alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 422/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 422 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5725 November 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 422

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5725 November 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 422/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2014/C 422/02 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 422/01

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2014/C 422/02

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 422/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7458 — IBM / INF Business of Deutsche Lufthansa) (1) | 3 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 422/04 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 4 |
| 2014/C 422/05 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 422/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7458 — IBM / INF Business of Deutsche Lufthansa) (1)

3

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2014/C 422/04

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

4

2014/C 422/05

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
[Cite as State v. Howard, 2018-Ohio-309.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 17AP-242 

 (C.P.C. No. 13CR-4407) 

John M. Howard, : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

M E M O R A N D U M D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on January 25, 2018 

 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for 

appellee. 

Koenig & Long, LLC, Charles A. Koenig and Todd A. Long, for 

appellant. 

 

ON MOTIONS 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} Counsel for John M. Howard has filed a motion requesting that we certify a 

conflict between our decision rendered on November 30, 2017 and a decision from the 

Second District Court of Appeals in State v. Snoeberger, 2d Dist. No. 24767, 2013-Ohio1375. We do not see a certifiable conflict. 

{¶ 2} In our Howard case, a trial court judge informed the defendant quite clearly 

that, if he continued repeating his habit of violating the terms of his community control, 

defendant was going to be sent to prison. Howard again violated the terms of his 

community control and the trial court judge did as promised. 

{¶ 3} In the Snoeberger case, the trial court judge did not make the specific 

promises made to John Howard. The judge in Snoeberger never told Snoeberger what the 

prison sentence would be. This clearly distinguishes the two cases. 
No. 17AP-242 2 

{¶ 4} We also note that counsel for Howard did not clearly state the proposition of 

law to be certified but, instead, set forth an extended question which counsel wishes for the 

Supreme Court of Ohio to answer. 

{¶ 5} The motion to certify a conflict is denied. 

{¶ 6} Counsel has also filed an application for reconsideration. Counsel 

acknowledges that our decision clearly addresses the questions of whether or not the trial 

court judge could enforce the terms of incarceration suspended at the original time Howard 

appeared in court for a sentencing. 

{¶ 7} The application for reconsideration is also denied. 

Motions denied. 

BROWN, P.J., and LUPER SCHUSTER, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 378 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 378

 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require Members 
   to sign an oath of secrecy before receiving access to classified 
                              information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 1994

Mr. Goss (for himself and Mr. Hyde) submitted the following resolution; 
              which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require Members 
   to sign an oath of secrecy before receiving access to classified 
                              information.

    Resolved, That (a) Rule XLVIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting after clause 12 the following 
new clause:
    ``13. A Member (including the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
Rico and any Delegate to the House) may not have access to any 
classified information unless and until a copy of the following oath of 
secrecy has been signed by that Member and has been published in the 
Congressional Record:
            ``I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not willfully 
        directly or indirectly disclose to any unauthorized person any 
        classified information in the course of my duties as a Member 
        of the House of Representatives, except pursuant to the Rules 
        and Procedures of the House.''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect at the 
end of the fifth legislative day beginning after the date on which this 
resolution is adopted. For the purposes of the preceding sentence, the 
term ``legislative day'' means any day on which the House of 
Representatives is in session.

