alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Winston W. WYNNE, as Director of the Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation, State of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. DAV-ED, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-725.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

Charles F. Tunnicliff, Staff Atty., Dept, of Business Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Johnson v. Town of Eatonville,*203 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) (insufficient record).

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
**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 General MotorsCorporation (the “Corporation”) onForm 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 Corporation.     /s/ G. RICHARD WAGONER, JR.       G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.     Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2006
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1(B)
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-99070) pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc. 1995
Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 29,
1999 with respect to the financial statements of Chicago Miniature Lamp
(Canada), (Canada) Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of SLI, Inc.
for the year ended January 3, 1999.
 
                                          Hards Pearson
                                          Chartered Accountants
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
March 25, 1999
 
                                       44
No. 10703.

#### The Stearns & Foster Co. *v.*Brigel, Jr., et al.

Decided February 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Flamilton county.

*Messrs. Rettinger & Gorman*and *Mr. Edvuards Ritchie,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Frank F. Dins-more*and *Mr. Anthony B.*Dunlap, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 Principal Executive and Financial Officer - Section 906
             Certification

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  and  accompanies  the annual report on Form
10-KSB  (the "Form  10-KSB")  for the year ended  December  31,  2006 of Taitron
Components Incorporated (the "Issuer").

I, Stewart Wang, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

      (i)   the Form 10-KSB  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and:

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects,  the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Issuer.

Dated April 2, 2007                            By: /s/ Stewart Wang
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Stewart Wang
                                                   Principal Executive Officer &
                                                   Principal Financial Officer


                                      -35-
H. Res. 502

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 3, 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 (S. 1066) to restore Federal services to the Pokagon

Band of Potawatomi Indians. 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 fiveminute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as

read. 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
2

HRES 502 EH

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00719-CR

Ex parte Kevin J. Mayhew

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 55359, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kevin J. Mayhew applied for a writ of habeas corpus to contest his extradition to

Arkansas. The writ issued and, after a hearing, the relief sought was denied. This appeal followed.

Documents contained in a recently filed supplemental clerk’s record reflect that

Mayhew was released into the custody of Arkansas police on November 23, 2003, two days after the

habeas corpus hearing and two days before his attorney filed the notice of appeal. Apparently, no

effort was made to stay extradition pending appeal. Under the circumstances, the appeal is moot.

Ex parte Stowell , 940 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).2 The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed

Filed: June 10, 2004

Do Not Publish
#### ARMOR ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., a Foreign Corporation and Insurance Company of North America, a Foreign Corporation, Appellants, v. ELEVATOR SALES & SERVICE, INC., a Florida Corporation and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, a New York Corporation, Appellees.

No. 77-1251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1978.

Papy, DuVal, Poole & Usich, Coral Gables, and Robert J. Van Der Wall, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The controlling question on this appeal is whether there is a right of contribution in favor of the third party tortfeasor against the workmen’s compensation employer where the third party is not under a common liability to the injured person and where the employer’s liability is limited by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. See *United Gas Pipeline Company v. Gulf Power Company,*334 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We hold in accord with the cited case that there is no right of contribution.

Appellant third party tortfeasor seeks a holding that contribution should be allowed, relying upon *Sunspan Engineering & Construction Company v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding*Company, 310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975); and *Trail Builders Supply Company v. Reagan,*235 So.2d 482 (Fla.1970).

We think that this troublesome question has been laid to rest by the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in *Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith (West Robinson Fruit Co.),*359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978), where the Supreme Court said:

> “The key words of the contribution act are ‘common liability’ to the employee. Such ‘common liability’ cannot exist where the employer is immunized from liability by the Compensation Act for tort.” [Citing with approval the *United Gas Pipeline Company*case, cited above.]

See also *Firestone Tire and Rubber Company*v. *Thompson Aircraft Tire Corporation,*353 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.
# C_2021452EN.01000401.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 5 July 2021 — Instituto do Cinema e do Audiovisual, I.P. v NOWO Communications, S.A.

(Case C-411/21)

(2021/C 452/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Instituto do Cinema e do Audiovisual, I.P.

Respondent: NOWO Communications, S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 10(2) of Lei n.o 55/2012, de 6 de setembro (Law No 55/2012 of 6 September 2012), if interpreted as meaning that the fee for which it provides is to be used exclusively to finance the promotion and dissemination of Portuguese film and audiovisual works, liable to give rise to indirect discrimination against the provision of services between Member States as compared with the corresponding national provision of services, inasmuch as it makes the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the purely domestic provision of services within a Member State, thus infringing Article 56 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 10(2) of Lei n.o 55/2012, de 6 de setembro (Law No 55/2012 of 6 September 2012), if interpreted as meaning that the fee for which it provides is to be used exclusively to finance the promotion and dissemination of Portuguese film and audiovisual works, liable to give rise to indirect discrimination against the provision of services between Member States as compared with the corresponding national provision of services, inasmuch as it makes the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the purely domestic provision of services within a Member State, thus infringing Article 56 TFEU?

| 2. | Might the answer to be given to the first question referred be altered by the fact that other Member States of the European Union operate schemes which are identical or similar to that provided for in Law No 55/2012? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Might the answer to be given to the first question referred be altered by the fact that other Member States of the European Union operate schemes which are identical or similar to that provided for in Law No 55/2012?

