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

No. 70-1180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 31, 2009, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, which report appears in the December 31, 2008 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 changes in accounting for
uncertainties in income taxes during 2007.





LOGO

|                   
|-------------------
|Birmingham, Alabama
|March 31, 2009
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00295- CV Ca va lr y Hi ll C e m e te r y, th e Ca th oli c Di oc e se of D all as , a nd t he Le to t F am ilyHe ir s, Appellan ts v. Attor ney Ge neral of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. GN403477 , HO NORAB LE SCOTT H. JENKI NS, JUDGE PRESI DING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant s h av e f

il e d ana gr e e d

mo ti o nto d is mi s s th e ir

a p p e a l a dv is in gth is Co urt that they no longe r desire to pur sue their appea l. The appea l is dismiss ed and costs are as sessed ag ainst the party

incurringthem. See Tex. R. App. P . 42(a) (1)

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P uryear and Pember

ton Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion Filed: June 10, 20052
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          31,195
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                28,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    131,622
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,870
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,945
<LOANS>                                        281,558<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 515,440
<DEPOSITS>                                     404,130
<SHORT-TERM>                                    43,941
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,273
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 515,440
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,037
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,177
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,874
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                35,088
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,220
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,825
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,263
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      375
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,684
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,684
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.84
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,135
<LOANS-PAST>                                       384
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   162
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,882
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,538
<RECOVERIES>                                       868
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,587
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,587
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>New of allowance for loan losses of $5,587.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 554

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 29, 1994.

Resolved, That all points of order against the conference

report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, and against

its consideration are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### THOMAS BONSAL vs. ENOCH E. CAMP. The Same vs. JOHN N. HARKER, bail of E. E. CAMP.

■ Action against appearance bail struck off and ho let in to defend the suit against his principal, on payment of costs, and entering special bail.

The first suit stood on a return of “ cepi corpus and bail bond.” The second was an action of debt on the bail bond.

The action against Camp was an action on the case in which Barker became his 16 appearance bail,” or bail to the sheriff. At the return term the defendant failed to appear and put in special bail, whereupon the plaintiff took an assignment of the bail bond, and commenced this action.

Mr. *Wales*now moved, as counsel for the bail,

to strike off the suit against him on payment of costs, and on entering special bail to the original action.

*Gilpin*

objected. This is the second term, and I am entitled to judgment against the principal. If the defendant or his appearance bail had entered special bail at the return term according to the obligation of their bond, we could now have judgment.

Wales, for the bail.

*Gilpin,*for plaintiff

*The Court*

said they would place the parties in such condition as if the bail had done his duty by entering special bail at the last term.

We will let him in to defend the original action, as to the amount due, on his paying costs in the action against him, entering an appearance and special bail in the original action, and confessing judgment therein, amount to be ascertained by the prothonotary.

Note. — The dispute was merely as to the amount due. (See *Guthrie*vs. Morrison, 1 *Harr.*308.)
#### Mary Reynolds, Respondent, *v.*Samuel King, Appellant, and George Goldsmith, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

December, 1911.)

Landlord and tenant — Bights, duties and liabilities in regard to premises— Injuries from defective condition: Injuries to strangers: Liability of landlord for nuisance.

The landlord is not liable for the act of a tenant in opening doors in the sidewalk in front of the demised premises which, when closed, form part of the sidewalk and are entirely sufficient for the purpose, and in leaving them, standing upright but hooked together by an iron bar, so that they fall, striking and injuring a passerby; nor is the landlord chargeable with the maintenance of a nuisance for failing to provide a device which would have held the doors securely in position when open.

Appeal by the defendant King from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Rew York, borough of Manhattan, third district, in favor of the plaintiff and against both defendants, rendered after a trial by the court without a jury.

James I. Cuff, for appellant.

Frank I Sullivan, for respondent.

Giegerich, J.

The action is brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the fall of a door which formed part of the covering of the entrance from the sidewalk to the cellar of certain premises in the borough of Manhattan, Rew York city. She joined as defendants the owner of the building and the tenant of the cellar and recovered judgment against both.

It appears that the tenant, having occasion to go into the cellar, opened the two iron doors which formed the cover to the stairway and left them standing upright but hooked together by an iron bar. While the plain-tiff was standing on the sidewalk beside the cellar entrance, both doors fell *440from their upright position to the sidewalk and she was struck by the one nearest to her. It is not questioned that the doors, when closed, formed part of the sidewalk and were entirely sufficient for that purpose; but it is urged tha't the landlord, by failing to provide a device which would have held them securely in position when open, was chargeable, with the maintenance of a nuisance and was, therefore, properly held liable.

I do not think the contention sound. There was nothing the matter with the doors, so long ns they remained closed. When and how they should be opened, and whether when opened they should be left upright or laid back flat, and if upright how they should be guarded, were matters entirely within the control .of the tenant. In the present' case, he chose to leave them standing upright and insecurely fastened, and the injury is chargeable solely to his negligence. Opper v. Hellinger, 116 App. Div. 261.

The judgment, as against the defendant King, should be reversed, with costs; and judgment directed dismissing the complaint, as against him, upon the merits, with costs, since the record shows that no. judgment could properly be taken against him upon a new trial.

Lehman and Pendleton, JJ., concur.

