alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Otis Alonzo CRUMBSLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1174.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 23, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1973.

*402Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer (Legal Intern), for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty after a trial before the court without jury of “unlawfully buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property, well knowing the same to be stolen”. On this appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

The evidence reveals that when appellant was arrested several persons were occupying a car owned and driven by the appellant. A stolen camera was found in a paper bag on the floor behind the front seat. The camera was identified as one stolen by someone from a parked automobile. A police officer testified that appellant’s car was pointed out by bystanders as the one which the thief had entered.

The evidence was not sufficient to rebut a reasonable hypothesis of appellant’s innocence or to rebut the hypothesis that he himself was the thief. See Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629. Appellant’s testimony that he was without knowledge that the camera was in the car or that it was stolen property cannot, under the circumstances of this case, be said to be unreasonable. We direct that the appellant be discharged.

Because appellant is incarcerated pursuant to a short sentence, the time for filing a petition for rehearing is shortened to three days.

Reversed.
#### George G. Hopkins, Jeanne Brack and Mary Ann Turney, Plaintiffs, *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Defendant.

Submitted on briefs, March 6, 1975,

to Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*John J. Scott,*for plaintiff, Hopkins.

*Peter T. O’Malley,*for plaintiff, Brack.

*Thomas J. Jones,*for plaintiff, Turney.

*Arthur H. Marateck,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Robert W. Cunliffe,*Deputy Attorney General, and *Robert P. Kane,*Attorney General, for defendant.

March 19, 1975.

Per Curiam

Opinion,

This case is before us in our original jurisdiction. It is a suit against the Commonwealth, in trespass, alleging negligence in failing to properly warn drivers of a dangerous curve and failure to provide an adequate guardrail and shoulder area.

*40The Commonwealth has filed preliminary objections based on sovereign immunity. The preliminary objections must be sustained. *See Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,*454 Pa. 179, 301 A.2d 849 (1973) ; *Brown v. Commonwealth,*453 Pa. 566, 305 A.2d 868 (1973).
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**PC MALL, INC.**

Subsidiaries of the Registrant 

As of December 31, 2002 

 

| **SUBSIDIARY**           | **STATE OF INCORPORATION** |
|--------------------------|----------------------------|
| CCIT, Inc.               | Delaware                   |
| ClubMac, Inc             | Delaware                   |
| ecost.com, Inc           | Delaware                   |
| eLinux.com, Inc.         | Delaware                   |
| PC Mall Gov, Inc         | Delaware                   |
| PC Mall Sales, Inc.      | California                 |
| WF Acquisition Sub, Inc. | Delaware                   |
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, each of the undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 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 such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Golden West Financial Corporation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |                                                                                                        |                          
|---------------- |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------
|                 |  | 
|May 7, 2004 Date |  |  |                                                                                                        | /s/    HERBERT M. SANDLER
|                 |  |  |                                                                                                       
|                 |  |  | Herbert M. Sandler Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial Corporation
|                 |  | 
|May 7, 2004 Date |  |  |                                                                                                        | /s/    MARION O. SANDLER 
|                 |  |  |                                                                                                       
|                 |  |  | Marion O. Sandler Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial Corporation 
|                 |  | 
|May 7, 2004 Date |  |  |                                                                                                        | /s/    RUSSELL W. KETTELL
|                 |  |  |                                                                                                       
|                 |  |  | Russell W. Kettell President and Chief Financial Officer Golden West Financial Corporation
#### BRITTINGHAM *vs.*COLLINS & DAVIS.

The court will *not tax the costs of witnesses summoned to*support the character of other witnesses, and not examined.

Replevin. In this case after a trial and verdict for the defendants, *Mr. Houston,*for plaintiff, moved the court to disallow the costs of five witnesses who were summoned by the defendants and not sworn.