---
# C_2022244EN.01001001.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/10

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska v CI

(Case C-638/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Legal relationship between a national radio broadcaster and a natural person who is subject to the radio fee - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 244/12)

Language of the case: Slovak.

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska

Defendant: CI

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Okresný súd Prešov (District Court, Prešov, Slovakia), by decision of 8 September 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Lodged on: 19.10.2021.

---
#### Howard V. PATTERSON, etc., Petitioner, v. McArthur WHITEHEAD et al., Respondents. Joseph Ronald ROEBUCK, etc., Petitioner, v. McArthur WHITEHEAD et al., Respondents.

No. KK-186.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 20, 1978.

W. N. Avera of Avera & Stripling, P. A., Gainesville; and Robert R. Perry of Miller, Perry & Brown, Palatka, for petitioner.

James P. Judkins; Thomas F. Woods; James N. McConnaughhay, and Edgar C. Booth, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This petition for common law cer-tiorari fails to demonstrate that the trial court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or has departed from the essential requirements of law and that an appellate remedy would be inadequate. Petitioners complain of the court’s denial of petitioners’ motion “in limine” for entry of a pre-trial order forbidding the mention at trial of the taking and testing of blood samples from petitioners’ decedents, who received fatal injuries in an automobile collision. The admissibility of such evidence, notwithstanding the terms of Section 316.-066, Florida Statutes (1977), must ordinarily be determined at trial upon the evidence then submitted. Though prospective evi-dentiary rulings are often convenient and desirable, they may not ordinarily be reviewed immediately by proceedings in the nature of common law certiorari. This record suggests no unusual circumstances justifying pretrial appellate review of such an order. Without prejudice to the trial court’s ruling at trial and appellate review if necessary following final judgment, the petition is DENIED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and SMITH and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

 OFFICE OF

 CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM:

Date: March 29, 2015

Subject: RD Response to Comments on Public Comments Submitted on the Federal 

Register Notice of Receipt for the Clothianidin Experimental Use Permit (59639-

EUP-RI)

The Notice of Receipt of an application for a clothianidin experiment use permit (59639-EUPRI) was open for a 30 day public comment period in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0667 at 

regulations.gov. The purpose of this document is to address public comments submitted by the 

Pollinator Stewardship Council (PSC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) that were not 

answered by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED).

CFS Comment: CFS comments that granting the EUP would cause severe and unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment, including but not limited to unassessed harm to honey bees 

and other beneficial invertebrates, as well as to birds that are directly and indirectly harmed by 

the corn plantings.

PSC Comment: Clothianidin is documented as causing both acute and chronic harm to honey 

bees when used on corn. PSC encouraged the EPA to maintain its position against approving 

experimental use permits until pollinator risk assessments are complete. The PSC had concerns 

regarding the solubility of clothianidin in water which were addressed by EFED’s Response to 

Comments. 

EPA Response: The proposed EUP is an in-furrow soil treatment for clothianidin treated corn 

seed and will only be applied to a combined total of 500 acres in three states: Minnesota, South 

Dakota, and Wisconsin. According to the proposed use rates on the EUP label, the maximum 

rate of clothianidin per corn seed is 0.5 mg active ingredient (a.i.)/seed which is lower than the 

currently labeled maximum rate of 1.25 mg a.i./seed. Therefore, the exposure to clothianidin 

residues from abraded dust is likely to be lower than those from the currently registered use on 

corn seed. The in-furrow application of the EUP will be conducted at low boom heights which 

are unlikely to result in significant spray drift. EPA considers that acute exposures to honey bees 

foraging in or near the field at the time of application are likely to be similar or lower than those 
from the currently registered use on corn.

The registrant will collect pollen samples from the EUP treated fields to determine if this method 

of application is effective against corn rootworm and to determine if the systemic uptake of the 

clothianidin has increased. The registrant has also committed to develop and carryout a protocol 

to record native pollinators’ activity on corn tassels and on flowers in field margins and natural 

habitats adjacent to the treated fields.

Page of 2 2
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1960-000]


Tenaska Pennsylvania Partners, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Tenaska Pennsylvania Partners, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is July 25, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c78182958488a9abaea9a294b2b7b7a8b5b387a1a2b5a4e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2b4b7a0b1bd9c9e9b9c97a18782829d8086b294978091dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 5, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14834 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                     EXHIBIT 11



COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE                                                MIRAGE RESORTS, INCORPORATED
OF COMMON STOCK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Three Months                  Nine Months
                                                     ---------------------------   ----------------------------
For the periods ended September 30                        1997           1996           1997           1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Weighted-average shares outstanding                   178,842,310    182,787,603     178,654,609    183,669,140
Common stock equivalents                               12,689,416     12,229,002      12,163,548     12,378,975
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average shares outstanding and
  common stock equivalents used in the
  computation of primary earnings per share           191,531,726    195,016,605     190,818,157    196,048,115
Additional common stock equivalents for
  fully diluted calculation                             2,901,362      2,199,432       3,427,230      2,049,459
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total shares outstanding assuming full dilution       194,433,088    197,216,037     194,245,387    198,097,574
===============================================================================================================

Net income                                           $ 54,899,000   $ 48,736,000   $ 158,264,000  $ 153,922,000
Primary earnings per share                           $       0.29   $       0.25   $        0.83  $        0.79
Fully diluted earnings per share                     $       0.28   $       0.25   $        0.81  $        0.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>