alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10706.

#### The Cleveland Electric Railway Co. *v.*Kirkbride.

Decided December 8, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Walter C. Ong*and *Mr. Jacob H. Schoen,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### Charles W. CLAYTON, Jr., d/b/a Claytons’ Realty, Appellant, v. Edwin LEYPOLDT and Hilda Leypoldt, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-710.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 15, 1971.

Russell Troutman and H. Terrell Griffin, of Law Offices of Russell Troutman, Winter Park, for appellant.

Ronald H. Roby, of Roby & Evans, Orlando, and Stephen J. Johnson, Jr., of Johnson & Pánico, Maitland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Corbin on Contracts § 1089 (1951); R. K. Cooper Builders, Inc. v. Free-Lock Ceilings, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 87; Edgar v. Hosea, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 233; Ray v. Dock & Marine Construction, Inc., Fla. *695App.1966, 183 So.2d 237; Gracy v. Fielding, 1916, 71 Fla. 1, 70 So. 625; Carolina Buggy Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 1916, 71 Fla. 193, 70 So. 1006; McCall v. Sherbill, Fla. 1953, 68 So.2d 362; Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 684; English & American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 453, 457; and Vacation Prizes, Inc. v. City National Bank of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 352.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and MAGER, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 442 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 442

     Electing Representative Lucas to the Committees on Government 
                      Operations and Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1994

Mr. Michel submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Electing Representative Lucas to the Committees on Government 
                      Operations and Agriculture.

    Resolved, That Representative Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma be and is 
hereby elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives: the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on 
Government Operations.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2020201EN.01004401.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/44

---

Action brought on 17 April 2020 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (ART CLASS)

(Case T-202/20)

(2020/C 201/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ART CLASS — Application for registration No 16 888 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2020 in Case R 1597/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition decision in respect of all of the remaining contested goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition decision in respect of all of the remaining contested goods;

| — | alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

| — | order to pay its costs incurred in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition. |
| --- | --- |

—

order to pay its costs incurred in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

---
Exhibit 32.1



Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)



The undersigned, as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 1, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Georgia-Pacific Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing
certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



/s/ ALSTON D. CORRELLAlston D. CorrellChairman and Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Georgia-Pacific Corporation and will be retained by Georgia-Pacific Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
259 La. 707

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Shelby MAGEE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51705.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1971.

In re: Shelby Magee applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
# Elevator Inspection Report

                - Title:  Elevator Inspection Report 
                - Form #:         GSA376      
                - Current Revision Date:  11/1967
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAYMOND E. AYALA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 449 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAYMOND E. AYALA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 450 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
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

ROBERT BENNING BALTHROPE, II,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17213

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01874-FCDKJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 22, 2010** 

Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying judicial estoppel

because Robert Benning Balthrope, II, (“Balthrope”) attempted to pursue legal

claims that he did not disclose during his bankruptcy proceedings. See Hamilton v.

FILED

OCT 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17213

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 784 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying judicial

estoppel where debtor failed to disclose a pending claim as an asset in a bankruptcy

proceeding). Contrary to Balthrope’s contention, he was required to amend his

bankruptcy petition to include the post-petition claim because his Chapter 13

bankruptcy proceeding had not been closed, dismissed, or converted, and the

property of the bankruptcy estate had not revested in him. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 1306(a)(1); see also Hamilton, 270 F.3d at 784 (“Judicial estoppel will be

imposed when the debtor has knowledge of enough facts to know that a potential

cause of action exists during the pendency of the bankruptcy, but fails to amend his

schedules or disclosure statements to identify the cause of action as a contingent

asset.”) (citation omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Balthrope’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis after considering his income and assets as set forth in

his bankruptcy action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (case must be dismissed if

“the allegation of poverty is untrue”); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th

Cir. 1990).

