alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Willie Medford, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-13-00095-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 354th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 28497). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Carter participating.

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 note that the appellant, Willie Medford, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 28, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND
QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                           20,277,001
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>            3,528,842
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                 20,015,585
<TRADING-ASSETS>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>     296,718,216
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>            7,671,767
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>              7,749,168
<LOANS>                         605,662,050
<ALLOWANCE>                       1,462,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  994,192,592
<DEPOSITS>                      680,635,103
<SHORT-TERM>                     68,584,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>              10,723,897
<LONG-TERM>                      85,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            104,295
<OTHER-SE>                      149,145,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>  994,192,592
<INTEREST-LOAN>                  23,479,371
<INTEREST-INVEST>                10,084,121
<INTEREST-OTHER>                    561,682
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                 34,125,174
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>               14,356,659
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               18,309,300
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>            15,815,874
<LOAN-LOSSES>                       166,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                   9,716,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   7,206,640
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>        7,206,640
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      4,353,847
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         3.40
<LOANS-NON>                         195,096
<LOANS-PAST>                              0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                      7,607
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                  1,296,451
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             0
<RECOVERIES>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                 1,462,451
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>           1,462,451
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Katherine S. REED.

No. 60616.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Bryan E. Bush, Jr., Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie Brown, Dist. Atty., Bob Hester, Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
~ 

~ 

VAC. PUMP ~ l ~ 

HEATEXCH. 

., CHILLER 

SYSTEM 

~ REACTOR 

CONDENSER 

~ 

THERMAL ...__ VACUUM ..._ OXIDIZER PUMP 

~ ... S"' 

NITROGEN 

SYSTEM 

POWDER ~ COOLING 

DELIVERY TOWER 

SYSTEM 

I ., ., .4 

., ., 1500-1 

n~ l 

., TANK 

SOLVENT 

TANK EDA ., CONDENSATE (FUTURE) TANK 

RECEIVER (FUTURE) 

THERMAL 

REACTOR2 ... OIL 

BOILER 

WIHEAT ...... EXCHANGER 

l 

FILTER& ~~ ,. RAW MATERIALS 

PACKAGE ........... IN DRUMS 

PALMER INTERNATIONAL, INC. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM SCALE: NONE 

SKIPPACK, PA REACTOR2 DATE: 4-11-2012
#### SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Murray ALTMAN, Gerald Altman, Mary Sheftall, Individually; Mary Sheftall, as guardian and next friend of Roosevelt Bristel, a minor; and James Thomas Parkerson, Appellees.

No. 67-280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 12, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Annual Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties Inc., general partner of the
Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                             
|Terry L. Stevens                                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
|October 6, 2006
RONALD COOPER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5197

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed February 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Frank E. Sheffield , Judge

.

Ronald Cooper, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFI RMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING AND SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES, INC., and Aetna Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 70-776.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 4, 1971.

Lawrence F. Gallman, Orlando, for appellant.

John A. Curtiss of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee Aetna Ins. Co.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a sub-subcontractor on a construction project, brought this action for a *243money judgment against his subcontractor, and the surety on the subcontractor’s performance bond. The surety filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for its failure to state a cause of action. The court endorsed upon the face of the motion to dismiss the words, “Motion Granted” signing and dating the same. This is the order from which plaintiff-appellant brings the appeal.

We are unable to consider the merits of the question presented. The “order” from which the appeal has been taken is one which at best merely granted the motion to dismiss and is not one which has the requisite finality to sustain a full appeal under Rule 3.2, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 538; Baker v. Colley, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 473, nor is the order of such a nature that we could treat the present appeal as an interlocutory appeal under Rule 4.2, F.A.R. as we did in Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 152.

Appeal dismissed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF NAVIGANT CONSULTING



We hereby consent to the references to our firm with respect to Georgia-Pacific Corporations probable insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities
contained in the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 1, 2005 of Georgia-Pacific Corporation and any amendments thereto. In giving the foregoing consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is
required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, nor do we admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such Form 10-Q within the
meaning of the term experts as used in the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.



Navigant ConsultingBy:

/s/ WILLIAM JONESName:

William JonesTitle:

Managing Director




Lawrenceville, New Jersey

October 27, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

S. James Miller, Chief Executive Officer of ImageWareSystems, Inc. (the “Company”), and Wayne Wetherell, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, each hereby certifies pursuant to the requirement set forth inRule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the ExchangeAct; and

**2**. The informationcontained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Reportand the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by theAnnual Report.

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**theundersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 17th day of April, 2007.
|            | /s/    S.  James Miller       |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **S.  James Miller**                              |
|       | **Chief  Executive Officer**                      |
|       | ** **                                        |
|       | /s/    Wayne  Wetherell       |
| ** ** | **Wayne  Wetherell**                              |
| ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**                      |
| ** ** | **(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)** |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toImageWare Systems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
tct_ex1011.htm

EXHIBIT 10.11

 

FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO THE FUND ACCOUNTING SERVICING AGREEMENT 

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT effective as of January 1, 2021, to the Fund Accounting Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 14, 2015, is entered into by and between TEUCRIUM COMMODITY TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust (the “Trust”), TEUCRIUM TRADING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the sponsor of the Funds (the “Sponsor”), and U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC d/b/a U.S. BANK GLOBAL FUND SERVICES, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“USBFS”).

