alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John S. COUSE and Barnetta S. Couse, his wife, Appellants, v. The CANAL AUTHORITY of the State of Florida, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. J-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 10, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1967.

Ronald Sales, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

C. Ray Greene, Jr., Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

*57PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in an eminent domain action wherein the appellants were awarded the sum of $15,000 by a jury for talcing of approximately twenty-nine acres of appellants’ property in Marion County, Florida, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the Cross State Barge Canal.

We have examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and arguments of counsel. Consideration of same fails to reflect that reversible error was committed. See Bainbridge v. State Road Department, 139 So.2d 714 (Fla.App. 1st 1962).

The judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
GPO Resolution Target

1) Vertical Bar: 

Lines must be clear and 

defined from 2 to 8.

2) CMYK Blocks: 

Line pattern must be visible.

4) 1 Point Type:

Must be legible.

3) Targets: 

Must be clear and defined from 50 to 400.

5) All rule patterns: 

Must be clear and defined from 1 to 10.

2 1 4 3

5

4) 1 Point Type: 

Must be legible.

4

6

This is the GPO Resolution Target, it must be imaged at 100%, along with the IDEAlliance ISO 

12647-7 Control Wedge 2013 (i1) on all High Resolution proofs. To ensure your proof is acceptable, 

it must pass the following criteria: 

1) Vertical Bar: Lines must be clear and defined from 2 to 8.

2) CMYK Blocks: Line pattern must be visible.

3) Targets: Must be clear and defined from 50 to 400.

4) 1 Point Type: must be legible.

5) All rule patterns: Must be clear and defined from 1 to 10.

6) GPO Use: Targets provided by Printing Industries of America.

www.gpo.gov/gporestarget.pdf 

Keeping America Informed OFFICIAL DIGITAL SECURE
For additional information, contact Quality Control at 202.512.0542 or email qcpp@gpo.gov

100 100 60 100 100 70 70 30 30 100 100 60 100 100 70 70 30 30 100 100 60 100 100 70 70 30 30 100 40 100 40 40 100 10 40 40 20 70 70 70 70 40 70 40 40 3.1 2.2 2.2 10.2 7.4 7.4 25 19 19 50 40 40 75 66 66 100 100 100 80 70 70 100 B 0 0 0 0

A 100 60 100 70 30 100 60 100 70 30 100 60 100 70 30 100 40 40 100 40 100 40 70 40 70 40 40 40 70 40 40 70 40 70 40 40 3 10 25 50 75 90 100

3% ISO 12647-7 Digital Control Strip 2009

Note: Bars are scaled to 80%, must be 100% on proofs

The IDEAlliance ISO 12647-7 Control Wedge 2013 (i1) is required to be used 

when High Resolution (2400 x 1200 dpi) proofs are indicated on the SF1.

Either the IDEAlliance ISO 12647-7 Control Wedge 2013 (i1) or the Digital Control Strip 2009 is required to be used 

when Ink Jet (720 x 720 dpi) proofs are indicated on the SF1.

Customers to indicate Inkjet or High Resolution on the SF1: 

IDEAlliance Control Bars
ACTIO N 

SI l 6 o 0-100302-011 

CONTROL NO. 

N EW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

MAJORITY LEADER 

JOSEPH CRYAN 

ASSEMBLYMAN, 20TM DISTRICT 

985 STUYVESANT AVENUE 

UNION, NEW JERSEY 07083 

(908) 624-0880 

C 5 February 22, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-O.ST-2010-0018 ~ "^ 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

I support the Continental Airlines application to provide daily nonstop service between New York/Newark and Tokyo 

Haneda airport. New air service to Haneda, which is scheduled to begin later this year, is made possible by the wide ranging 

open skies agreement with Japan achieved by your Department. I applaud your efforts on the historic open skies agreement 

and now urge you to select Continental to provide service connecting the U.S.'s financial and commercial center at New 

York/Newark with Tokyo's central/downtown airport. 

Liberty - Haneda service would provide a critical link between two of the world's largest economies and will help boost 

trade and commerce across the New York/Newark region and secondarily across the entire northeastern region of the U.S. 

Liberty airport is surrounded by the largest population per square mile in the country, which includes millions of Asian 

Americans. Additionally, recent studies show that for every flight added by Continental in the New York/Newark region, 

the local economy benefits as employment is sustained, regional incomes are enhanced and trade expands. 

