated January 30,
1998, on the consolidated financial statements of The ForeFront Group, Inc., and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and for each of the two years in the
period ended December 31, 1997, included in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
of CBT Group PLC (File No. 333-51159).  It should be noted that we have not
audited any financial statements of The ForeFront Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
subsequent to December 31, 1997, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our report.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Houston, Texas
March 26, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. No. DA 19-0614

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

GARY HANSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until April 18, 2022, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2022

03/15/2022

Case Number: DA 19-0614
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998             OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                 161,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0               1,110,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                  35,154
<INVENTORY>                                          0               3,767,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0               5,199,026
<PP&E>                                               0               4,458,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               2,946,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0               6,897,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 976,701
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                  21,291
<OTHER-SE>                                           0               4,524,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0               6,897,733
<SALES>                                      2,369,983               4,899,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                        1,553,248               3,217,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  541,526               1,064,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000                   6,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,721                  30,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                254,488                 587,184
<INCOME-TAX>                                   105,200                 241,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   149,288                 345,984
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07                     .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07                     .16
        

</TABLE>