*Mr. Cullen*

said they were summoned to support the character of one of *the*witnesses *in the*cause, who they *had*heard was *to be*attacked; and he offered an affidavit to this effect, referring to *Marshall*vs. *Layton, 2 Harr. Rep.*344.

But the court refused to allow the attendance of these witnesses to he taxed among the costs, saying that a great number of witnesses

*299
      *Mr. Houston,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. Cullen,*for defendants.

had been examined by the defendants to the same points, and the costs already greatly increased in a case of very trifling importance. The verdict, which was for the full amount in controversy, was only for $21 49, and the costs over $200. They said also, it would be a very dangerous principle to settle, that a party might at the expense of his opponent, summon all the witnesses he might choose, to support his case, and then as many more, to support each of these witnesses. There is nothing raised by the issues in the cause to authorize the summoning these witnesses.

Verdict for defendants.
# C_2021044EN.01005902.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/59

---

Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)

(Case T-733/20)

(2021/C 44/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BANDIT — EU trade mark No 1 205 061

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 in Case R 730/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and order that his rights in EU trade mark No 1 205 061 be re-established in accordance with his application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and order that his rights in EU trade mark No 1 205 061 be re-established in accordance with his application;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82346-82347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33611]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7745]

Determination and Waiver Under the United States Leadership 
Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, as Amended, 
Relating to Assistance to the Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan 
and the United States Contribution to the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis and Malaria for Fiscal Year 2010

    Pursuant to Section 202(d)(4)(A)(ii) of the United States 
Leadership Against

[[Page 82347]]

HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-25), as 
amended by the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global 
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization 
Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-293), Executive Order 12163, as amended by 
Executive Order 13361, and Delegation of Authority 293-1, I hereby 
determine that assistance by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis and Malaria to the Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan 
through the Southern Sudan Country Coordinating Mechanism is justified 
for humanitarian reasons, and hereby waive, with respect to such 
assistance provided in the year preceding FY 2010, the application of 
Section 202(d)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act.
    This determination shall be reported to Congress and published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 13, 2011.
Eric P. Goosby,
Ambassador, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
[FR Doc. 2011-33611 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
DOW RESTRICTED - For internal use only 

October 18, 2012 

Below is a description of the methods we use for MDI samples taken both within Dow and externally. 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 

Airborne concentrations of MDI were evaluated using the following method: 

MDI

 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINE FORMATION CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR2.203(b)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHNSTON
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JULY 3, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                       1,280,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               39,045,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,440,000
<INVENTORY>                                 51,734,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           101,725,000
<PP&E>                                     242,407,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             149,717,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             210,844,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      147,711,000
<BONDS>                                    124,220,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,246,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,376,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               210,844,000
<SALES>                                    132,794,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           132,794,000
<CGS>                                      119,305,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,305,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,366,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               170,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,180,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,514,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,862,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,652,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,652,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.34)


</TABLE>
# C_2020095EN.01003501.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/35

---

Action brought on 8 January 2020 — Tratkowski v Commission

(Case T-14/20)

(2020/C 95/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Michal Tratkowski (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 14 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request to be admitted to the internal competitions COM/2/AD12/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 14 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request to be admitted to the internal competitions COM/2/AD12/18;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the decision refusing to admit the applicant to the internal competition due to the lack of minimum grade. The applicant alleges that the minimum grade is not the real indicator of the competencies. As a result, the requirement of a minimum grade prevents the recruitment of experienced and qualified candidates. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the decision refusing to admit the applicant to the internal competition due to the lack of minimum grade. The applicant alleges that the minimum grade is not the real indicator of the competencies. As a result, the requirement of a minimum grade prevents the recruitment of experienced and qualified candidates.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and Article 27 of Staff Regulations by requirement of a minimum grade which does not affect in the same way temporary agents and officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment and Article 27 of Staff Regulations by requirement of a minimum grade which does not affect in the same way temporary agents and officials.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the requirement to apply to one field only which prevents the recruitment based on highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity on the broadest possible basis. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations by the requirement to apply to one field only which prevents the recruitment based on highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity on the broadest possible basis.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 31321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14485]



