alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Curtis A. MAPP v. JUDGES OF the CIRCUIT COURT THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SUWANNEE COUNTY.

No. 38594.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
EXHIBIT
        23.1
 
 Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 We
        consent to the use of our report dated January 11, 2008, relating to the
        consolidated financial statements of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and Subsidiaries
        (the “Company”), as of and for the year ended September 30, 2007, appearing
        in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Analytical Surveys, Inc. as of September
        30, 2007.
  Our
        report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
        suffered significant operating losses in 2007 and prior years and does not
        currently have external financing in place to fund working capital requirements,
        which raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a
        going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include
        any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this
        uncertainty.
 
 
 
 /s/
        Malone & Bailey, PC
  Malone
&
Bailey,
        PC
 www.malone-bailey.com
 Houston,
        Texas
  January
        11,
        2008
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1243 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1243

   To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on chloramino base.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 15 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on chloramino base.

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

SECTION 1. CHLORAMINO BASE.

    Heading 9902.29.42 of subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by this Act applies with 
respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (b) Reliquidation.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request filed with 
the appropriate customs officer on or before the 90th day after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, any entry of an article described in 
subheading 9902.29.42 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992, and
            (2) before the date which is 15 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act,
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry occurred on or 
after the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
10.44




First
Amendment
 to
 Employment
Agreement
 
 This
First Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Employment Agreement is made
this 27h day
of September, 2008, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on the one hand, and Wayne Wetherell, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, on the other
hand (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of September 27, 2005
(the “Employment Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and
 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Employment Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
 
 Section“2.Term of
Agreement”strike the
language “continue until the third anniversary of the Effective Date” and
replace it with “continue until June 30, 2009”.
 
 
 
 
 _________________________________                                            _________________________________
 
 ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           Wayne
Wetherell
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel PetroleumCorporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Parallel forthe year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in that Form 10-K/AReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Parallel.Dated: July 11, 2007              /s/ Steven D. Foster   Steven D. Foster,   Chief Financial Officer        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


           (Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Thomas C. Brown, the
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of TMBR/Sharp
Drilling, Inc. ("TMBR"), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10K of
TMBR for the year ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the periodic
reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the information contained in that Form 10K Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TMBR.

Dated: June 26, 2003



                                           /s/ Thomas C. Brown
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Thomas C. Brown, Chairman
                                           of the Board of Directors and Chief
                                           Executive Officer



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to TMBR/Sharp Drilling, Inc. and will be retained by TMBR/Sharp
Drilling, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1022 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1022

  To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing oil and gas 
 leases for waters off the coast of the State of New Jersey until the 
                   year 2000, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 25 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Mr. Bradley (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from issuing oil and gas 
 leases for waters off the coast of the State of New Jersey until the 
                   year 2000, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New Jersey Offshore Oil and Gas 
Moratorium Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act:
            (1) Lease.--The term ``lease'' has the same meaning as is 
        provided in section 2(c) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
        Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(c)).
            (2) Preleasing activity.--The term ``preleasing activity'' 
        means any activity conducted before a lease sale is held 
        including--
                    (A) the scheduling of a lease;
                    (B) a request for industry interest;
                    (C) a call for information or a nomination;
                    (D) the identification of an area;
                    (E) the publication of a draft or final 
                environmental impact statement;
                    (F) a notice of sale; and
                    (G) any form of rotary drilling.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. NEW JERSEY OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS MORATORIUM.

    Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
January 1, 2000, the Secretary of the Interior may not conduct any 
preleasing activity, or hold any lease sale, under the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) with respect to 
the area seaward from the State of New Jersey.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate joint
ventures. In accordance with industry practice, its balance sheet is
unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying audited
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,409,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,797,814<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,603,832<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,797,814<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,443,817<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               582,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,861,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,861,247
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,861,247
<EPS-BASIC>                                    27.29<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include investment in
joint venture of $2,331,352 and other asset of $55,778.
<F2>Other Stockholders' Equity represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and other liabilities of $193,982.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $551,241, gains on sales of real estate
of $4,320,001, equity in earnings of joint venture of $238,583 and interest
and other revenues of $333,992.
<F5>Represents net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2022294EN.01002801.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM)

(Case T-293/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark UM - Genuine use of the mark - Use with the consent of the proprietor - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark - Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set)

(2022/C 294/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ulrike Muschaweck (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joachim Conze (Munich) (represented by: H. Bolte, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 2260/2019-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Muschaweck and Mr Conze.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ulrike Muschaweck to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ulrike Muschaweck to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
#### Thomas M. BEAVERS et al., Appellants, v. F. A. CONNER, Appellee.

