alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022463EN.01000601.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k. v Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

(Case C-64/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 7(1)(b) - Self-employed commercial agents - Transaction concluded with a third party whom the commercial agent has previously acquired as a customer - Remuneration - Whether the agent’s right to commission is mandatory or supplementary)

(2022/C 463/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rigall Arteria Management sp. z o.o. sp.k.

Defendant: Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1)(b) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents

must be interpreted as meaning that

it is possible to derogate contractually from the right which that provision confers on an independent commercial agent to receive a commission in respect of a transaction entered into, during the term of the agency contract, with a third party whom that agent previously acquired as a customer for transactions of the same kind.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John SULLEN v. Honorable Frank A. MARULLO, Jr., Judge.

No. 62716.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: John Sullen applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Not considered. The Clerk of this Court is ordered to transfer a copy of this application to the district court for consideration and action.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ESTATE OF MARIAN TOTH, DECEASED

PETITION OF: T.T., A MINOR AND

EUGENE TOTH :

:

:

:

: No. 278 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal,

the Application to File Supplemental Brief, and the Application for Leave to Intervene are

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1694

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent,

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Intervenor.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. (DC-1221-12-0356-B-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Donnell Donaldson, Petitioner Pro Se. Katherine Michelle 

Smith, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C., 

for Respondent. Joshua Ethan Kurland, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Donnell Donaldson seeks review of the Merit Systems

Protection Board’s order dismissing his whistleblower 

retaliation appeal. See 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (West Supp. 

2015). Our review of the record discloses that the Board did 

not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over 

Donaldson’s appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review for the reasons stated by the Board. Donaldson v. Dep’t 

of Homeland Sec., No. DC-1221-12-0356-B-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 16, 

2014). We further deny Donaldson’s motions for summary 

disposition, to strike the Board’s entire brief, and to verify 

the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








The Board of Directors





Earth Search Sciences, Inc.





Lakeside, Montana








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2003 (File No. 333-106630) of our opinion, relating to the consolidated financial statements appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Earth Search Sciences, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2009.








/s/ Malone & Bailey, PC





Houston, Texas





www.malone-bailey.com


July 14, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures Fund Limited Partnership and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      92,093,924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  312,680<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,008,543<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,008,543<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (2,601,037)<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,688,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,289,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,289,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,289,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $312,680.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $1,601,939.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $2,015,683, accrued
management fee of $229,326, and administrative expenses payable
of $114,311.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $(6,385,402),
net change in unrealized of $(182,350)and interest income of $3,966,715.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                                     GIANT GROUP, LTD.
                                    EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 for the three-month periods ended March 31, 1996 and 1997
                                        (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              1996             1997
                                                          ------------      -----------
                                                                ($ in thousands,
                                                             except per share amounts)
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>

Earnings (loss) applicable to Common Stock:

   Net income (loss) for the quarter                       $     419         $  (1,092)
   Income earned on investment of remaining proceeds     
      from exercise of stock options, after Company's
      acquisition of Common Stock (1)                             46               ---
                                                          ------------      -----------
                                                            $    465         $  (1,092)
                                                          ============      ===========
                                   
Average weighted number of common shares and common
    equivalent shares:

   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding    4,678,000         3,490,000
   Additional shares assuming conversion of stock 
     options (2)                                             870,000               ---
                                                          ------------      -----------
                                                           5,548,000         3,490,000
                                                          ============      ===========

Primary earnings (loss) per common share and common
   equivalent share                                            $0.08            $(0.31)
                                                          ============      ===========


(1) Assuming funds were invested in U.S. government short-term obligations 
    earning interest at 5%.

(2) Reflects the 20% limit required by APB No. 15 for reacquisition of
    shares.  Excess proceeds from exercise of stock options have been
    assumed to be invested in short-term government securities (see (1)).

