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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 318

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that, by January

1, 1998, States should eliminate the use of cash for payment of welfare

benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that,

by January 1, 1998, States should eliminate the use

of cash for payment of welfare benefits.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that, by January 1, 1998, States that provide

3 aid to families with dependent children under a plan ap4 proved under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act

5 should provide such aid through payments into an ac6 count, established for each receipient of such aid, that is

7 accessible to the recipient only through the use of a debit

8 card that—

9 (1) is issued by the State to the recipient;
2

•HRES 318 IH

1 (2) contains the account number, a photograph

2 of the recipient, and the signature of the recipient;

3 (3) is indistinguishable from other kinds of

4 debit cards; and

5 (4) may be used by the recipient only to pur6 chase goods and services, for not more than the

7 price thereof, through an electronic funds transfer

8 network and point-of-sale technology.

Æ
#### Semour GOTCH and James Thomas Ervin, Appellants, v. Jose G. PENA, Appellee. Semour GOTCH and James Thomas Ervin, Appellants, v. Genaro MARTINEZ, Appellee.

Nos. 68-1110, 68-1111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 7, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         231,679
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,876
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          965,421
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (728,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,876
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               395,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (395,545)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)


</TABLE>
#### Richard EATON, Appellant, v. Lila A. EATON, Appellee.

No. 1392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 21, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Lewis COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; William Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Hedges, Controller and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2010                                      
|                                                          
|/s/ David A. Hedges                                       
|David A. Hedges VP, Controller
and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
# C_2020129EN.01000901.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/9

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-101/20)

(2020/C 129/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

---
# C_2020313EN.01003001.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/30

---

Action brought on 20 July 2020 — LF v Commission

(Case T-466/20)

(2020/C 313/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LF (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 11 September 2019 by which the applicant was refused entitlement to the expatriation allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11 September 2019 by which the applicant was refused entitlement to the expatriation allowance;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

---
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-74016), Form S-3(No. 333-64192) and Form S-3 (No. 333-11842) of ImageWare Systems, Inc. ofour report dated March 26, 2004 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A.

 

 
|  /s/Stonefield  Josephson, Inc. |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Stonefield Josephson, Inc.           |
| Los Angeles, CA                      |
| May 20, 2004                    |

 

----
#### George T. HARMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 46412.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 28, 1971.

Claude A. Chamberlin, Aberdeen, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy and Timmie Hancock, Spe. Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Olin G. LUDLAM, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee.

No. P-481.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 17, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1972.

Dale E. Rice, of Campbell & Rice, Crest-view, for appellant.

Charles R. Timmel, of Timmel, Handley & Campbell, Fort Walton Beach, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of defendant in a negligence suit.

Appellant had purchased a Ford pickup truck in 1967. On November 21, 1968, appellant had had a 6,000 mile checkup by the dealer garage. Apparently no defects were found. On December 23, 1968, while driving the truck on a S-shaped curve and wet road, the appellant ran off the road, tried to reverse its direction and went across the road on the other side, left the road and turned over. Appellant claimed that the steering wheel was defective causing him to lose control of the truck. Ap-pellee raises as one of its defenses that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence in that there was not a mechanical defect in the truck but negligent operation.

The trial court, over the objection of the plaintiff-appellant herein, gave an instruction to the jury on contributory negligence. Appellant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant this instruction, and charges error in so doing. We disagree with appellant. There was enough evidence from which the jury could find contributory negligence and we think the trial court was right in submitting the same to the jury. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
State of Vermont 

Superior Court—Environmental Division 

====================================================================== 

E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N 

====================================================================== 

In re Conlon CU Permit Docket No. 2-1-12 Vtec 

(Appeal of Planning Commission grant of conditional use approval for two-lot subdivision) 

 

Title: Motion to Strike Questions 12, 15, 16 and 18. 

Response filed on 10/26/12 by Appellants John and Julia Baldwin 

 X Granted (in part) X Denied (in part) ___ Other 

On September 14, 2012, this Court provided John and Julia Baldwin (“Appellants”) with 

additional time to file a revised Statement of Questions, given that the Court had previously 

dismissed Appellants’ Questions 7, 10, 11, and 19 and provided notice that the Court intended 

to also dismiss Appellants’ Questions 12, 15, 16 and 18, if Appellants “fail[ed] to reframe these 

four Questions or fail to raise cognizable issues in their reframed Question(s).” In re Conlon CU 

Permit, No. 2-1-12 Vtec, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Super Ct., Envtl. Div. Aug. 30, 2012). 

In response, Appellants did not file a revised Statement of Questions, but rather on 

October 26, 2012 filed a document that contains the following sub-titles: Questions 12 & 18 

Revised and Merged and Questions 15 & 16 Revised and Merged. 

