alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Dudley George HANEMANN, Relator, v. Honorable Robert H. WINGFIELD, Circuit Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County, Florida, Respondent.

No. J-179.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 21, 1967.

Robert P. Miller, Asst. Public Defender, for relator.

PER CURIAM.

The Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition was filed in this court on July 19, 1967, praying for a writ and stay order to stop a trial to be had in Volusia County on July 24, 1967. The State Attorney for Volusia County has not had time to nor has he filed any response to the Suggestion for the writ, and we do not think it necessary, for a study of the filed Suggestion and the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court1 and the Second District Court of Appeal, reveals that the Suggestion for the writ is not well founded in law. We think, and so hold, that the decision rendered by the Second District Court of Appeal in State of Florida v. Lowe, 130 So.2d 288, is controlling in the instant case and the Suggestion for the Writ of Prohibition is hereby denied.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

. State v. Bacom, 159 Fla. 54, 30 So.2d 744, 172 A.L.R. 1050 (1947).
#### **EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, StevenDurnil, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Fischer ImagingCorporation;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.        Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b.        Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.        Disclosed in this annualreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

a.        All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlsover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.        Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   | Date: March  31, 2006 |   | /s/   STEVEN  DURNIL                   |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                       |   | Steven  Durnil*Chief Executive Officer and President* |

 

1

----
H. Res. 320

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 22, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3400) to provide a more effective, efficient, and

responsive government. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points or order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. In lieu of the committee amendments now

printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in part 1 of the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.

The bill, as so amended, shall be considered as the original
2

HRES 320 EH

bill for the purpose of further amendment. All points of order

against the bill, as so amended, are waived. The bill, as so

amended, shall be considered as read. No amendment to the

bill, as so amended, shall be in order except those printed in

part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered and shall be disposed of only in the

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be

debatable under the terms specified in the report, shall not

be subject to amendment except as specified in the report,

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All

points of order against the amendments printed in the report

are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as

so amended, to the House with such further amendment as

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill, as so amended, or to any further

amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as so amended, and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion ex-
3

HRES 320 EH

cept one motion to recommit, which may not include instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on May 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Petroleum Environmental Research Forum (“PERF”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, CH2MHill, Englewood, CO; GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc., Boca Raton, FL; Nalco, Sugarland, TX; Petroleo Brasileiro S/A, Rio de Janeiro, BRASIL; and Test America, Parker, CO, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PERF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 22, 2015. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 23, 2015 (80 FR 64448).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-14576 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

FRANK C. HOFFMAN, III, and GAIL HOFFMAN,

Appellants,
v. SUNTRUST BANK, and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.,

n/k/a Truist Bank, Appellee. Nos. 2D21-2874 2D21-3562 CONSOLIDATED September 23, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Geoffrey H. Gentile, Judge. Gregg Horowitz, of Law Offices of Gregg M. Horowitz, P.A., Sarasota, Bartow, for Appellant. Alan M. Pierce, of Liebler, Gonzalez, & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed.2

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### John H. BROWN et ux. v. INTERSTATE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO.

No. 62051.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Interstate Life and Accident Insurance Co. applying for certiorari, or writ *1164of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of The Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, we, the undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of The Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, which this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of The Southern Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Southern Company. |

 

 

 

|   | /s/David M. Ratcliffe

David M. Ratcliffe

Chairman, President and

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Thomas A. Fanning

Thomas A. Fanning

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer                              |

 

 

Date:  November 29, 2007
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ivory GEORGE.

No. 53881.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition.

Application denied. The ruling of the trial court is correct.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents from the denial of writs. Failure of the defense to timely file the plea “not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of offense” precludes the raising of this issue at this late date. La.Code Crim.Proc. Art. 561.
# C_2023007EN.01000501.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 7 de Barcelona — Spain) — AD and Others v PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-163/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA) - Directive 2014/104/EU - Rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union - Article 22(2) - Applicability ratione temporis - First subparagraph of Article 5(1) - Concept of relevant evidence which lies in the control of the defendant or a third party - Article 5(2) - Disclosure of specified items of evidence or relevant categories of evidence on the basis of reasonably available facts - Article 5(3) - Review of the proportionality of the request to disclose evidence - Balancing the legitimate interests of the parties and third parties - Scope of the obligations resulting from those provisions)

(2023/C 7/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 7 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AD and Others

Defendants: PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union

must be interpreted as meaning that the reference therein to the disclosure of relevant evidence in the control of the defendant or a third party also covers those documents which the party to whom the request to disclose evidence is addressed must create ex novo by compiling or classifying information, knowledge or data in its possession, subject to strict compliance with Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive, which requires the national courts seised to restrict the disclosure of evidence to that which is relevant, proportionate and necessary, taking into account the legitimate interests and fundamental rights of that party.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
#### Melvin Douglas ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-437.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from is affirmed. See State v. Outten, 206 So.2d 392 (Fla.1968).