Balthrope’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 I, R. David Russell, certify that:
 
 1.
    I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Apollo Gold Corporation
    for the period ended December 31, 2003;
 
 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;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 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: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. David RussellR. David Russell, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
  /s/  Gerald D. KelferGerald D. KelferPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

OLAWALE AKERE, a/k/a Willie,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-7119

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

OLAWALE AKERE, a/k/a Willie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-174-A, CA-97-1081-AM)

Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999
2

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olawale Akere, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Bernard James Apperson, III, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

July 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on July 22, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

Olawale Akere seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999), and declining to allow in camera review of certain documents. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Akere, Nos. CR-94-174-A;

CR-94-174-A (E.D. Va. December 17, 1997 & July 22, 1998).* We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021028EN.01006102.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/61

---

Action brought on 24 November 2020 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE)

(Case T-700/20)

(2021/C 28/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE in the colours blue, yellow, green, (creamy) white — European Union trade mark No 10 108 454

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2020 in Case R 2186/2019-4

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 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 00-994.

#### Morales *v.*Ayers, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through June 30, 2020.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne Fairbanks, Designated Federal Officer, Safety and Occupational Health Study Section, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, telephone 304-285-6143 or fax 304-285-6147.

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2018-13994 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
1 The petiti on in thi s case was fil ed on June 10, 1998, and is ther efore governed by

the provi sions of the 19 95 Pos t-Convic tion Proc edure A ct. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997).



# FILED
December 29, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON ARNETT MCNEAL, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9809-CR-00263 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. P-20060 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state’s motion to affirm the tr ial court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for postconviction relief. On F

ebruary 17, 1989, the petiti oner pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape and two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. It also appears that on May 25, 1989, the petitioner pled guilty to grand larceny and four counts of armed robbery. No appeal was taken from these conv ictions. On June 10, 1998, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction attacking the validity of his guilty pleas. Finding that the s tatute of limitations had expi red, the trial court dis missed the petition without a hearing.

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202( a) 1 , a person in custody under a sentence of a court of this state must petiti on for post-conviction r elief within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state app ellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, withi n one year of the date on whic h judgment became final. The Post-Conviction Proc

edure Act provides sev eral limited exceptions

to the one-year statute of limitations, howev er none of them are applicable to the present case. See § 40-30-202(b). Contrary to the petitioner’s arg ument, the petition in this cas e was filed2 The pe tition would als o be bar red und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See T.C.A . § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619 ( Tenn . Crim. A pp.), perm . to app. denied , (Tenn. 1994). 2 well beyond the appl icable st atute of limitati ons, and is, there fore, un timely. 2 Accordingly, the pos

t-conviction court pr

operly dismissed the peti tion without an evidentiary hearing

or appointment of counsel. T.C.A. § 40-30-206(b).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is aff irmed in accordance with Rule 20 , Rules of the Court of Crimina l Appeals. Costs of this appeal shall be taxed to the state.

__________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

__________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

__________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-39247, 333-51671-01, 333-51759 and 333-61913, and Form S-8
Nos. 333-12117, 333-29759, 333-29763 and 333-55901) and related Prospectuses of
Highwoods Properties, Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-51671) and related Prospectus of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership of our
report dated February 18, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Highwoods Properties, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 30, 2000
#### Thomasine Griggs PAPY, formerly Thomasine G. Frischkorn, Appellant, v. David E. K. FRISCHKORN, Appellee.

No. 69-496.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 28, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1970.

Heiman & Crary, Orlando, for appellant.

Smathers & Thompson and Earl D. Waldin, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former wife of the appel-lee, sued him in the circuit court for damages arising out of slander and other torts which she alleged appellee committed against her while they were technically husband and wife but after they were separated and divorce proceedings were pending. Appellant’s amended complaint was dismissed by the trial court, without leave to amend. Appellant seeks reversal of that judgment of dismissal.

We think the trial judge was correct in dismissing the amended complaint but solely for the reason that it failed to state a cause of action because the matters complained of occurred during coverture. Bencomo v. Bencomo, Fla.1967, 200 So.2d 171.

Affirmed.