Appellants’ revised and merged Questions 12 and 18 appear to challenge the proposed 

Staniscia/Conlon subdivision and structure’s conformance with certain provisions in the Town 

of Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. While the language Appellants chose to use in their revised 

and merged Questions 12 and 18 is somewhat confusing, it provides sufficient notice of the 

basis for Appellants’ legal challenge. We therefore order that Appellants’ original Questions 12 

and 18 are hereby STRICKEN and replaced with the revised and merged language Appellants 

offered for those Questions. 

Appellants revised and merged Questions 15 and 16 do not provide any reference to a 

zoning ordinance provision that is within this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain in this appeal. 

We therefore STRIKE Appellant’s Questions 15 and 16 and disregard their offered revised and 

merged language. 

The Court Manager shall now set this matter for a pre-trial conference. The parties 

should prepare to discuss at that conference what remains for this matter to be ready for trial 

scheduling.

_________________________________________ February 5, 2013 

 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date 

============================================================================= 

Date copies sent: ____________ Clerk's Initials: _______ 

Copies sent to: 

 Appellants John and Julia Baldwin, pro se 

 Martin Nitka, Attorney for Applicants/Appellees Edward Conlon and Debra Staniscia 

 Frederick M. Glover, Attorney for Town of Plymouth
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylyania 19103-2029 

Honorable John Quigley, Secretary 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063 

Dear Secretary Quigley: 

OCT 1 4 2015 

On October 1, 2015, EPA received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (P ADEP). That 

revision, dated September 30, 2015, is entitled "State Implementation Plan Revision: 2011 Base 

Year Inventory for Pennsylvania Portion of Five 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Areas: AllentownBethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

Reading". EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, 

and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Maria A. Pino, 

Office of Air Program Planning, at 215-814-2181, or pino.maria@epa.gov. She is the principal 

contact for this rulemaking. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

J)r~~ 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

0 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
#### John Edward HERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-924.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 28, 1973.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In his appeal from a conviction of second degree murder the defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to charge the jury upon the offense of manslaughter as a lesser degree of homicide and upon the offense of aggravated assault as a lesser included offense as requested by the defendant.

Based upon the clear language of Rule 3.490, FRCrP, 33 F.S.A. (former Section 919.14, F.S.), the recent decisions interpreting crimes divisible into degrees and necessarily included offenses, and the instant facts, we are of the opinion that *265the trial court erred in failing to charge on the offenses of manslaughter and aggravated assault. Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377; Appell v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 250 So.2d 318; see also State v. Washington, Fla.1972, 268 So.2d 901; Rayner v. State, Fla. 1973, 273 So.2d 759. The fact that a defendant may assert a claim of self-defense does not mitigate the operation of Rule 3.490 or dispense with the duty of the court to charge the jury on all lesser degrees and necessarily included offenses. Cf. Robles v. State, Fla.1968, 210 So.2d 441.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with the views expressed herein.

Reversed and Remanded.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Page 20 of 20


                               GENESEE CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genesee Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Steven M. Morse,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (as Principal Financial Officer) of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (ii) The information contained in the Report presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.


                                /s/ Steven M. Morse
                                -----------------------------------
                                Steven M. Morse
                                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                November 21, 2003





                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genesee Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Stephen B. Ashley,
President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (ii) The information contained in the Report presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.


                                /s/ Stephen B. Ashley
                                -----------------------------------
                                Stephen B. Ashley
                                President
                                November 21, 2003
# C_2020271EN.01005401.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/54

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB

(Case T-412/20)

(2020/C 271/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Helle, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ES/2020/24), including its annexes, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I and Annex II, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on eleven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-405/20, DZ Hyp v SRB.

---
/

!

Pierre

Atto ey for Sky Bahamas Airline

Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Pursuant to the above-referenced application filed on November 6, 2013 in Docket OSTDOT-2003-15552, we hereby confirm that we have completed a polling of the U.S. carriers on

the service list. All have conveyed a "no objection" to the above-referenced application or early

action in its processing. Thus, Sky Bahamas Airline respectfully requests early action.

Dear Mr. Finamore:

Re: Sky Bahamas Airlines:

Application for an Amendment of Application to Renew Exemption Authority

Attn: Robert Finamore

Acting Chief

Office ofIntemational Aviation, X-45

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

VIA EMAIL

November 13, 2013

TELEPHONE: (202) 822-8050 E-MAIL pmurphy@lopmurphy.com

TELECOPIER: (202) 822-9075

LAW OFFICES

PIERRE MURPHY

SUITE 800

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors

Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statement (No. 333-03516) on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No. 333-87626) on Form S-8 of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2008, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc.

Our report on the Companys consolidated financial statements refers to the Companys change in accounting for uncertainties in income taxes during 2007.





|                   
|-------------------
|LOGO               
|                   
|Birmingham, Alabama
|March 31, 2008
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00697-CR

Leslie COLLINS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR8675

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED January 21, 2015.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice