alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony Macchirole et al., Appellants, v Joseph A. Giamboi et al., Respondents.

[721 NYS2d 267]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated October 27, 1999, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The injured plaintiffs deposition testimony established that he accepted Workers’ Compensation benefits in connection with the accident in question. Thus, he is barred as a matter of law from maintaining an action against the defendant Joseph Giamboi, his féllow employee *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]; *Cunningham v State of New York,*60 NY2d 248; *Gagliardi v Trapp,*221 AD2d 315).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### Markus ABUJA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7653.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

F. E. Wetmore, of Hart, Mich., for appellant.

Jos. M. Donnelly, U. S. Atty., of Grand Rapids, Mich.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court that the appeal in this cause has been abandoned, it is ordered that the appeal be, and the same is, docketed and dismissed, the costs to be charged against the government as constructive earnings.
#### Rita HUNEYCUTT, Appellant, v. BENDIX FIELD ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 19, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Clarence T. Johnson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal quashed.
#### J. T. WHEAT v. BOUTTE AUTO SALES.

No. 61982.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Boutte Auto Sales, applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of St. Charles. 355 So.2d 611.

Writ denied.
#### Cleo M. RAULERSON, Appellant, v. GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION of Florida, Appellee.

No. DD-305.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 1977.

Peter J. Kellogg of Grissett & Hum-phries, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Joel L. Goldman of Goldman, Presser, Lewis & Nussbaum, Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

SMITH, Judge.

Cleo Raulerson appeals from a judgment entered on an adverse jury verdict. Her claim against appellee General Finance, her former employer, was that it withheld salary increases and promotion because she is a *1112woman and eventually discharged her as a result of her repeated demands that she receive equal pay for equal services performed. The applicable statute, Section 725.07, Florida Statutes (1973), provided:

> “No person . . . shall discriminate against any person based on sex, marital status, or race in the areas of loaning money, granting credit, or providing equal pay for equal services performed.”

The statute provided for an award of compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees to one damaged by proscribed conduct.

The trial court was correct in excising from Raulerson’s claim her allegation that she was denied promotion to a designated job category because of her sex. Titular promotion is not a matter addressed by Section 725.07. Although the session law’s title describes the enactment as proscribing discrimination in “hiring, discharging or promoting employees,” Chapter 73-251, Laws of Florida, the bill’s operative language to that effect was deleted before passage in favor of requiring “equal pay for equal services performed.” The enacted phrase, being unambiguous, may not be expanded by reference to inconsistent language in the title of the act which somehow escaped amendment. The jury found Rau-lerson was not denied “equal pay for equal services performed.” The statute does not purport to create a cause of action for discharge of an employee who erroneously and repeatedly asserts entitlement to more salary, although the discharge of one asserting a meritorious claim under the statute may properly be considered in assessing punitive damages. Because Raulerson’s claim was found not to be meritorious, her discharge is not remediable under Section 725.07.

We have considered the other grounds urged for reversal and find no harmful error.

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Avery Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
J. Haynes, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and

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


/s/ Patrick J. Haynes, III
----------------------------------
Patrick J. Haynes, III
Chief Executive Officer
September 3, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 421 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 421

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 12, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 2000) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal years 1995 through 1998 to carry out the Head Start 
Act and the Community Services Block Grant Act, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Frederick C. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Honorable L. Clayton NANCE, Respondent.

No. 70-355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1970.

Prohibition denied.
#### Juan Antonio De la CRUZ and Theresa De la Cruz, Appellants, v. Dvora Burnsteln STOCKMAN, Appellee.

No. 71-1082.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6310
RONALD NELSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STEVEN J. GAL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-4588-2-22-AJ) Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 9, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nelson v. Gal , No. CA-01-4588-2-22-AJ (D.S.C. filed Jan. 30, entered Jan. 31, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### TEMPLETON *v.*GRAJEWSKI.

Appeal and Error — Moot Case — Dismissal.

Cause having become moot, appeal is dismissed.

Appeal from Wayne; Moll (Lester S.), Brennan (Vincent M.), and Campbell (Allan), JJ.

Submitted January 20, 1932.

(Docket No. 203, Calendar No. 35,752.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

Bill by Andrew Templeton and others against Michael J. Grajewski, Jr., Hamtramck city clerk, to declare petition for recall of mayor void. Chester M. Ostrowski intervened in behalf of recall petitioners. Decree for plaintiffs. Intervener appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

*Jason L. Honigman,*for plaintiffs.

