alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ralph MORRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-771.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, and Michael ZonZamft, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from an order denying his motion under Rule 3.850 CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for relief from five judgments of conviction entered on his pleas of guilty.

By five informations filed in October of 1970 the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and possession of narcotic implements, and four instances of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, and grand larceny. The sentences entered were for imprisonment for a term of eight years, with the five sentences to run concurrently.

The basis of the subsequent motion for relief was a contention on the part of the defendant that his guilty pleas to said offenses were not voluntarily made. The motion was summarily denied. The appellant contends the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing thereon. On examination of the record we agree with the *297position taken by the state that the order denying the motion for relief was proper and should be affirmed. The court correctly concluded that the contention of the defendant that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily made was conclusively refuted by the record, wherein the voluntariness of the guilty pleas, which were entered in the several cases at one time was conclusively shown in the course of the full inquiry before the court during which the defendant was informed of his rights incident thereto, and of the possible consequences of pleading guilty, consistent with the requirements discussed in Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 300, opinion on rehearing.

Affirmed.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 367TH DISTRIC T COURT OF DENTON CO UNTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 1st day of October, A.D. 2013, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

RPI Denton Center, Ltd., Appellant

v. Troy Brown and Albert Smith, Appellee No. 06

- 13

- 00035

- CV

Trial Court No. 2012

- 502 06

- 367

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further order that the appellant, RPI Denton Center, Ltd., pay all costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with
the seal thereof a nnexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 13th day of March , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
#### Reva ROTT, Appellant, v. Harry ROTT, Individually and Harry Rott, as Executor of the Estate of David Rott, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 67-316.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 20, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1968.

Kelner & Lewis, Miami, for appellant.

Copeland, Therrel, Baisden & Peterson and Meek Robinette, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an adverse final decree. The appellant filed suit against her step-son individually and in his capacity as executor of her deceased husband’s estate, seeking a decree to set aside a contract made by her husband and his son relating to partnership assets consisting of real and personal property, under which contract the surviving partner could purchase the interest of the other partner for a price to be determined on a formula provided for in the contract.1 Five years after the contract was made, the *22plaintiff’s husband died. Plaintiff alleged certain facts on the basis of which she charged that the contract permitted sale at less than value, and that her late husband and his son had conspired to place a substantial part of the value of such property beyond her reach as dower. The cause was tried before the trial judge who found the plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case, and granted judgment for the defendants. On consideration of the record and briefs, we conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error and the decree appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Using a power of attorney, the husband signed for the wife on the contract.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Global Clean Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.






April
      15, 2009/s/
      Kenneth S. AdesskyKenneth
      S. AdesskyChief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer )
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14745]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / 
Notices

[[Page 32072]]



AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION


Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors

AGENCY: United States African Development Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The US African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its 
quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's 
programs and administration. This meeting will occur via telephone as a 
conference call.

DATES: The meeting date is Wednesday, July 18, 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW, Suite 1000, 
Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Crooks, 202-233-8803.

    Authority: Public Law 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).

    Dated: July 5, 2018.
June B. Brown,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-14745 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between February 2018 and May 7, 2018 designated as work items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification with the Department was filed on February 21, 2018. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 11, 2018 (83 15627).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-14583 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE AGREEMENT (SPA)

MODIFICATION JUSTIFICATION

FROM: Agency Name: 

Authorizing Specialist: 

Phone Number: 

Email Address: 

SUBJECT: Justification for Cost Adjustment to 

 

To:

Original Cost:

Modification Charge: 

*Total Revised Cost:

Reason for Adjustment: 

New Delivery Date if Warranted: 

This cost adjustment was negotiated and approved by our agency (sign and date below). 

________________________________________________________ ____________________

Authorizing signature Date

Send this signed form with the original signed SPA Work Order form to the vendor, 

and to the SPA team at

Jacket Number Purchase Order Number

BAC Requisition Number

SPA Work Order Number

_____________________________________________________________ _____________________

Contractor signature Date

*For ordering customer, the GPO surcharge will be in addition to this total.
# C_2020320EN.01002802.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/28

---

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)

(Case T-504/20)

(2020/C 320/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG (Andernach, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Manòu — Application for registration No 14 704 481

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 1504/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021357EN.01000801.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2021 — Procter & Gamble International Operations SA v Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k.

(Case C-355/21)

(2021/C 357/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA

Defendant: Perfumesco.pl sp. z o.o., sp. k.

Question referred

Must Article 10 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) be interpreted as precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law to the effect that a protection measure in the form of destruction of goods relates only to goods illegally manufactured or illegally marked, and cannot be applied to goods illegally put on the market in the territory of the European Economic Area which cannot be found to have been illegally manufactured or illegally marked?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, Special edition in Polish: Chapter 17 Volume 002 P. 32 — 39).

---
#### *In re*SCHANTZ ESTATE. FINAL ACCOUNT BY RUEHS.

Appeal and Error — Appendix—Court Rules.

