alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RIDLEY *v.*STATE

[No. 225,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided April 10, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney and Sybert, JJ.

*Daniel Murnane Mackey*for appellant.

*Gerard Wm. Wittstadt, Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney*and *James McAllister, Assistant State’s Attorney,*on the brief, for appellee.

PER Curiam.

Appellant was found guilty, in a non-jury trial, of breaking and entering a warehouse with intent to steal property *282therefrom feloniously (Code [1961 Supp.], Art. 27, Sec. 32), and, after receiving a ten-year sentence, has appealed.

He raises two contentions: (1) insufficiency of the evidence of *'felonious*intent, and to establish that he broke into the premises; and (2) the sentence imposed was not proper. Neither contention presents anything new, and both are unsubstantial.

The evidence, and rational inferences therefrom, disclose: that the warehouse was securely locked by the manager of its owner on the evening of August 5, 1961; sometime between 2:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. appellant entered the premises by pushing in a window on the second floor; the desk drawers in the office were pulled out and their contents dumped on the floor (although nothing of value was found therein); appellant then ransacked the second floor, and pried open drawers of a desk located in one of the offices thereon; he, unintentionally, set off a burglar alarm, and the police arrived shortly thereafter.

Appellant argues that the State failed to establish an intent on his part to steal goods of the value of $100, or more. The argument needs no elaborate discussion. The actual intention at the time of the breaking is controlling, not whether any goods of value were found and stolen, and the intention may be inferred from the circumstances. *Shipley v. State,*220 Md. 463, 154 A. 2d 708; *Holtman v. State,*219 Md. 512, 150 A. 2d 223; *Clemons v. State,*228 Md. 237; *Felkner v. State,*218 Md. 300, 146 A. 2d 424; *Cooper v. State,*220 Md. 183, 152 A. 2d 120. The early-morning hour of the entering and the ransacking of the drawers were sufficient to support a logical inference that appellant intended to steal everything of value that he could find and carry away. *Holtman v. State, supra.*

The contentions concerning the alleged failure to prove that appellant broke in and the sentence are frivolous. He claimed he walked into the premises by way of an open garage door. The trial judge was not obliged to accept his version of the entering. *Hyde v. State,*228 Md. 209. We stated above the evidence ;was sufficient to support'a finding that appellant -en*283tered through the second-story window. The sentence was within the limits authorized by the statute; hence it was not illegal, *Bowers v. Warden,*215 Md. 634, 137 A. 2d 645, nor excessive. *Hanson v. Warden,*198 F. 2d 470 (4th Cir. 1952).

*Judgment affirmed.*
June 24, 2015

Mr. Jerry Bruce 

511 Lake Winnebago Lane 

Boulder City, NV 89006 

Dear Mr. Bruce: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 12, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0640), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# Official Journal C 205/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.205.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 205 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5512 July 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.205.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 205

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5512 July 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COURT OF AUDITORS |
| 2012/C 205/01 | Opinion No 5/2012 (pursuant to Article 336 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COURT OF AUDITORS

2012/C 205/01

Opinion No 5/2012 (pursuant to Article 336 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

S. James Miller, ChiefExecutive Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), and WayneWetherell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifiespursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K ofthe Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

**2**. The information contained in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theCompany at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and the resultsof operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.

 

**INWITNESS WHEREOF,**theundersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 15th day of April, 2008.

 
|            | /s/    S.  James Miller       |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **S.  James Miller**                              |
| ** ** | **Chief  Executive Officer**                      |
| ** ** | ** **                                        |
|       | /s/    Wayne  Wetherell       |
| ** ** | **Wayne  Wetherell**                              |
| ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**                      |
| ** ** | **(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)** |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWareSystems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2022340EN.01001201.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the name De Scharrelderij) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-36/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Direct support schemes - Common rules - Article 30(6) and Article 50(2) - Application for payment entitlements from the national reserve for young farmers - National administrative authority which has given incorrect information about the classification of a person as a ‘young farmer’ - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Action seeking reparation for loss or harm based on the failure to comply with the national law principle of legitimate expectations)

(2022/C 340/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sense Visuele Communicatie en Handel vof (also trading under the name De Scharrelderij)

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

EU law and, in particular, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding an injured party from obtaining, by virtue of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations recognised by national law and solely on the basis of that law, compensation for loss or harm resulting from a misinterpretation by a national authority of an unambiguous provision of EU law, provided that that compensation is not equivalent to the grant of an advantage contrary to EU law, that it is not borne by the EU budget and that it is not such as to give rise to distortions of competition between Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
#### William M. NOVELLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-743.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 3, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32-2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen R.
Wherry, Senior Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