*Peter P. Boyle (John J. AdamsM,*of counsel), for intervener.

Potter, J.

The court is advised this cause has become moot. The appeal is therefore dismissed, but without costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Dennis R. Wolters, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 13, 2006  By:  /s/ Dennis R. Wolters   Dennis R. Wolters    President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2023045EN.01001601.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk v EUIPO — ESSAtech (Accessory for wireless remote control)

(Case T-611/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an accessory for wireless remote control - Ground for invalidity - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Facts or evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2023/C 45/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: ADS L. Kowalik, B. Włodarczyk s.c. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: M. Oleksyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Chylińska and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ESSAtech (Přistoupim, Czech Republic)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1070/2020-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1070/2020-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1070/2020-3);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings both before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings both before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.

---
#### Darrell TROUT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 25, 1978.

*1150Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(b)(4) (ii) (1977).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50821 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ALMA ROSA SALAZAR-GONZALES, a/k/a Alma Rosa Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-95-CR-237 - - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES. PER CURIAM: * Salazar-Gonzales appeals her sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She argues that the district court misapplied the sentencing guidelines by applying the 16-point upward adjustment of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2). She contends that her previous conviction for burglary of a habitation should not be considered an aggravated felony because she received a suspended sentence of probation.No. 95-50821 -2- The district court did not misapply the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Vasquez-Balandran , 76 F.3d 648 (5th Cir. 1996). AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of Fischer Imaging Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Kirwan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/DAVID KIRWANDavid Kirwan Chief Financial OfficerApril 14, 2004

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fischer Imaging Corporation and will be retained by Fischer Imaging Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated June 17, 1998, accompanying the consolidated 
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Citadel Technology, 
Inc. on Form 10-KSB as of February 28, 1998. We hereby consent to the 
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of 
Citadel Technology, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-65189, No. 333-03291, 
No. 333-15665 and 333-53151, effective December 20, 1995, May 8, 1996, 
November 6, 1996, and May 20, 1998, respectively).

GRANT THORNTON LLP
/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Dallas, Texas
June 19, 1998
NO. 07-10-00240-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL A 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

JAICOURRIE FINLEY, APPELLANT 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; 

NO. 61,383-A; HONORABLE DAVID GLEASON, JUDGE 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 On June 16, 2010, appellant, Jaicourrie Finley, filed a pro se notice of appeal 

with this Court indicating appellant’s desire to appeal the district court’s “denial of an 

injunction/protective order.” On June 30, 2010, this Court received correspondence 

from appellant, entitled “Appellant’s Brief,” that indicates that appellant is attempting to 

appeal the denial of a motion for injunctive relief in his pending criminal prosecution. 

This “brief” expressly indicates that the motion for injunctive relief was filed by courtappointed counsel. The clerk’s record in this cause was received on September 9, 

2010. The clerk’s record includes a “Motion for Order to Transfer to Another Unit,” 
2 

which was denied by the trial court, and appears to be the motion that appellant is 

seeking to appeal. This motion was filed by counsel, and nothing in the clerk’s record 

indicates that counsel has ever been permitted to withdraw from representation of 

appellant in the underlying criminal proceeding. 

Because appellants are not allowed to have hybrid representation on appeal and 

because the record does not reflect that appellant’s counsel has been permitted to 

withdraw from representation in this matter, we may not consider the merits of 

appellant’s appeal. See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). 

 Because this correspondence was filed by appellant pro se while appellant is 

represented by counsel, the Court hereby dismisses the appeal without prejudice to 

refiling by counsel. 

 Per Curiam
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Habersham Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, and 333-48507 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report dated
January 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Habersham
Bancorp and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual report
on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp. Our report refers to changes in the methods
of accounting for goodwill in 2002 and for derivative instruments and hedging
activities in 2001.

                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  KPMG LLP
Atlanta Georgia
March 30, 2004
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1177

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the

Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

4 Section 3692(c) of title 38, United States Code, is

5 amended by striking out ‘‘December 31, 1993’’ and insert6 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘December 31, 1997’’.
2

•S 1177 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN RE2 GIONAL OFFICE IN THE PHILIPPINES.

3 Section 315(b) of title 38, United States Code, is

4 amended by striking out ‘‘March 31, 1994’’ and inserting

5 in lieu thereof ‘‘September 30, 1995’’.

Æ
#### Frank GEORGE v. STATE OF LOUISIANA BOARD OF PAROLE.

No. 53903.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: Frank George applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The relator was not denied due process in the issuance of a de-tainer.