Appeal is dismissed with costs as on motion to dismiss, where appellant’s appendix failed to comply with mandatory provisions of court rule in that parts of the opinion of the court from which the appeal was taken were so printed as to preclude comprehension of the judicial thought and reasoning thereof without resort to the single original record, the rule being intended to assist, rather than hinder, the work of the Supreme Court (Court Rule No 67, § 6, as effective January 2,1957). ■■ • •

*542Appeal from Kent; Yerdier (Leonard D.), J.

Submitted October 15, 1958.

(Docket No. 58, Calendar No. 47,755.)

Decided December 2, 1958.

Rehearing denied February 19, 1959.

Ernest Rnehs filed his final account as guardian of Addison Sehantz, -mentally incompetent, in contemplation of restoration to soundness of mind. Account approved in probate court and appeal to circuit court dismissed. Sehantz appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

*Edward Kenney,*for appellant.

*Rom & Newton Dilley,*for guardian.

Per Curiam.

We said, in *Miller*v. *Allen,*352 Mich 95, 96:

> “Counsel must be advised that additional burdens have been voluntarily assumed by this Court through promulgation of the recently adopted appellate rules (effective January, 2, 1957.347 Mich xiv through xxxii). A comprehensive and fully informative appendix, supplied according to the optional provisions of said Rule No 67, is imperatively required under the new appellate practice.”

Here again the appellant’s brief and appendix disregards in substantial entirety the needful and later considered (see *Wilks*v. *Kempf,*352 Mich 445, 451, 452) requirements of new Rule No 67. In particular we cannot countenance the practice of printing, in an appendix, isolated portions only of the opinion or opinions of the court below. In this case it appears from the original record that Judge Yerdier rendered 2 opinions which, in the orderly course of appellate procedure, should have been printed verbatim '"in the appellant’s áppendix (see section 6 of new *543Rule'Nó 67). Each opinion, so far as appellant’s appendix is concerned, consists of minute context-lifted .observations of Judge Verdier, totally disconnected from each other and printed in such way that no reader would be able to comprehend the judicial thought or reasoning without resort to the single original record.

\Counsel should understand that the mandatory re-' quirements of said Rule No 67 — and certainly the duty to print (in the appellant’s appendix) “any opinion of the court * * # below” is such a requirement — must be complied with in order that the new appellate rules may assist rather than hinder the work of his Court. Emphasizing what was said in *Miller*v. *Allen*and *Wilks*v. *Kempf, supra,*it is or.dered that appellant’s appeal be dismissed, with costs to appellee as on granted motion to dismiss.

Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Kelly, Smith, Black, Edwards, Voelker, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 475 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 475

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 20, 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. 1188) to provide for disclosures for insurance in interstate 
commerce. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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 with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 448 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 448

  Amending the Code of Official Conduct of the Rules of the House of 
 Representatives to require the temporary step aside of a chairman or 
             ranking minority party member who is indicted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1994

Mr. Reynolds submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Code of Official Conduct of the Rules of the House of 
 Representatives to require the temporary step aside of a chairman or 
             ranking minority party member who is indicted.

    Resolved, That (a) rule XLIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting after clause 12 the following 
new clause:
    ``13. The chairman or ranking minority party member of a standing, 
select, or special committee of the House or of a joint committee of 
the Congress, or any subcommittee thereof, who is indicted for a felony 
for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed, 
shall cease to exercise the powers of chairman or ranking minority 
party member, as the case may be, and shall step aside in favor of the 
next ranking member of the committee or subcommittee who shall serve as 
acting chairman or acting ranking minority party member, as the case 
may be, unless or until the charges are dismissed or reduced to less 
than a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment 
may be imposed.''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any 
individual who is chairman or ranking minority party member of a 
standing, select, or special committee of the House or of a joint 
committee of the Congress, or any subcommittee thereof, who is indicted 
for a felony described in that amendment or is under indictment for 
such a felony on the date this resolution is agreed to.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11
                          GENRAD, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                           -----------------------------   ----------------------------
                                                 July 4,        June 28,        July 4,        June 28,
                                                    1998            1997           1998            1997
                                           -------------    ------------   ------------    ------------
<S>                                        <C>              <C>            <C>             <C>         
Basic earnings per share:

Net (loss) income available to
    common stockholders                    $ (24,804,000)   $  7,921,000   $(15,896,000)   $ 19,638,000
                                           =============    ============   ============    ============

Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                  28,286,000      26,697,000     27,887,000      26,414,000
                                           =============    ============   ============    ============

Basic earnings per share                   $       (0.88)   $       0.30   $      (0.57)   $       0.74
                                           =============    ============   ============    ============

Diluted earnings per share:

Net (loss) income available to
   common stockholders                     $ (24,804,000)   $  7,921,000   $(15,896,000)   $ 19,638,000
                                           =============    ============   ============    ============

Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                         28,286,000      26,697,000     27,887,000      26,414,000

Weighted average incremental shares from
the assumed conversion of stock options
   and restricted stock awards                      --         1,480,000           --         1,682,000
                                           -------------    ------------   ------------    ------------
          Total:                              28,286,000      28,177,000     27,887,000      28,096,000
                                           =============    ============   ============    ============

Diluted earnings per share                 $       (0.88)   $       0.28   $      (0.57)   $       0.70
                                           =============    ============   ============    ============
</TABLE>