/s/ STEPHEN R. WHERRYStephen R. WherrySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer), Treasurer and Assistant SecretaryAugust 13, 2008
[No. 647-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

June 14, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Mark Sheppard, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 53714, Frank H. Roberts, Jr., J., entered June 19, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000940800
<NAME> FOOD COURT ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,498,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,901,490
<PP&E>                                       2,415,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                 579,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,446,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,299,232
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,135
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,078,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,446,820
<SALES>                                        122,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,260
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,547,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (154,557)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,270,432)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,270,432)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,270,432)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.32)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,716,996
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,607,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    304,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,802,300
<PP&E>                                      22,222,357
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,575,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,641,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          845,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,407
<COMMON>                                     2,687,211
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,655,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,641,436
<SALES>                                      4,214,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,295,830
<CGS>                                        3,815,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,441,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (145,634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (145,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (145,634)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        

</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 55

Urging the President to call on the President of Syria to permit the

extradition of fugitive Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. MCNULTY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Urging the President to call on the President of Syria to

permit the extradition of fugitive Nazi war criminal Alois

Brunner.

Whereas Austrian-born Alois Brunner, who joined the Nazi

party at the age of 19, was the deputy and personal secretary to Adolf Eichmann, who was personally responsible for sending to their deaths more than 120,000 Jews

from Austria, Germany, France, Slovakia, and Greece;

Whereas, in 1938, after Kristallnacht, Brunner joined the

Nazi Secret Police and subsequently requested a transfer

to the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Vienna,

where he began his career in genocide as Eichmann’s

personal secretary;
2

•HRES 55 IH

Whereas Brunner, often characterized as the personification

of Nazi sadism in all its horror, executed Eichmann’s

plan for the Final Solution;

Whereas Brunner was particularly brutal toward French

Jews, sending to their deaths more than 200 children

from Jewish-operated orphanages, including 34 children

from Louviciennes;

Whereas, in 1954, Brunner was sentenced to death in

absentia by French courts in Paris and Marseilles for

crimes against humanity;

Whereas, since 1955, Brunner has lived in Damascus, Syria,

under the protection of the Syrian government and Syrian bodyguards and has assumed the name of Dr. Georg

Fischer;

Whereas it is well known that Brunner lives in an apartment

at 7 Rue Haddad in Damascus;

Whereas the Syrian government has frequently denied that

Brunner lives in Syria; and

Whereas attempts by Austria and Germany to secure Brunner’s extradition from Syria have been unsuccessful:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges

2 the President to call on the President of Syria to permit

3 the extradition of the fugitive Nazi war criminal Alois

4 Brunner for trial in Germany.

Æ
# C_2020247EN.01004501.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/45

---

Action brought on 3 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)

(Case T-344/20)

(2020/C 247/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unión Detallistas Españoles S. Coop. Unide (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘unit’ — Application for registration No 16 542 078

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2005/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider that the proof of use regarding sales, during the relevant period, in respect of the Spanish trade marks No 1795078 and No 2289074 — which required proof of use — is insufficient due to the lack or shortage of such proof and, consequently, by stating that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of consumers. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider that the proof of use regarding sales, during the relevant period, in respect of the Spanish trade marks No 1795078 and No 2289074 — which required proof of use — is insufficient due to the lack or shortage of such proof and, consequently, by stating that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of consumers.

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

—

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

---
#### F. A. GREENHUT and Dodson Insurance Group, Petitioners, v. SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND et al., Respondents.

No. 40515.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 15, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
.;Zo r5'- 02 '~ S 

Docket No. FAA•2012 0413-

Record of Discussion 

:20 I t.l'-/1/ M-ll/3 -;4p 

Directorate Identifier: lOlls~TM 257 AB 

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

DAH manufacturer Miles Cox 6/23/14 Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information:
# Official Journal C 360/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 360 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6024 October 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 360

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6024 October 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2017/C 360/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2017/C 360/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1

1

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2023104EN.01002003.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 December 2022 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-774/21 P) (1)

(2023/C 104/27)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---
# C_2023164EN.01003302.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — G-Finance SARL, DV v Luxembourg Business Registers

(Case C-317/21, (1) G-Finance)

(2023/C 164/44)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---