alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Deborah Lynn RUBLE, a minor by and through her father and next friend, John Ruble, and John Ruble, Individually, Appellants, v. William Andrew MONEY and Transit Casualty Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. 71-694.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 26, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Murray W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[No. 1023-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

November 22, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ronald Louis Hrbal, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 55201, James W. Mifflin, J., entered January 22, 1971. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2022294EN.01001001.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

(Case C-55/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 11 - Reimbursement of excise duty on excise goods released for consumption - Directive 2011/64/EU - point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 - Reimbursement of excise duty already paid, by means of tax markings, affixed to manufactured tobacco destroyed under administrative supervision - Obligation of Member States to adopt regulations providing for the reimbursement of excise duties on manufactured tobacco released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision - None)

(2022/C 294/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Defendant:‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions do not require Member States to provide for the reimbursement of excise duty in respect of excise goods, including manufactured tobacco, destroyed under customs supervision, which have already been released for consumption.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 304 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 117

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 304

                          [Report No. 103-343]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 288) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 9, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 117
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 304

                          [Report No. 103-343]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 288) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 288) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 288) making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and for 
other purposes. Debate on the joint resolution shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0203 

IN RE THE PARENTING OF: 

R.D.R., 

A Minor Child, 

RICHARD DANE RENN, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

and 

NATALIA MERION BURCAR, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

FILED 

JUL 01 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Suprerne Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until September 2, 2022, within 

which to file the opening brief. 

No further extensions , will be granted. 

DATED this ' 'day of July, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

07/01/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0203
Exhibit 8.1


                    SUBSIDIARIES OF W.P. STEWART & CO., LTD.


Subsidiary                                       JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----------                                       -----------------------------
W.P. Stewart & Co. (Europe), Ltd.                           England

NS Money Management Ltd.                                    Bermuda

   Cribewell Investments                                    Curacao

TPRS Services N.V.                                          Curacao

W.P. Stewart & Co., Inc.                                    Delaware

W.P. Stewart Securities Limited                             Bermuda

W.P. Stewart Asset Management Ltd.                          Bermuda

   W.P. Stewart Fund Management Limited                     Ireland

W.P. Stewart Asset Management (NA), Inc.                    New York

   W.P. Stewart Asset Management, Inc.                      Delaware
# C_2020247EN.01004001.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/40

---

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — Yongkang Kugooo Technology v EUIPO — Ford Motor Company (kugoo)

(Case T-324/20)

(2020/C 247/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yongkang Kugooo Technology Co. Ltd (Yongkang, China) (represented by: P. Pérot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, United States)

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 figurative mark kugoo — Application for registration No 17 007 741

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 in Case R 65/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and grant the application for registration of the European Union figurative mark kugoo No 17 007 741; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and grant the application for registration of the European Union figurative mark kugoo No 17 007 741;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, together with taxes and all the costs incurred by the applicant before the EUIPO and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, together with taxes and all the costs incurred by the applicant before the EUIPO and the General Court.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000

<S>                                     <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     APR-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                          JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 3,550
<SECURITIES>                                           7,905
<RECEIVABLES>                                         11,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                             492
<INVENTORY>                                           16,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      40,421
<PP&E>                                               127,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                        89,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       142,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 21,185
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                 858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            88,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         142,973
<SALES>                                               46,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      46,935
<CGS>                                                 29,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          7,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       8,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          974
<INCOME-TAX>                                             448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      526
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             526
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0


</TABLE>
#### JAMES MERCER’S CASE.

The net of February, 1845, “ concerning non-resident insolvent prisoners,1* is constitutional.

Ex parte James Mercer, jr. Petition for the benefit of the insolvent act of J 845, by a non-resident, imprisoned at the suit of Jesse Sharpe, a citizen of this State.

*Mr. Wales,*for the imprisoning creditor,

opposed the discharge on the ground that the act of 1815 was unconstitutional. 1st. Because it is confined solely to non-residents, and gives them privileges and exemptions not enjoyed equally by our own citizens. 2d. If this act be constitutional it is invalid in relation to a *previous*contract, and as between citizens of different States. (3 *Story’s Com.*256; 12 *Wheat. Rep.)*

*Caulk, contra,*

*cited, 4 Wheat.*122; *Ingr. Ins.*176; 1 *Harr. Rep.*466; 3 *Ibid*271; 3 *Story’s Com.*252.

*The Court*

ordered the petitioner to be discharged.
Exhibit 4.14


 


Schedule
of Omitted Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreements


 


As these agreements are identical in every case except for reference
number, description of equipment and pricing information, we have, for ease of reference, filed only one standard agreement and
provided this schedule to indicate the agreements that we have omitted from filing as exhibits to this registration statement on
Form 20-F.