As Continental operates the only true hub in the region that connects New York/Newark and much of the U.S. to the world. 

Continental is the right choice for new Haneda service as communities across the entire eastern U.S. will gain access to 

Haneda via connections at Liberty. Additionally, Continental Airlines has set itself apart as a strong airline with a 

commitment to safety and excellence for customers. No doubt this should be taken into account when awarding any route to 

Haneda. 

Continental Airlines is committed to the Asian region and to nonstop Tokyo Haneda service. The New York/Newark 

economy, millions of Americans on the U.S. east coast, the airline's thousands of employees and hundreds of thousands of 

U.S. consumers will benefit from Continental's proposed service and will work together to make Liberty International 

Airport - Haneda service a real success. 

I urge you to award Tokyo Haneda rights to Continental Airlines and my region of the U.S. 

Rega 

'' J(^epj3^ryan 

^ Assemblyman, District 20
# C_2020247EN.01004601.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/46

---

Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)

(Case T-345/20)

(2020/C 247/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by M. Zick, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark ‘MEN+’ — Application No 17 985 949

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 in Case R 1906/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as the applicant is adversely affected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as the applicant is adversely affected;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 7(1)(b), in particular read in conjunction with Art. 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 7(1)(b), in particular read in conjunction with Art. 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[No. 562-2.

Division Two.

March 23, 1972.]

#### Larry J. Hardisty, *Respondent,*v. Joyce K. Hardisty, *Appellant.*
# C_2022318EN.01000801.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus — Estonia) — Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL v Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet

(Case C-51/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Food law - Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 - Microbiological criteria for foodstuffs - Article 3(1) - Obligations of food business operators - Annex I - Point 1.2 of Chapter 1 - Limit values for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in fish products before and after being placed on the market - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 14(8) - Official controls of the product at the stage at which it is placed on the market - Scope)

(2022/C 318/09)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aktsiaselts M.V.WOOL

Defendant: Põllumajandus- ja Toiduamet

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 3(1) and point 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/229 of 7 February 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the manufacturer is unable to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that, throughout their shelf-life, foodstuffs will not exceed the limit of 100 colony-forming units/grams (g), as regards the presence of Listeria monocytogenes, the limit requiring the absence of detection of Listeria monocytogenes in 25 g of the food product concerned laid down in that point 1.2 of that Annex I, does not apply to foodstuffs which have been placed on the market throughout their shelf-life.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
#### ELEANOR DULANY et al. *vs.*SOLOMON BOSTON.

Continuances are in the discretion of the court, and will not be granted to the prejudice of the other party, unless due diligence has been used.

On issues from chancery, rules to lay down pretensions may be moved for *there,*or taken in the Superior Court, in vacation.

Feigned issues from chancery.

Motion to continue the cause, to give the defendant, upon whose application the issues were sent to this court, an opportunity to lay down pretensions. The motion was resisted, on the ground of the delay that it would occasion, which would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs, and might have been avoided by the use of due diligence.

*RidgeJy,*for defendant,

answered that the issues were ordered only at the last term of the Court of Chancery, and that there had not been time since the entry of the issues in this court to lay down the pretensions, ten days notice being required.

*Ridgely,*for the motion.

*Woottcn,*contra.

*By the Court.*

We regret that we should be compelled to proceed to the trial of any cause not fully prepared with all necessary testimony ; but the continuance of this issue will occasion so much delay and injury that we must refuse it, unless it be indispensable to the purposes of justice, and could not have been avoided by the party asking the delay. The issue was directed by chancery so far back as March last. The rule to lay down pretensions might have been moved for in chancery; or might have been taken out in this court in time for the present term. He who moved for the issue was bound to prepare himself for its trial with due diligence. He might have brought down the record, and taken his rule to lay down pretensions in due time. He might have been ready, and the other party is prejudiced by the delay. Motion refused.
#### THRALL *v.*PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY CO.

Costs — Printing of Record and Briefs.

Appellant is entitled to have printing of record and briefs done by reputable printer and tax reasonable expense thereof, and is not obliged to shop around to find lowest bidder.

Appeal from Allegan; Miles (Fred T.), J.

Submitted March 29, 1932.

