alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerry S. ODUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-833, 72-834.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 30, 1974.

*431W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried, convicted and adjudged guilty of three crimes. On the charge of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit, petit larceny, he was sentenced to be confined in the state prison for a term of five years. On the charge of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, to wit, breaking and entering a building, he was sentenced to an additional term of five years in prison, to run consecutively with the breaking and entering sentence; and on the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon he was sentenced to a term of five years, to run concurrently with the sentence on the charge of using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Two persons returned to their place of business at an unusual hour when a man with a gun opened a door inside the building, said he was a policeman checking the place out and wanted to know what they were doing there. He put the gun away and indicated he was going around to check the back. He then took off. Odum was identified as the man.

The record is devoid of any evidence that Odum used or displayed the firearm in the commission of the felony of B & E with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Therefore, the judgment and sentence on this charge must be reversed.

There was ample evidence to convict Odum on the charge of B & E with intent to commit a misdemeanor and the judgment and sentence on this charge is affirmed.

The charge of possession of a firearm by a felon was a separate and distinct charge from the breaking and entering charge and the use of the firearm in the commission of a felony charge, because the possession was not limited to the time these offenses allegedly took place. The evidence established that the firearm was in appellant’s possession sometime prior to and after the alleged commission of the other offenses. Therefore, it constitutes a different transaction. Cf. Foster v. State, Fla.1973, 286 So.2d 549; Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 12.

The other points on appeal have been considered and have been found to be without merit, or if error were committed it was harmless.

The judgment and sentence on th'e charge of using or displaying a firearm in the commission of a felony are reversed. The judgments and sentences on the two remaining charges are affirmed.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
#### David HAYBORN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 31, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis there, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. See Cotton v. State, Third District Court of Appeal, 261 So.2d 179, opinion filed April 25, 1972; see also Killingsworth v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834; Sanders v. State, Fla.App.1971, 241 So.2d 430, and York v. State, Fla.App.1969, 232 So.2d 767.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J, and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Brian C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 351]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered on or about September 19, 1995, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a. weapon in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses were properly placed before the trier of fact and we find no reason to disturb its findings. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2022109EN.01001301.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Société Air France SA v AQ and Others

(Case C-623/21) (1)

(Air transport - Compensation to air passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Distinction between denied boarding, cancellation and long delay where there is a re-routing flight resulting in a delay shorter than the delay caused by taking the flight originally booked)

(2022/C 109/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Air France SA

Respondents: AQ, TP, IO, ON and XZ

Operative part of the order

Case C-623/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 8/10/2021.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David NELSON.

No. 62482.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: David Nelson, applying for writ of mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied. Moot.
# C_2020339EN.01002401.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/24

---

Action brought on 5 August 2020 — Diego v EUIPO — Forbo Financial Services (WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING)

(Case T-498/20)

(2020/C 339/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Diego Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Dabas, Hungary) (represented by: P. Jalsovszky, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark WOOD STEP LAMINATE FLOORING — Application for registration No 17675802

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2019 in Case R 1630/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks STEP and WOOD STEP Laminate Flooring; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks STEP and WOOD STEP Laminate Flooring;

| — | order that the mark at issue be registered by EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the mark at issue be registered by EUIPO;

| — | order that the opposition proceedings be dismissed by EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the opposition proceedings be dismissed by EUIPO;

| — | order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| — | Infringement of article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 26(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 26(2) TFEU.

| — | Infringement of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU

---
H. Res. 562

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 5, 1994.

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. 5044) to establish the American Heritage

Areas Partnership Program, and for other purposes. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours (excluding time consumed by recorded votes

and proceedings incidental thereto). Each section shall be

considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in

order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII

before the beginning of consideration of the bill. Any amend-
2

HRES 562 EH

ment to the bill caused to be printed in the Record by Representative Vento of Minnesota may amend portions of the

bill not yet read for amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6959** 

ROMAINE FRANCIS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. C. T. WOODY, Sheriff, in his capacity as Sheriff for the City of Richmond; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR TH E CITY OF RICHMOND; ANDERSON, Medical Worker; ROBERTSON, Captain of the City of Richmond Sheriff's Department , Defendants

– Appellees , and

STANLEY NELSON FURMAN, Doctor , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv
- 00235

- REP )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Romaine Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, William Daniel Prince, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for2 Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Romain e Francis appeals the district court ’ s order granting summary judgment for the Appellees on his various 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims . We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the distric t court. Francis v. Woody , No.