 


		1.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0070), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		2.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0082), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		3.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0084), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		4.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0111), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		5.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0131), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		6.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0133), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		7.	Photovoltaic Equipment Lease Agreement (FV-ASS-CLE-0135), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora S.A.
and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWY920000. L51040000.FI0000. 18XL5017AR]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW178259, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As provided for under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease WYW178259 from RKI 
Exploration and Production LLC, Chesapeake Exploration LLC, and OOGC 
America Inc. for land in Converse County, Wyoming. The lessees filed 
the petition on time, along with all rentals due since the lease 
terminated under the law. No leases affecting this land were issued 
before the petition was filed. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Hite, Branch Chief for Fluid 
Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 
5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82003; phone 
307-775-6176; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#791a11100d1c391b1514571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7949f9e8392b7959b9ad9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call 
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. 
Norelius during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above 
individual. A reply will be sent during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee agreed to the amended lease terms 
for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16 \2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and the $159 cost of 
publishing this notice. The lessee met the requirements for 
reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM proposes to reinstate the 
lease effective August 1, 2013, under the original terms and conditions 
of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 188(e)(4) and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(b)(2)(v).

Erik Norelius,
Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2018-14732 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Gold Standard, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), We, Scott L. Smith, President and director and Bret C.
Decker, Secretary of our Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 9/14/2004                         /s/Scott L. Smith
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Scott L. Smith
                                         President and director


Dated: 9/14/2004                         /s/Bret C. Decker
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Bret C. Decker
                                         Secretary and director
#### John Allen FREEMAN a/k/a Jerry Lee Parks, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1073.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 16, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt and William M. Grodnick, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on authority of *Willinsky*v. *State*(Fla.1978), case no. 49,330, opinion filed April 5,1978.
#### PORTLAND STEVEDORING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and Dale M. Loiselle, Respondents.

No. 75-3351.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 18, 1977.

John R. Dudrey, Fredrickson, Tassock, Weisensee, Barton & Cox, Portland, Ore., submitted briefs, for petitioner.

Ronald E. Meisburg, George M. Lilly, Washington, D. C., submitted briefs, for respondents.

Before MERRILL, WRIGHT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-employer Portland Stevedoring Company (Portland) seeks review of an order of the Benefits Review Board (Board) which awarded the attorney of respondent-claimant Dale M. Loiselle a fee of $400 to be paid directly by employer to Loiselle’s attorney in a lump sum.

Loiselle was injured on February 7, 1965. On March 4, 1969, the Deputy Commissioner awarded him compensation for permanent partial disability from June 8, 1965, at the rate of $12 per week, payable in biweekly installments. After rejecting a settlement agreement in the amount of $7,500, the Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 914(j), awarded Loiselle a lump-sum commutation of the unpaid balance to its present value, totalling $10,324.58. Portland appealed the award alleging that the Deputy Commissioner had abused his discretion. The Board upheld the commutation order and awarded Loiselle’s attorney a fee of $400 for services rendered only in conjunction with the appeal of the commutation order.

*294Section 928 of Title 33, as amended in 1972, provides for direct payment of attorney’s fees by an employer only when a claim involving the existence or extent of liability is resisted by an employer and is subsequently successfully prosecuted by claimant’s attorney. *See*H.R.Rep.No.92-1441, reprinted at 3 U.S.Cong. and Adm. News pp. 4698, 4706 (1972); *Atlantic and Gulf Stevedores v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs et al.,*542 F.2d 602, 609-10 (3d Cir. 1976); *Presley v. Tinseley Maintenance Service,*529 F.2d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 1976).

The commutation order did not establish the existence or extent of liability. This was done by the Deputy Commissioner’s order of March 5, 1969. Since the commutation order dealt only with the form of compensation (biweekly installments vs. a lump sum), the Board erred in ordering Portland to pay Loiselle’s attorney fees directly. Such fees should have been borne by Loiselle as a lien upon the compensation award, as authorized by 33 U.S.C. § 928(c). *Stevedores, supra*at 609-10.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### ROBULUS *v.*AMERICAN STATE BANK.

Mortgages — Foreclosure by Advertisement — Failure to Serve Notice — Statutes.

Where mortgage contained usual power of sale, foreclosure by advertisement should not be set aside on ground that plaintiff, one of mortgagors, was not served with notice of proceedings, where statute was strictly followed, and no irregularities are charged; statute not requiring actual notice (3 Comp. Laws 1929, §14427).

Appeal from Wayne; Merriam (DeWitt EL), J.

Submitted January 19, 1932.

(Docket No. 121, Calendar No. 36,210.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

Bill by Achilles Isidore Robulus against American State Bank and others to set aside a foreclosure sale and deed thereunder. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Ernest N. Papps,*for plaintiff.

*Archer F. Ritchie,*for defendant Peoples Wayne County Bank.

McDonald, J.

This bill was filed to have a foreclosure sale and sheriff’s deed set aside bn the ground that the plaintiff, one of the mortgagors, was not served with notice of the proceedings. On motion of defendants the bill was dismissed. The plaintiff has appealed.

The mortgage was given by the plaintiff and Leonidas Polites, both residents of the city of Detroit but the mortgaged property is located in the city of Dearborn. Foreclosure was by -advertise*22ment. There is no charge in the bill that, in the proceedings, the statute was not strictly followed. No irregularity, is charged. The sole theory of the plaintiff’s case is that he was not served with notice of foreclosure, and that he supposed the mortgagee would not undertake such proceedings without notifying him.

The mortgage contained the usual power of sale. The statute authorizing foreclosure by advertisement does not require actual notice to the mortgagor. It only provides for publication and the posting of notice on the premises. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14427. As the plaintiff bases his case solely on the ground that he received no actual notice, his bill was properly dismissed.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.