(Docket No. 61,

June Term, 1929,

No. 65,

January Term, 1931,

Calendar Nos. 34,240, 35,209.)

Decided April 12, 1932.

Action by Alice A. Thrall, administratrix of the estate of William P. Thrall, deceased, against Pere Marquette Railway Company. After affirmance in this court of judgment for plaintiff on third trial, plaintiff appeals from taxation of costs on two former appeals in which judgment for plaintiff was reversed.

Affirmed.

*Leo W. Hoffman*and *Glare E. Hoffman,*for plaintiff.

*W. K. Williams*and *John G. Shields (Wilkes & Stone,*of counsel), for defendant.

Retaxation oe Costs.

Per Curiam.

By appeal plaintiff seeks retaxation of costs, awarded defendant for printing records and briefs on two appeals, claiming that such cost exceeds the customary and usual price of other mentioned printers. Defendant was not obliged to shop *356around to find the lowest bidder, but had a right to have the printing done by a reputable printer and tax the reasonable expense thereof. See *Behr*v. *Baker,*257 Mich. 487.

The taxation by the clerk will stand affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 44 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 44

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 26, 1993.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the Committee on the Budget: Wally Herger, California, and Jim Bunning, 
Kentucky, to rank after Olympia J. Snowe, Maine; and David L. Hobson, Ohio, to 
rank after Wayne Allard, Colorado.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### WHITNEY TANK LINES, INC., Appellant, v. Tom DUKE, Appellee.

No. 71-487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
|   | (a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |   |                                                                                                        |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: May 5, 2010 |   | /s/ Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.                                                                                   |
|               |   | Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)         |
|               |   |                                                                                                        |
| Dated: May 5, 2010 |   | /s/ John McManama                                                                                           |
|               |   | John McManamaVice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
# Small Business Opportunities (Region 1)

The New England Region's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization serves as GSA's regional liaison and advocate for small businesses within Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. As an advocate for small business owners, it is the mission of the OSDBU to promote increased access to GSA's nationwide procurement opportunities.

GSA, like all federal agencies, has procurement preference goals for contracting with small businesses. Procurement preference goals are a performance measure that GSA strives to achieve through its various programs.

The Procurement Preference Goal categories are:
                        - Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)
                        - 8(a) Business Development (8(a) BD)
                        - Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)
                        - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)
                        - Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB)
                        - Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

The OSDBU promotes programs and activities for small business owners that provide access to GSA and other federal agencies by:
                        - Working with GSA contracting officers to highlight small businesses for specific contracts
                        - Partnering with federal, state and local agencies to assist potential vendors
                        - Providing information and guidance regarding the  Agency's Procurement Forecast  and  Contracting Opportunities
                        - Participating in GSA events such as networking sessions, forums, events, conferences, workshops and trade shows
                        - Assistance for small businesses

**Central Office**:    1800 F Street NW    7th floor, 3rd Wing (7300)    Washington, DC 20405

*Search for your local **POC**:*

- Regional Small Business Support Contacts  
-  Submit questions, introduce your company or register for an event/meeting

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Region 1 | New England-  Overview 
-  About Region 1 
-  Buildings and Facilities 
-  Products and Services 
-  Region 1 Newsroom 
-  Small Business Opportunities
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkillSoft Public Limited Company (the“Company”) for the period ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to hisknowledge:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: March 31, 2008                                              /s/ CHARLES E. MORAN   Charles E. Moran   Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES (WHOLLY-OWNED) OF THE COMPANY

     1. DynaMotive Corporation - incorporated in Rhode Island, USA - June 29,
        1990

     2. DynaMotive Electrochem Corporation - incorporated in the Province of
        British Columbia - April 27, 1993

     3. DynaMill Systems, Ltd. - incorporated in the Province of British
        Columbia - June 12, 1996

     4. DynaMotive Europe Limited - incorporated in the United Kingdom -
        August 30, 1996

     5. DynaMotive Puerto Rico, Inc. - incorporated in Puerto Rico -
        February 18, 1997

     6. DynaPower, Inc. - incorporated in the Province of British Columbia -
        May 9, 2000

     7. DynaMotive Canada, Inc. - incorporated in Canada - November 16, 2000
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40346

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRED ROBINSON; CLARENCE ROBINSON,

 Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CR-40-2

- - - - - - - - - -

November 22, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clarence and Fred Robinson appeal their convictions. They

argue that, in the light of Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct.