3:09

- cv
- 00235

- REP (E.D. Va. July 11, 2011) . 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.1(b)

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                          CHICAGO MINIATURE LAMP, INC
                               1995 INCENTIVE AND
                        NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION PLAN


     The Board of Directors of Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc. (the "Company")
approved the amendment of the Company's 1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock
Option Plan (the "Plan") to increase the number of shares of Common Stock
available for grant under the Plan from 1,500,000 to 3,000,000, an increase of
1,500,000 shares of Common Stock. The amendment will cause Section 3.1 of the
Plan to be replaced with the following revised Section 3.1.


     3.1  Shares Subject to Plan. The stock subject to the options granted
          under the Plan shall be shares of the Company's authorized buy
          unissued common stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock"). The
          total of shares that may be issued pursuant to options granted under
          the Plan shall not exceed 3,000,000 shares of Common Stock.

Dated: April 27, 1998
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |                                                                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | /s/                          **JOHN                          H. SOTTILE** |
|   | John                            H. Sottile                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | Chairman                            of the Board of Directors, President and                            Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive                            Officer)May                            15, 2007 |

----
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 87

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

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

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in the first session

of the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

3 (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Commit4 tee’’), including expenses for procurement of consultant

5 services under section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorga6 nization Act of 1946, there shall be paid out of the contin7 gent fund of the House not more than $1,997,572.
2

HRES 87 IH

1 (b) Not more than $175,000 of the amount specified

2 in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services re3 ferred to in such subsection.

4 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

5 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

6 Chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit7 tee on House Administration.

8 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu9 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

10 period beginning at noon on January 3, 1993, and ending

11 immediately before noon on January 3, 1994.

12 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

13 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre14 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
#### William O. REED, Appellant, v. Jule FINK and Julie Miron, Appellees.

No. S-321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1973.

Andrew G. Pattillo, Jr., John P. Mc-Keever, of Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, Ocala, Austin S. Mittler and Eric Von Salzen, and Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Eli H. Subin, of Subin, Shams & Rosen-bluth, Orlando, for appellees.

*281PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT NO. 31.2

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Shawn M. Harrington, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

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

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures 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 report is being prepared;

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

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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 control over financial reporting 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:   September 11, 2003
# Official Journal C 340A/30 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 340A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5730 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 340A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5730 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions |
| 2014/C 340A/01 | Notice of Open Selection Procedures — Research Officer — 3 profiles | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

2014/C 340A/01

Notice of Open Selection Procedures — Research Officer — 3 profiles

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 340A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 3 |

2014/C 340A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

3

---

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

EN
#### McDONALD’S CORPORATION v. Joan W. GLENNON, Collector of Revenue for the City of New Orleans.

No. 62018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: McDonald’s Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 1023.

Writ denied.

*1165SANDERS, C. J., would grant a writ.

MARCUS, J., is of the opinion that the writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J., would grant the writ.
#### Steven Monro WAITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
ERNST & YOUNG


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on 
Forms S3 (Nos. 333-35855 and 333-42929) as filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, on September 18, 1997 pertaining to the shares issued in
conjunction with the acquisition of Ben Watson Associates Limited, on December
22, 1997 pertaining to the shares issued in conjunction with the acquisition
of CBT Systems Middle East Limited and the Registration Statements on Forms S-8
(Nos. 333-06409, 333-25245, and 333-35745) pertaining to the 1994 Share Option
Plan filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on June 20, 1996, the 1996
Supplemental Stock Plan and Applied Learning Limited Executive Stock Plan
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 1997 and the
1994 Share Option Plan filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 16, 1997, of our reports dated January 20, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in this annual report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.


Ernst & Young
Chartered Accountants

Dublin, Ireland

January 20, 1998