alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. J. GALLAGHER COMPANY v. LENT, INC.

No. 12038.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

March 20, 1978.

See also, La.App., 361 So.2d 1232.

Stephen K. Peters, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellant, Lent, Inc.

Donald Smith, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellee, R. J. Gallagher, Co.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

CHIASSON, Judge.

Arman V. Melikyan appealed a judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to vacate a subpoena of him as president of the defendant corporation, Lent, Inc., issued pursuant to a motion by plaintiff, R. J. Gallagher Company, for a judgment debtor examination of defendant.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss Melikyan’s appeal contending that the trial court’s ruling was not a final judgment because it did not decide the case, wholly or partially, on the merits, nor did it settle any of the rights existing between the plaintiff, Gallagher, and the defendant, Lent, Inc. Therefore, it is asserted that the trial court’s ruling is the equivalent of an interlocutory order, not appealable unless there is a showing of irreparable injury. C.C.P. Arts. 1841 and 2083.

Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law is in error.

In the case of *Berard v. American Employers Insurance Company,*246 So.2d 686 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1970), it was held that under Article 1841 the determination of discovery questions, *as between the parties*to a lawsuit, is a preliminary matter; consequently a judgment rendered with respect to such an issue is an interlocutory and not a final judgment. However, the determination of discovery questions as to one who is *not a party*to the case is a final judgment.

The same rationale is applicable to the instant case. Appellant was not a party to the lawsuit between Gallagher and Lent, Inc. The ruling of the trial court herein determined in whole the merits of the single issue between Gallagher and appellant, i. e., whether appellant, as an officer of the defendant corporation, could be subpoenaed to testify in the judgment debtor examination of the corporation. The trial court’s ruling denying appellant’s motion to vacate the subpoena issued to him was a final judgment as to appellant and therefore ap-pealable.

*1232The motion to dismiss this appeal is denied; all costs incident thereto shall be paid by the plaintiff, R. J. Gallagher Company.

MOTION DENIED.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Larry BOURBON, Appellee.

No. 77-1476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 17, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Robert H. Grizzard, II, Asst. Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed on the authority of *State v. Wilcox,*351 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and *Massey v. State,*348 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

OTT, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 992

To provide that individuals who exhaust their rights to disaster unemployment

benefits shall be entitled to emergency unemployment benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mrs. MINK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide that individuals who exhaust their rights to disaster unemployment benefits shall be entitled to emergency

unemployment benefits.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) section 101 of the Emergency Unemployment

4 Compensation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–164, as

5 amended) is amended by adding at the end thereof the

6 following new subsection:

7 ‘‘(g) TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXHAUST

8 DISASTER UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.—Any individual

9 who exhausts such individual’s rights to disaster unem10 ployment assistance under section 410 of the Robert T.
2

•HR 992 IH

1 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

2 shall be entitled to emergency compensation under this

3 Act in the same manner as if—

4 ‘‘(1) such assistance were regular compensation

5 under the State law, and

6 ‘‘(2) the work and wages taken into account in

7 determining the amount of such assistance had been

8 covered by the State law.

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent

10 that any payments under this Act to any State are re11 quired by reason of this subsection, such payments shall

12 be made from funds available for purposes of providing

13 assistance under such section 410.’’

14 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

15 apply to weeks beginning after March 6, 1993.

Æ
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Discovery Laboratories,
Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.




Date:
      May 10, 2010/s/
      W. Thomas
      AmickW.
      Thomas AmickChairman
      of the Board and Interim Chief Executive
    Officer/s/
      John G. CooperJohn
      G. CooperExecutive
      VicePresident and
      Chief Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to
the SEC or its staff upon request.




This
certification is being furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
# C_2021053EN.01004501.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/45

---

Action brought on 27 October 2020 — Symrise v ECHA

(Case T-656/20)

(2021/C 53/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Symrise AG (Holzminden, Germany) (represented by: A, B, C, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision of 18 August 2020 of the European Chemicals Agency’s Board of Appeal in case number A-009-2018 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision of 18 August 2020 of the European Chemicals Agency’s Board of Appeal in case number A-009-2018 in its entirety;

| — | order the Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted the REACH Regulation by requesting the tests on vertebrate animals on the Substance, by justifying the need for tests by reference to workers’ exposure and by failing to take the safety of the Substance as assessed under the Cosmetics Regulation into account. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and misinterpreted the REACH Regulation by requesting the tests on vertebrate animals on the Substance, by justifying the need for tests by reference to workers’ exposure and by failing to take the safety of the Substance as assessed under the Cosmetics Regulation into account.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to state reasons by deciding that the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study with several extensions (the ‘EOGRTS’) would need to be conducted via the oral route. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to state reasons by deciding that the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study with several extensions (the ‘EOGRTS’) would need to be conducted via the oral route.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached Article 25 of the REACH regulation and committed a manifest error of assessment in imposing the deadlines of the Contested Decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Agency breached Article 25 of the REACH regulation and committed a manifest error of assessment in imposing the deadlines of the Contested Decision.