 

RECITALS 

 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into the Agreement; and 

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement and to amend the fee schedule set forth on Exhibit B to the Agreement, and

 

WHEREAS, Section 15 of the Agreement allows for its amendment by a written instrument executed by all parties. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 

 

	
 
	
1. 
	Section 15 of the Agreement will be replaced with the following Section 15. 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Section 15. Term of Agreement; Amendment

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
The Term of the Agreement will be extended until January 1, 2024. After January 1, 2024, this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms unless either party provides written notice at least 90 days prior to the end of the then current term that it will not be renewing the Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated by any party upon the breach of another party of any material term of this Agreement if such breach is not cured within 15 days of notice of such breach to the breaching party. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any manner except by written agreement executed by Fund Services and the Trust, and authorized or approved by the Sponsor.





  

	
 
	
2. 
	Effective, January 1, 2021, Exhibit B of the Agreement is hereby superseded and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit B attached hereto.




 

Except to the extent amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

Signatures on the following page

 

	 
	
	
	 




 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer on one or more counterparts as of the date and year first written above. 

  

TEUCRIUM COMMODITY TRUST 

 

By:_______________________________

 

Name:_____________________________ 

 

Title:______________________________ 

 

 

TEUCRIUM TRADING, LLC 

 

By:________________________________

 

Name: _____________________________ 

 

Title: ______________________________ 

 

U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC 

 

By:_______________________________

 

Name: _____________________________

 

Title: Senior Vice President

 

	 
	
	
	 




  

Exhibit A to the Fund Accounting Servicing Agreement – Teucrium Commodity Trust 

 

Separate Series of Teucrium Commodity Trust 

 

	
Name of Series

Teucrium Corn Fund

Teucrium Wheat Fund

Teucrium Soybean Fund

Teucrium Sugar Fund

Teucrium Agricultural Fund
# C_2022432EN.01002502.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Lotion v EUIPO (BLACK IRISH)

(Case T-498/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark BLACK IRISH - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lotion LLC (Woodland Hills, California, United States) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 June 2021 (Case R 199/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lotion LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lotion LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
COMMISSIONERS 

GABRIEL J. RAMOS 

DfSTRICT I 

BRETT A. KASTEN 

DISTRICT 2 

CHRISTY MILLER 

DISTRICT 3 

October 8, 2012 

Dennis J. DeVany 

GRANT COUNTY 

Chief, Essential Air Services Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: EAS Contract for Grant County, New Mexico 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

COUNTY MANAGER 

JON PAUL SAARI 

telephone: (575) 574-0008 

Fax: (575) 574-0073 

With respect to your request for input on the EAS contract concerning air service to 

Silver City I Hurley I Deming, New Mexico (Grant County Airport), I would like to offer 

the following information. 

The Grant County Commission, acting as owners of the airport to be serviced by this 

contract, has reviewed the proposals for Essential Air Service to Denver or Phoenix. 

Based upon the current users of Great Lakes Airlines, the County Commission would like 

to have the Essential Air Service continue with Great Lakes Airlines with two round trip 

services a day to Phoenix. 

I appreciate your efforts in securing these services for the citizens of Grant County to 

keep us connected with a m~or hub. Please contact me at 575-574-2068 if you require 

any additional information, 

Office Of The Grant County Commissioners 

1400 Highway 180 East, Silver City, NM 88061 • P. 0. Box 898, Silver City, NM 88062
# C_2022472EN.01001301.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances

(Case C-295/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(1) - Exemption in favour of a parent company of the dividends paid by its subsidiary - Carrying over definitively taxed income surpluses to subsequent tax years - Absorption of a company with definitively taxed income surpluses by another company - National legislation limiting the transfer of those surpluses to the absorbing company)

(2022/C 472/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Allianz Benelux SA

Defendant: État belge, SPF Finances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States

must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that dividends received by a company are to be included in its basis of assessment before up to 95 % of the total amount is deducted from it and which makes it possible, where appropriate, to carry that deduction forward to subsequent tax years, but which, nonetheless, where that company is absorbed in the context of a merger, limits the transfer of the carry-forward of that deduction to the absorbing company in proportion to the share represented by the net tax assets of the absorbed company in the total of the net tax assets of the absorbing company and the absorbed company.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                           8,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                     68,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,758
<PP&E>                                         854,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 512,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 571,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          605,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       139,136
<OTHER-SE>                                   (278,196)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   571,442
<SALES>                                        159,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,701
<CGS>                                          158,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,535)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### William A. LORD as Trustee for John Blow, Appellant, v. David L. REID as Tax Assessor of Palm Beach County, Florida; Ernest McGehee as Tax Collector of Palm Beach County, Florida; and Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 69-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, as Executor of the Estate of Lillian Rubin Newman, Deceased, Relator, v. Honorable Irwin G. CHRISTIE, Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, and Leonard Feldman, as successor Executor of the Estate of Samuel S. Newman, Deceased, Respondents.

No. 74-337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
# C_2021431EN.01003702.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/37

---

Order of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Be Smart v Commission

(Case T-18/21) (1)

(State aid - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Commission’s adoption of a position after the action was brought and which put an end to the failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 431/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Be Smart Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Satta, G. Roberti, A. Romano and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to define its position on the complaint made by the applicant on 15 October 2014 concerning alleged State aid measures granted by the Italian Republic to the interuniversity consortium Cineca.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Be Smart Srl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Be Smart Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---
#### Gregg Parker LYELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.