Judgment as against defendant King-reversed, with costs, and judgment directed dismissing the complaint against him, with costs'.
Exhibit 32

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

(i)	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2007 filed the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)	Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gerber Scientific, Inc.



|Date:  March 8, 2007 | /s/ Marc T. Giles                                   | 
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|                     | Marc T. Giles
President and Chief Executive Officer | 



| | /s/ Jay Zager                                                  | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Jay Zager
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14524]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of Commission Public Business Meeting.

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

DATES: Friday, July 13, 2018, 10:00 a.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Place: National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. (Entrance on F Street 
NW.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Walch: (202) 376-8371; TTY: 
(202) 376-8116; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8d8ddcac4c1cbc9cecec9c1dadbe8dddbcbcbda86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89f9fcebe5e0eae8efefe8e0fbfac9fcfaeaeafba7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This business meeting is open to the 
public.There will also be a call-in line for individuals who desire to 
listen to the presentations: (855) 719-5012, Conference ID 6113336. The 
event will live-stream at: https://www.youtube.com/user/USCCR/videos. 
(Streaming information is subject to change.) Persons with disabilities 
who need accommodation should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 
or at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddbcbebeb8aeae9da8aebebeaff3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="28494b4b4d5b5b685d5b4b4b5a064f475e">[email protected]</span></a> at least seven (7) business days before the 
scheduled date of the meeting.

Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Business Meeting
    A. Discussion and vote on Commission Advisory Committee Chair
    <bullet> John Malcolm, nominated to Chair the Washington, DC 
Advisory Committee
    B. Presentation by New Hampshire Advisory Committee Chair on the 
Committee's recently released report: Voting Rights in New Hampshire
    C. Presentation on the 50th anniversary of the Kerner Commission
    <bullet> Alan Curtis, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, 
The Eisenhower Foundation
    D. Presentation by Alaska Advisory Committee Chair on the 
Committee's recently-released report: Alaska Native Voting Rights
    E. Management and operations
    <bullet> Staff Director's Report
III. Adjourn Meeting

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Brian Walch,
Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
[FR Doc. 2018-14524 Filed 7-2-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
259 La. 762

#### James A. STERLING et ux. v. Harness JONES et ux.

No. 51623.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: James A. Sterling, et ux, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 249 So.2d 334.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
#### **Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), S. James Miller, Jr., ChiefExecutive Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), and Wayne Wetherell, theChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the bestof his knowledge:

 

**1.****                                     **The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ended December 31, 2002, to which this Certification is attached asExhibit 99.1 (the “***Report”***)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.****                                     **The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company atthe end of the periods covered by the Report and the results of operations ofthe Company for the periods covered by the Report.

 
| Dated:  April  14, 2003    |   |                       |
|---------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                            |   |                       |
|                            |   |                       |
| /s/   S. JAMES MILLER, JR. |   | /s/   WAYNE WETHERELL |   |
| S. James Miller, Jr.            |   | Wayne Wetherell            |
| Chief Executive Officer         |   | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to ImageWare Systems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWareSystems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
#### Hannah KRAFF, Appellant, v. Harry Herman GARFIELD, Appellee.

No. 66-947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 11, 1967.

Fuller & Brumer, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Miami, for appellant.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl and Richard J. Thornton, Rosen, Rothstein & Chonin, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are called upon to test the sufficiency of an amended complaint filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the appellee-defendant. The amended complaint set forth alleged gross negligence under Fla.Stat. § 320.59, F.S.A., on the part of the defendant while operating a motor vehicle, causing an accident and injuries to the appellant.

We find that the amended complaint states a cause of action. Therefore, we reverse the final order here under review, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, upon the authority of Faircloth v. Hill, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 870; Farrey v. Bettendorf, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 889; Carraway v. Revell, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 16.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
#### Dr. Samuel CLIFFORD, Appellant, v. EQUILEASE CORPORATION, a subsidiary of Eltra Corporation, a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-954.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2020271EN.01004402.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/44

---

Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Lee v EUIPO (Table knives, forks and spoons)

(Case T-382/20)

(2020/C 271/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Keun Jig Lee (Paju-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: European Union design No 5 866 514-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 2559/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirely;

| — | declare admissible the application for restitutio in integrum and grant it;; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the application for restitutio in integrum and grant it;;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 67(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 67(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 67(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
H. Res. 199

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 22, 1993.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House 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. Debate on the bill shall not exceed one

hour, with thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Ways and Means and thirty minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Rules. The previous question shall be con-
2

HRES 199 EH

sidered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6874

STANLEY M. MYERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-02-98-3; CA-03-12-3) Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 3, 2004 Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley M. Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stanley M. Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Myers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
H. Res. 458

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 22, 1994.

Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

4602) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1995, and for other purposes, all points of order against

provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or

6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning on page

80, line 10, through line 19.

Attest:

Clerk.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED; Opinion Filed March 14, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00319-CV

IN RE: W.W.H., Relator

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-15156

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Relator contends the trial judge erred in denying her plea to the jurisdiction. The facts 

and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the 

record before us, we conclude relator has not shown she is entitled to the relief requested. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

130319F.P05

/David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
No. 10499.

#### Fuller et al. *v.*Waldo et al.

Decided October 27, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

*Messrs. Esgate, Spencer & Snyder,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Kohler, Kohler & Mottinger,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed; one of the grounds of reversal *438being that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Si-iauck, Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.