                                 <all>
```
#### James Lloyd SPRINKLE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1-343.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 12, 1967.

T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, and James L. Harrison, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery.

The only point on appeal in this case concerns the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny.

This Court heretofore handed down its decisions in Hand v. State and Raulerson v. State1 in which we held that Florida *49Statutes 919.16, F.S.A. did not mandatorily require the giving of a charge on larceny in a robbery trial where the evidence of the particular case would not support a conviction of the said lesser offense. We were reversed by the Florida Supreme Court in the Hand and Raulerson case, supra, and we therefore have no alternative except to accept the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on the matter as the law of this state until changed or modified. Therefore said case is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

. Hand v. State, Raulerson v. State, 199 So.2d 100 (Fla.1967).
No. 72-6438.

#### Fritz *v.*Missouri.

Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Russell ARDOIN.

No. 62635.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: David Russell Ardoin applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Calcasieu.

Writ denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1996             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997             JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                          72,948                  19,337
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,119,406               3,840,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,246,530               4,062,546
<PP&E>                                      36,962,822              42,233,799
<DEPRECIATION>                             (10,254,970)            (12,761,131)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,857,487              36,493,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,866,608              32,032,629
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       209,140                 191,240
<OTHER-SE>                                    (124,541)              3,654,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,857,487              36,493,436
<SALES>                                      5,698,490              11,979,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,844,871              12,520,138
<CGS>                                        3,117,341               5,472,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,155,557              15,456,340
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (24,286)              5,540,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,102,933               2,829,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,389,333)            (11,330,376)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,389,333)            (11,330,376)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.25)                  (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.25)                  (0.66)
        

</TABLE>
House Calendar No. 52

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 199

[Report No. 103–133

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1876)

implementing such agreements.congressional ‘‘fast track’’ procedures to a billity to carry out such agreements, and to applyand Trade, to extend tariff proclamation authorthe auspices of the General Agreement on TariffsRound of multilateral trade negotiations underinto trade agreements to conclude the Uruguayto provide authority for the President to enter

JUNE 16, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 52

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 199

[Report No. 103–133]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1876) to provide authority

for the President to enter into trade agreements to conclude the Uruguay

Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to extend tariff proclamation

authority to carry out such agreements, and to apply congressional ‘‘fast

track’’ procedures to a bill implementing such agreements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1993

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1876) to provide

authority for the President to enter into trade agreements to conclude the Uruguay Round of multilateral

trade negotiations under the auspices of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to extend tariff proclamation authority to carry out such agreements, and to

apply congressional ‘‘fast track’’ procedures to a bill

implementing such agreements.
2

HRES 199 RH

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

3 1876) to provide authority for the President to enter into

4 trade agreements to conclude the Uruguay Round of mul5 tilateral trade negotiations under the auspices of the Gen6 eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to extend tariff

7 proclamation authority to carry out such agreements, and

8 to apply congressional ‘‘fast track’’ procedures to a bill

9 implementing such agreements. Debate on the bill shall

10 not exceed one hour, with thirty minutes equally divided

11 and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

12 member of the Committee on Ways and Means and thirty

13 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman

14 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.

15 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

16 the bill to final passage without intervening motion except

17 one motion to recommit.
<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
Exhibit No. 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Marc T. Giles, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function(s)):

a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:   March 10, 2005

| | /s/ Marc T. Giles                     | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | Marc T. Giles
Chief Executive Officer |
#### James JENNINGS, Sr. v. LOUISIANA AND SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 53886.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: James Jennings, Sr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary. 280 So.2d 291.

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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICHARD FERRERAS DAVID,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10373

D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00064-FMTG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Guam

Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Richard Ferreras David appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine

hydrochloride (ice), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10373

David contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately

consider his argument that the two-level enhancement for importation of

methamphetamine under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(4) created an unwarranted

sentencing disparity among similarly situated defendants. The record reflects that

the district court listened to the parties’ arguments and did not otherwise

procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

David further contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the importation enhancement is arbitrary, does not properly reflect the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, and unfairly overstates his offense conduct. In light of the

totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is

substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);

Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. 

AFFIRMED.
#### William F. KIES, Father of Casandra Kies, a Deceased Minor, and Administrator of the Estate of Casandra Kies, Appellant, v. ROYAL CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 3, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT NO. 10.1

MEMORANDUM

 

To:		Shawn M. Harrington

From:		Marc T. Giles

Re:		Appointment, Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company")

Date:		September 30, 2002

 

	Effective September 30, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") has appointed you Executive Vice President of the Company.  You will remain Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company.   The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board has set your base salary at $275,000 per year effective September 30, 2002, and has set your bonus target under the Company's 2000-2004 Executive Annual Incentive Bonus Plan at 60%.  

For the fiscal year ending April 30, 2003, your bonus will be calculated as follows:  for the period May 1, 2002 through September 30, 2002, your bonus target will be 50% of the pro rata portion of your base salary as of April 30, 2003, and for the period October 1, 2002 through April 30, 2003, your bonus target will be 60% of the pro rata portion of your base salary as of April 30, 2003. 

	If this memorandum sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof, kindly sign and return the enclosed copy of this memorandum, which will then constitute our agreement on this subject.

 

|   | Marc T. Giles     |
|--------|-------------------|
|   | President and CEO |

 

Agreed this 18th date of October, 2002.

 

/s/ Shawn M. Harrington                        

Shawn M. Harrington
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

April 11 , 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge        

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 06‐4356

Appeal from the United States District

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Court for the Central District of

Plaintiff‐Appellee, Illinois.

v. No. 05‐30096

DONDI McINTOSH, Jeanne E. Scott,

Defendant‐Appellant. Judge.

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that the first line of this court’s order in this case, issued

March 19, 2008, be amended to read as follows:

Dondi McIntosh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of

cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and use of a telephone in a drug offense,

see 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).
#### DEATRICK LEASING CORPORATION, for the use and benefit of Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant, v. Jay WEISS, Appellee.

No. 69-928.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 30, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.