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel. Irvin P. PHILPOT, III, Relator, v. Honorable Murray GOODMAN, one of the Judges of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-707.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 7, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
NUMBER 13-16-00281-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

DAVID TRIPLETT, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER 

Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record and motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant's 

counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has been unable to examine the 

record so that he can file a pro se brief. 
2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant has 

the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before January 4, 2017, and it 

is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date upon which 

the appellate record was made available to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record was first made 

available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have twenty days 

thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

9th day of December, 2016.
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3223

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Howard Harris, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2000 Filed: August 11, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Howard Harris challenges the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Harris has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a motion to proceed pro se on appeal.-2-

As part of his plea agreement, Harris waived his right to appeal his sentence unless the district court departed upward from the Guidelines range. We conclude that this waiver was knowing and voluntary. Among other things, Harris was assisted by counsel at the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings; the court questioned him about the appeal waiver at the change-of-plea hearing, verifying that he understood he was waiving his right to appeal as part of the plea bargain, and then reminded him of the appeal waiver at sentencing; his sentence does not conflict with the plea agreement; and he was age 28, reported having earned a GED, and had prior experience with the criminal justice system. See UnitedStates v. Michelsen , 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir.) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant, such as age, education, and prior experience with criminal justice system, when assessing knowledge and voluntariness of decision), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 942 (1998); UnitedStates v. Greger , 98 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1996) (so long as sentence is not in conflict with negotiated plea agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal from sentence will be enforced; waiver was knowing and intelligent where it was included in plea agreement, discussed at change-of-plea hearing, and reviewed by court at sentencing). Accordingly, because Harris’s sentence was not an upward departure from the Guidelines range, we now specifically enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing his appeal. See UnitedStates v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny the pending motion as moot. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Tinsley *v.*State.

(En Banc.

Oct. 1, 1934.)

[156 So. 598.

No. 31288.]

No briefs filed.

McGowen, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant was tried and convicted of murder in the court below in the hilling of John Henry Harris, and sentenced to be hanged.

An appeal is prosecuted here, but there is no assignment of error or brief on file.

The main evidence in the case is the testimony of the sheriff as to an oral confession made to him by the appellant, and a written stenographic confession made by the appellant to the county attorney. These confessions were shown to have been made freely and voluntarily, and there was no objection thereto. It was revealed by these confessions that the appellant, in the nighttime, lay in wait for John Henry Harris, the deceased, until he came within twelve feet of him, whereupon without warning, or an overt act on the part of Harris, the appellant shot him to death. These confessions make out a case of murder, without excuse or mitigation. Harris was slain because of his illicit relations with Arville John*217son, wlio was appellant’s “woman.” The record discloses that the one shot fired by appellant killed another negro by the name of Jones. Appellant’s admission and explanation of the killing, on the witness stand, render him gnilty of murder. This cause is affirmed, and Friday, November 2,1934, is fixed as the date for appellant’s execution.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fourteen weeks ended March 4, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Dated: April 12, 2005


/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       26
EXHIBIT NO. 15





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.


            Re: Registration Statements on Form S-8,
                File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,
                No. 333-261777, and No. 333-42879

                Registration Statement on Form S-3,
                File No. 33-58670


With   respect   to  the  subject  Registration  Statements,   we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report  dated
August  19,  1998  related  to our review  of  interim  financial
information.

Pursuant  to  Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such  reports
are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or
certified  by an accountant or a report prepared or certified  by
an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




Hartford, Connecticut
August 19, 1998
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Joe Lee ADAMS, Relator, v. Honorable Alfonso C. SEPE, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
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 June 14, 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”), Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. (“IVI Foundation”) 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, Aeroflex/Cobham has changed its name to VIAVI Solutions Company, Wichita, KS.                

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 IVI Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 29, 2001, IVI Foundation 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 July 30, 2001 (66 FR 39336).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 19, 2017. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Registe**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 22, 2018 (83 FR 3025).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit,Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-14582 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CEARFUL SPEIGHT, a/k/a June, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-93-90-N) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cearful Speight, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We note that Amendment 487 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines became effective on November 1, 1993, and the Presentence Investigation Report relied on the November 1, 1993, version of the Guidelines in calculating Appellant’s sentence. Thus, Appellant’s claim that he is entitled to resentencing based on Amendment 487 is meritless.Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Speight , No. CR-93-90-N (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 00-1010.

#### New Haven Projects Limited Liability Co. *v.*City of New Haven et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.