alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SCHMIDT *v.*GREYHOUND CORP., INC., et al.

[No. 147,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided February 26, 1962.*

*16The cause was submitted to Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and Sybert, JJ.

*Prank P. Plury*for appellant.

*Wilbert Mclnerney,*with whom was *John S. Mclnerney*on the brief, for Greyhound Corp., Inc., and Eastern Greyhound Lines, part of appellees.

*Lansdale G. Sasscer, Jr.,*with whom was *Sasscer, Clagett & Powers*on the brief, for John E. Harrell, other appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is taken from a directed verdict for the defendants in a negligence suit arising out of an accident in which the plaintiff, Schmidt, was struck and injured by the defendant Harrell’s automobile as he was walking across a highway in Prince George’s County, the trial judge finding that Schmidt was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.

The plaintiff produced only two witnesses—himself and the investigating police officer. Schmidt’s testimony was that he was on a Greyhound bus eastbound from Washington to Annapolis ; that the bus stopped near Danham, on the right hand side of the eastbound lane of Route 50 (a two-lane road thirty-two feet wide at that point), to discharge some passengers; and that Schmidt then asked the driver if he could go across the street to a rest room to answer an imperative call of nature. The driver told Schmidt to “Make it snappy.” Schmidt got off the bus and walked rapidly along the right hand shoulder of the road to the left front corner of the bus. He says he stopped there and looked both ways to see if any traffic was *17coming but saw no approaching vehicles. He then proceeded to the double white center-line of the road, where again he stopped and looked both ways; he still saw no approaching vehicles. He continued for a step or two more, when the right front side of Harrell’s car, which was coming from the west, ended his progress.

It is clear from the testimony of both witnesses that the left rear of the bus projected into the road and partially blocked the eastbound lane. For that reason, Schmidt’s line of vision toward the west—and toward Harrell’s approaching car—was obscured until he walked out into the road for at least a few feet. However, Schmidt was aware of this, or should have been, and he was therefore under a continuing duty to watch to his left for vehicles coming around the bus. As we said in *Henderson v. Brown,*214 Md. 463, 472, a case we deem controlling here, “The appellant is thus left in the situation of one who either did not look when he should have, or did not see when he did look, and this, therefore, requires the finding that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.” See also *Campbell v. Jenifer,*222 Md. 106, 111-112; *Love v. State, Use of Nelson,*217 Md. 290, 297-298.

*Judgment affirmed, with costs.*
#### Willie POSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, J. Scott Di Valerio, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment
No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Coinstar, Inc.; and

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.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 25, 2013 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /S/ J. SCOTT DI VALERIO
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | J. Scott Di Valerio    
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
House Calendar No. 143

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 395

[Report No. 103–449]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092)

to control and prevent crime.

MARCH 22, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 143

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 395

[Report No. 103–449]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent

crime.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 1994

Mr. DERRICK, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control

and prevent crime.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent crime.

6 The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

7 points of order against the bill and against its consider8 ation are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
2

HRES 395 RH

1 bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con2 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

3 the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the

4 Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No fur5 ther consideration of the bill shall be in order except pur6 suant to a subsequent order of the House. The require7 ment of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to

8 consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the

9 same day it is presented to the House is waived with re10 spect to a resolution reported on or before the legislative

11 day of March 23, 1994, providing for further consider12 ation or disposition of the bill.
# C_2021329EN.01000502.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 5 March 2021 — Criminal proceedings against D.B.

(Case C-150/21)

(2021/C 329/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Party to the main proceedings

D.B.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty issued by the Netherlands central administrative authority determined pursuant to Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) against which an appeal may be lodged with the public prosecutor’s office, which is subject in organisational terms to the Ministry of Justice, satisfy the criterion of ‘decision against which an appeal may be lodged with a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ for the purposes of Article 1(a)(ii) of the Framework Decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty issued by the Netherlands central administrative authority determined pursuant to Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, (1) against which an appeal may be lodged with the public prosecutor’s office, which is subject in organisational terms to the Ministry of Justice, satisfy the criterion of ‘decision against which an appeal may be lodged with a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ for the purposes of Article 1(a)(ii) of the Framework Decision?

| 2. | Can the criterion that a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty be amenable to judicial remedy before ‘a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ be deemed to have been satisfied where it is possible to lodge an appeal with a district court only at a later stage of proceedings, that is to say after it has been dismissed by the public prosecutor, and, in some cases, entails a need to pay a charge equal to the penalty imposed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the criterion that a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty be amenable to judicial remedy before ‘a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters’ be deemed to have been satisfied where it is possible to lodge an appeal with a district court only at a later stage of proceedings, that is to say after it has been dismissed by the public prosecutor, and, in some cases, entails a need to pay a charge equal to the penalty imposed?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16–30).

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# Time and Date:

Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

# PLACE:

                        1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th                         Floor).                    

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the Public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes for May 24, 2018

Correction and Approval of Minutes for June 7, 2018

Draft Advisory Opinion 2018-09: Clements

Disposition of Open 2014 Audits

Management and Administrative Matters

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                        Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.                              ( print page 29556)    

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

Dayna C. Brown,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2018-13765 Filed 6-21-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### JAMES ROGERS *vs.*JOHN RANDEL, Jr.