---
7/30/2015 

### file.. ;ncourtofappeals 12th CourtofApnesig Disfr-'ct


### LCATHYS. LUSK,

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 FILE COPY

• 

### PIERCE, JOSEPH MICHAEL Tr. Ct. No. 114-0648-13COANo. 12-14-00073-CR PD-0651-15 

### The appellant's pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received and filed. Abel Acosta, Clerk 12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
# C_2021163EN.01001601.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 February 2021 — Criminal proceedings against IR

(Case C-105/21)

(2021/C 163/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

IR

Questions referred

| 1. | Would it be in conformity with Article 6 of the Charter — read in conjunction with Article 5(4), (2) and (1)(c) ECHR — and with Article 47 of the Charter, the right to freedom of movement, the principle of equality and the principle of mutual trust if the issuing judicial authority, according to Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, were to make no effort whatsoever to inform the requested person, while he or she is in the territory of the executing Member State, of the factual and legal bases for his or her arrest and of the right to challenge the arrest warrant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would it be in conformity with Article 6 of the Charter — read in conjunction with Article 5(4), (2) and (1)(c) ECHR — and with Article 47 of the Charter, the right to freedom of movement, the principle of equality and the principle of mutual trust if the issuing judicial authority, according to Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, were to make no effort whatsoever to inform the requested person, while he or she is in the territory of the executing Member State, of the factual and legal bases for his or her arrest and of the right to challenge the arrest warrant?

| 2. | If so: Does the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law require the issuing judicial authority not to provide that information and, moreover, if the requested person requests the withdrawal of the national arrest warrant despite that failure to provide information, does that principle require the issuing judicial authority to assess that request on the merits only after the requested person has been surrendered? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so: Does the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law require the issuing judicial authority not to provide that information and, moreover, if the requested person requests the withdrawal of the national arrest warrant despite that failure to provide information, does that principle require the issuing judicial authority to assess that request on the merits only after the requested person has been surrendered?

| 3. | What legal measures of EU law are the appropriate basis for such provision of information? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What legal measures of EU law are the appropriate basis for such provision of information?

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CHRISTINE CANNON,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM J. MACNEAL, JR., AND 

ROSEMARY MACNEAL,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 303 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven B. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CT Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and prodedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Date: April 13, 2005

/s/ STEVEN B. SOLOMON
---------------------
Steven B. Solomon, Chief Executive Officer
Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 first  quarter  ended August 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark W. McCutcheon, Chief Executive 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: October 9, 2007


/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive 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.

                                       21
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 57 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 57

 To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a three-
fifths majority on passage of any bill, amendment, or conference report 
                        that increases revenues.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

 Mr. Solomon submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a three-
fifths majority on passage of any bill, amendment, or conference report 
                        that increases revenues.

    Resolved, 

SECTION l. SUPER-MAJORITY REQUIREMENT OF LEGISLATION RAISING TAXES.

    (a) Rule XXI.--Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting at the end the following new 
clause:
    ``9. It shall not be in order in the House to agree to any bill, 
joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that increases 
revenues, except by a vote of three-fifths of the Members voting, a 
quorum being present.''.
    (b) Rule XLIX.--Clause 1 of rule XLIX of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence by inserting before the first 
        comma the following: ``and if the three-fifths vote requirement 
        of the next sentence is satisfied''; and
            (2) in the second sentence by inserting before the period 
        at the end the following: ``, but only if agreed to in the 
        House by at least three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum 
        being present''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

    The last sentence of clause 4(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives is amended by inserting before the period the 
following: ``; nor shall it report any rule or order which would waive 
the requirement of clause 9 of rule XXI to any bill, joint resolution, 
amendment, or conference report.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Marvin MANUEL, Appellant, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 72-1502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2023321EN.01000702.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Padova — Italy) — D.M. v Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova

(Case C-765/21, (1) Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - National legislation imposing a vaccination obligation on health professionals - Suspension from duty without pay for personnel refusing the vaccine - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Medicinal products for human use - Vaccines against COVID-19 - Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 - Validity of conditional marketing authorisations - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - Prohibition of discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 321/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Padova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: D.M.

Defendant: Azienda Ospedale-Università di Padova,

in the presence of: C. S.

Operative part of the judgment

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale ordinario di Padova (District Court, Padua, Italy) by decision of 7 December 2021 is inadmissible.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 138, 28.3.2022.

---
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(No. 333-74016) and Form S-3 (No. 333-64192) of ImageWare Systems, Inc. ofour report dated April 11, 2003 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

 

 
|  /s/Stonefield  Josephson, Inc. |
|--------------------------------------|

StonefieldJosephson, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA

March 30, 2004

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Freddie MARTIN v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62732.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Freddie Martin applying for habe-as corpus and certiorari review. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
# C_2021391EN.01001101.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Liberty Lines SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-437/21)

(2021/C 391/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Liberty Lines SpA

Respondent: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Questions referred

Does [European Union] law, and in particular the principles of free movement of services and of opening up to competition as far as possible in the field of public service contracts, preclude a legal provision such as Article 47(11-bis) of decreto legge n. 50 del 24 aprile 2017 (Decree-Law No 50 of 24 April 2017), converted into legge 21 giugno 2017, n. 96 (Law No 96 of 21 June 2017), which:

| — | treats high-speed maritime passenger transport between the ports of Messina and Reggio Calabria as equivalent to rail transport by sea between the Italian mainland and Sicily, as provided for in Article 2(e) of decreto del Ministero dei trasporti e della navigazione n. 138 T del 31 ottobre 2000 (Decree No 138 T of the Italian Ministry of Transport and Navigation of 31 October 2000), or at least allows them to be treated as equivalent by law; |
| --- | --- |

—

treats high-speed maritime passenger transport between the ports of Messina and Reggio Calabria as equivalent to rail transport by sea between the Italian mainland and Sicily, as provided for in Article 2(e) of decreto del Ministero dei trasporti e della navigazione n. 138 T del 31 ottobre 2000 (Decree No 138 T of the Italian Ministry of Transport and Navigation of 31 October 2000), or at least allows them to be treated as equivalent by law;

| — | reserves or appears capable of reserving for Rete ferroviaria italiana SpA the rail connection service by sea between Sicily and the Italian mainland, even where this involves the use of high-speed vessels? |
| --- | --- |

—

reserves or appears capable of reserving for Rete ferroviaria italiana SpA the rail connection service by sea between Sicily and the Italian mainland, even where this involves the use of high-speed vessels?

---