[[Page 31319]]

Vol. 83

Tuesday,

No. 128

July 3, 2018

Part V





The President





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Memorandum of June 4, 2018--Delegation of Authority Under Section 709 
of the Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017



Presidential Determination No. 2018-09 of June 4, 2018--Suspension of 
Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 31321]]

                Memorandum of June 4, 2018

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 709 of the 
                Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 
                the authority to submit, in consultation with the 
                Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and 
                the Director of National Intelligence, the report 
                required under section 709 of the Department of State 
                Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-323) 
                (the ``Act''), as amended.

                The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any 
                provision of any future public law that is the same or 
                substantially the same as section 709 of the Act.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 4, 2018

[FR Doc. 2018-14485
Filed 7-2-18; 11:15 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.16

                      AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Business Loan Agreement and Master Revolving Note (this
"Amendment"), effective as of December 27, 1999, is entered into by and between
Comerica Bank-California ("Bank") and Taitron Components Incorporated, a
California corporation ("Borrower").

     Bank and Borrower are parties to that certain Business Loan Agreement dated
as of May 6, 1997 (as heretofore amended, together with the Addendum attached to
and made a part thereof, the "Business Loan Agreement"). In connection with the
Business Loan Agreement, Borrower entered into that certain Master Revolving
Note dated May 6, 1997 in the maximum principal amount of $16,000,000 (the
"Revolving Note") and that certain Addendum to Master Revolving Note dated as of
May 6, 1997 (the "Note Addendum").

     Borrower has requested, and Bank has agreed, to make certain amendments to
the Business Loan Agreement, the Note and the Note Addendum as set forth below.
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Bank and Borrower agree as follows:

     1.   Section 2(a) of the Addendum to the Business Loan Agreement is
hereby amended and restated to read in full as follows:

          (a)  Tangible Effective Net Worth in an amount not less than
          (i) $26,500,000 at any time prior to December 31, 1997, (ii)
          $27,000,000 at any time commencing on December 31, 1997 through and
          including December 30, 1998, (iii) $28,000,000 commencing on December
          31, 1998 through and including December 30, 1999, (iv) $28,350,000 as
          of December 31, 1999 and (v) following December 31, 1999, the sum of
          $28,350,000 plus 100% of net income for each fiscal year thereafter
          (determined in accordance with GAAP, but excluding stock repurchases
          and dividends, provided that in no event shall such net income be
          deemed to be less than zero.

     2.   The following new Section 2(d) is hereby added to the Addendum to the
Business Loan Agreement:

          (d)  A net profit for each fiscal year (determined in accordance with
          GAAP) of not less than $1,000,000.

     3.   Borrower and Bank hereby affirm that each of the Business Loan
Agreement, the Revolving Note and the Note Addendum remains in full force and
effect without modification except as expressly provided in this Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Bank have duly executed and delivered this
Amendment as of the date first written above.


TAITRON COMPONENTS INCORPORATED             COMERICA BANK-CALIFORNIA


By: /s/ Stewart Wang                        By: /s/ Jason Brown
Name:    Stewart Wang                       Name: Jason Brown
Title: CEO and President                    Title: Vice President


                                       42
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         195,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,587,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     83,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,564,600
<PP&E>                                      12,322,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,248,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,419,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,415,600
<BONDS>                                      1,743,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,584,300
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,502,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,419,100
<SALES>                                      6,423,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,423,300
<CGS>                                        3,972,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,284,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,079,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             178,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                136,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            121,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .009
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .009
        

</TABLE>
#### David J. Connor et al., Appellants, v Town of Manlius et al., Respondents. In the Matter of David J. Connor et al., Appellants, v Town of Manlius et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[656 NYS2d 1020]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Stone, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Settle Record.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.