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and BOYER and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

The Flight Shop, Inc. D/B/ AI Professional Air and 

Aero Facilities, LLC 

Complainants 

V. 

City of Bend, Oregon Municipal Airport 

Respondent 

Docket No. 16-14-12 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to December14, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Kevin 

Directo , Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

(}~.zt,26lb Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September j:Jjib' 2016, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of 

Time to December 14,2016 for FAA Docket 16-14-12 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, NY 11753 

Email: lkirsch@mklawnyc.com 

Martin E, Hansen, Esq. 

Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 

1148 NW Hill Street 

Bend,Oregon 977701 

Email: mehcmfrancishansen.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

Pablo 0. Niiesch 

Katherine M. Mapes 

Jessica R. Bell 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1875 Eye Street, N.W. 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20006 

Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-1 00 

audia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 25, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *John D. Anderson, Malvern, Pennsylvania, Mark E. Anderson, Bolingbrook, Illinois, and Thomas M. Anderson III, Leeds, Alabama, together as a group acting in concert;*                     to retain voting shares of NBE Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain shares of Pioneer State Bank, both of Earlville, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 5, 2018.

Yao-Chin Chao,

Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-14720 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
#### Francisco CHURRUCA et al., Petitioners, v. MIAMI JAI-ALAI, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 44009.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1974.

Seymour Kaplan of Heller & Kaplan, Miami, for petitioners.

Joseph M. Murasko, Fern Park, for Florida Jai-Alai, Inc., William S. Frates, *396James D. Little, and Ira H. Leesfield, of Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, for Miami Jai-Alai and Tampa Jai-Alai, Eli H. Subin of Sub-in, Shams & Rosenbluth, Orlando, for Vol-usia Jai-Alai, Inc., and Wm. R. Dawes, Miami, for Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc., respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the Writ and have heard argument of the parties. After hearing argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the Court is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Writ must be and is hereby discharged and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is dismissed, without prejudice to whatever rights, if any, petitioners may have for tor-tious conspiracy, if any, occurring subsequent to the 1968-69 Jai-Alai season.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
#### Mary Alice FIRESTONE, Appellant, v. Russell A. FIRESTONE, Appellee.

No. 1881.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1971.

Joseph D. Farish, Jr., and Martin J. A. Yeager, of Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

John R. Farrell and Gerald T. Wether-ington, of Farrell & Wetherington, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN, J., concur.

McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, dissents, with opinion.

McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent. Appellant-wife instituted the present proceeding by filing with the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County her complaint for alimony, support and custody unconnected with divorce pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 65.10, F.S.A., since repealed. Ap-pellee-husband counter-claimed for divorce on grounds of adultery and extreme cruelty. The trial court concluded that neither party was “domesticated” and granted appellee-husband’s counter-claim for divorce citing Chesnut v. Chesnut, 1948, 160 Fla. 83, 33 So.2d 730, and Spencer v. Spencer, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 40.

I recognize that the findings of the chancellor in an action for divorce are entitled to great weight, and are not lightly to be overturned where there is conflicting testimony at trial. Nonetheless, in my opinion the voluminous testimony in the instant case overwhelmingly establishes that appellee-husband is not entitled to a divorce.

It is textbook law in this state that one may not come into court of equity with unclean hands and receive relief. This equitable principle has been applied in numerous divorce actions. See Furman v. Furman, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 316; Choucherie v. Choucherie, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 821; and Carlson v. Carlson, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 340.

The trial judge would have it that much of the evidence presented by the parties tending to show numerous adulterous and cruel acts on both sides should be discounted. Even conceding that to be the case, it is my opinion that appellee’s hands are far from clean, and that he is not entitled to the aid of a court of equity. Sahler v. Sahler, 1944, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So.2d 105.

Accordingly, I would reverse and leave the parties as they were.