Assumpsit lies for an attorney’s fee.

Assumpsit for compensation for professional services as a lawyer.

In this case the plaintiff recovered two thousand one hundred and eighty four dollars, for services rendered as attorney and counsel for the defendant in the cases of Randel *vs.*Wright; Randel *vs.*The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, and other cases growing out of them.

The declaration was on a special contract, with a quantum meruit *count;*on which last the recovery was had, the plaintiff having failed to prove the special contract.

*Booth*and *J. A. Bayard,*for plaintiff.

*Frame, R. li. Bayard*and *Wales,*for defendant.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court **of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00510

- CR

Juan GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR1531

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge P residing



### ORDER

The A ppellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro se Brief is hereby GRANT ED

. Appellant’s pro se brief, if any, is due on or before May 12, 2014. No further extensions of

time will be granted.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1




Exhibit 12

GTE Florida Incorporated and Subsidiaries

STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                    Three Months   Three Months
                                                                       Ended          Ended
                                                                     March 31,       March 31,
                                                                        1998          1998(a)
                                                                    ------------   ------------
<S>                                                                 <C>            <C>         
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income before extraordinary charge                                $     21,235   $     21,235
  Add - Income taxes                                                      12,948         12,948
        - Fixed charges                                                   41,804         23,273
                                                                    ------------   ------------
Adjusted earnings                                                   $     75,987   $     57,456
                                                                    ============   ============
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                  $     38,330   $     19,799
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                            3,474          3,474
                                                                    ------------   ------------

Adjusted fixed charges                                              $     41,804   $     23,273
                                                                    ============   ============

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                          1.82           2.47
</TABLE>


(a) Excludes $18.5 million of interest expense associated with commercial paper
issued by the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, GTE Funding Incorporated (GTE
Funding), on behalf of GTE's other domestic telephone operating subsidiaries.
This interest is approximately equal to the interest income received by the
Company on affiliate notes between GTE Funding and such domestic telephone
operating subsidiaries. GTE Funding provides short-term financing and investment
vehicles and cash management services for the Company and six other of GTE's
domestic telephone operating subsidiaries.
258 La. 913

#### Mrs. Myrtle TRAHAN et al. v. GULF CREWS, INC., et al.

No. 51410.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1971.

In re: Mrs. Myrtle Trahan, Individually, etc., et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Cameron.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ali Hassan Hakim, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 816]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens *560County (Braun, J.), rendered June 3, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the validity of his waiver of the right to a jury trial is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Magnano,*77 NY2d 941, *cert denied*502 US 864; *People v McKnight,*198 AD2d 306). In any event, the written jury waiver form executed by the defendant and his statements on the record indicate that his waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made *(see, People v McQueen,*52 NY2d 1025; *People v White,*262 AD2d 590; *People v Wheeler,*258 AD2d 542).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 68

Electing Representative Schiff to the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. MICHEL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representative Schiff to the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct.

1 Resolved, That Representative Steven Schiff, New

2 Mexico, be and he is hereby, elected to the Committee on

3 Standards of Official Conduct.

Æ
#### Issiah HOLLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1046.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, an Agency of the State of Florida, and Levy County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Jacqueline W. WILSON and Blair Wilson, her husband, the Perkins Bank, and C. Allen Powell, Jr., single, Appellees.

No. K-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

May 15, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
259 La. 761

#### James Ray HEABLE v. Minnie Susan Foster HEABLE and Gwen Rena Heable.

No. 51620.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: James Ray Heable applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 248 So.2d 847.

Writ denied. No error of law.
```

[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 65442]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-7]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0343; FRL-9217-1]

 
New Mexico: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The State of New Mexico has applied to EPA for Final 
authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant 
Final Authorization to the State of New Mexico. In the ``Rules and 
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the 
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior 
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not 
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have 
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the 
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this 
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will 
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take 
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose 
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not 
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final 
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for 
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this 
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by November 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 
Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting 
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the 
materials submitted by the State of New Mexico during normal business 
hours at the following locations: New Mexico Environment Department, 
2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Building 1, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-
6303, phone number (505) 476-6035 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533, comments may 
also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; 
please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the 
immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson (214) 665-8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: October 12, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-26961 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Mary A. Jannace, Respondent, v Jane Boeggeman et al., Appellants.

[655 NYS2d 442]

In an action, *inter alia,*for rescission of a law firm’s shareholders’ agreement, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated August 18, 1995, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment inasmuch as they have failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
# C_2020297EN.01004601.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/46

---

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO — Nema (âme)

(Case T-442/20)

(2020/C 297/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Isaline Grangé (Edegem, Belgium) and Alizée Van Strydonck (Strombeek-Bever, Belgium) (represented by: M. De Vroey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nema Srl (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark âme — Application for registration No 17 895 139

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 2960/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
# Agency Request to Pass Over a Preference Eligible or Object to an Eligible

                - Title:  Agency Request to Pass Over a Preference Eligible or Object to an Eligible 
                - Form #:         SF62      
                - Current Revision Date:  04/2011
                - Authority or Regulation:  5 CFR Parts 332 and 338

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### In re ESTATE OF Merry A. FREEMAN, Deceased.

No. 72-351.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.