501 (1995), there was insufficient evidence to support their

convictions and that jury instructions were improper. Fred

argues: (1) the district court erred by increasing his offense

level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); (2) his statements to sheriff’s
No. 95-40346

-2-

deputies were involuntary and improperly admitted; and (3) the

district court abused its discretion by denying a jury

instruction regarding the voluntariness of the statements.

We discern no error arising under Bailey. United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995); United States v. Fike, 82 F.3d

1315, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed, July 29,

1996 (No. 96-5403); United States v. Casto, 889 F.2d 562, 566

(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1092 (1990). The record

reveals that Fred was appropriately assessed an enhancement for

leading and organizing his brother's escape from jail and that

Fred's statements to deputies were voluntary. United States v.

Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 932-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct.

54 (1995); United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1033 (5th

Cir. 1996). Because the statements were voluntary and Fred

proffered no evidence to support his contention to the contrary,

the denial of the proffered instruction was not an abuse of

discretion. United States v. Sellers, 926 F.2d 410, 414 (5th

Cir. 1991).

 AFFIRMED.
#### STATE use of DANIEL FISHER and JOSEPH FRENCH and Eliza his wife, *late*ELIZA FISHER *vs.*BENJAMIN PARSON’S Adm’r.

Accessaries -furnished to an in infant may be *set-off*against a claim by the infant, but cannot be given in evidence under the plea of *payment.*

Debt on an administration bond for the distributive shares of two debts of Daniel Fisher. Plea, performance; breach; non-payment of disributive shares. Rejoinder to this breach; viz: payment by way drink, lodging and clothing, suitable to the condition of Daniel Fisher, while he was an infant under seven years, &c. to the full i; iae of his share &c. And a like rejoinder as to Eliza, now Eliza Fisher. *Demurer,*that the matter set forth as payment is no payment.

*Frame*.

This is a mere counter claim, account or demand, and no payment. It might possibly be available as a set-off, but not by way of payment. Even cross demands could not be set-off until the statute of set off. *Babington on Set-off*1; 6 *Law Library.*There is no necessary connexion between money due from an administrator and necessaries furnished an heir, if the one could be paid by the other there would be an end of guardianships.

Under a plea of payment, a legal discharge by sale of surety’s lands, not allowed to be given in evidence. *State*use of *Reading’s adm’r.*vs. Reading; 1 *Harr. Rep.*23.

*Bates,*contra,

insisted that the furnishing of necessary meat, drink, and clothing to children of tender years, was a good payment by an administrator towards the children’s share of the estate; and that it was a meritorious defence, as otherwise the children might perish. You may pay a debt to an infant, although his receipt would not be evidence of it; the payment would still be good, if proved by other evidence. 2 *Saund. PI. ¿y Ev.*714-5-6; *Wharton’s Digest*467; 3 *Cranch*293. Wheat delivered held a payment on a bond.

*By the Court.*

These are cross demands, unconnected with each other, and can be reached only by plea of set-off The matter of meat and necessaries is a distinct subject of suit, which under the *53might be set off, but it is not a payment and cannot be given in evidence on a plea oí payment

*Frame*for plaintiff

*Bates*for defendant.

Demurrer overruled and judgment for plaintiff.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                      LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

 .   Datastream Systems International, Inc.
 .   Datastream FSC, Inc.
 .   SQL Systems Group, B.V.
 .   Datastream Systems, BV
 .   Datastream Systems (UK), Ltd.
 .   Sirlog, SA (Groupe Datastream)
 .   SQL Rapier France, Sarl
 .   SQL System Participaties, BV
 .   SQL Systems Deutschland, GmbH
 .   Datastream Systems, GmbH
 .   Datastream Insta Holding GmbH
 .   Insta Instandhaltung technischer Anlagen GmbH & Co. KG
 .   Asystum Participations, BV
 .   SQL Rapier France, SA
 .   SQL Products, BV
 .   SQL Products, NV
 .   Sikasso Pte Ltd.
 .   Datastream-SIS Pte Ltd.
 .   Datastream Systems Pty Ltd.
 .   Computec Sistemas S.A.
 .   Computec Sistemas Mexicana S.A. de C.V.