No. 73-445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1974.

Horton & Perse and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami, Daugherty & Goodman, Miami Springs, for appellants.

Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court for the second time upon the issue of damages. In our previous decision, reported at 258 So.2d 330, we reversed for a new trial solely on the issue of plaintiff-appellee’s damages.

The pertinent facts in this case are set forth in our prior opinion. We held therein that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding that a “402” certificate of operation has a value of $125,000 and that the plaintiff was entitled to 85% of that sum, based upon “net profits” under an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants.

Upon retrial of this cause, without jury, appellee called three expert witnesses who testified on the fair market value of Mr. Conner’s stock ownership and position with the Panamanian corporation at the time the defendant appropriated the corporation’s stock. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s evidence established that he was entitled at $125,000 compensatory damages, plus interest.

It is not within the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of *463the trier of fact, unless the record clearly reflects that the findings and conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 50; Griffith Services, Inc. v. Walter Kidde Constructors, Inc., Fla.App. 1972, 262 So.2d 240.

We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### DENMARK v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.

No. 38429.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 So.2d 131.
#### RATNER REALTY CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Andrew L. KIRBY et al., Appellees.

No. 71-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H. Res. 552

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 29, 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. 4683) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act

to provide congressional authorization of State control over

transportation of municipal solid waste, and for other purposes. 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 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
2

HRES 552 EH

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.
#### Bailey surv. vs. Ellis.

Where in an action of replevin, the jury renders a verdict in favor of the defendant, for the value of the property delivered to the plaintiff under the writ, without any evidence whatever as to the value of such property', a new trial will bo granted— the verdict being without evidence to support it.

The allegation in a declaration in replevin as to the value of the property taken by the defendant, is matter of form in pleading, and not an admission in an enquiry by the jury as to the value.

*Error to White Circuit Court,*

lion. William C. Bevens, Circuit Judge.

Turner, for the plaintiff.

Jordan, for the defendant.

*489Hon. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the court.

Bailey and Carrington were partnership owners of some cotton; Carrington died, and Ellis administered on his estate. Rogers undertaking to act as the agent of Bailey, made a division of the cotton with Ellis, allotting to him six bales, as the partnership share of his intestate, which he took and converted. Bailey afterwards repudiated the authority of Rogers to act as his agent in making the division of the cotton, and as the surviving partner of the firm of Bailey & Carrington, brought replevin, in the *cepit,*against Ellis for the six bales taken by him.

The case was submitted to a jury on issues to the pleas of *■non cepit,*and property in the defendant. Upon the evidence introduced by the parties, and instructions of the court, w'hich appear to have been given without objection, the jury found' for the defendant, and assessed the value of the cotton, which had been delivered to the plaintiffs by the sheriff, at $282 65.

The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, the court overruled the motion and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant for the value of the cotton as assessed by the jury. The plaintiff excepted, set out the evidence, and brought error.

Upon the trial, it appears that no evidence whatever was introduced as to the value of the cotton. How the jury ascertained that it was worth ten and a half cents a pound, and that its aggregate value was $282 65, as stated in their verdict, does not appear.

It is alleged in the declaration, under a *videlicet,*that the six bales were of the value of $400. But this was matter of form in pleading, and could not be treated as an admission by the plaintiff in an enquiry by the jury as to the value of the cotton, as supposed by the counsel for the defendant in error.

The verdict being totally unsupported by any evidence whatever, as to the value of the cotton, the court should have granted the plaintiff a new trial.

No question of law is legitimately presented upon the record *490as to the authority of Rogers to act as the agent of the plaintiff in making a division of the cotton; and as the case must be remanded for a new trial, we do not deem it proper to give any opinion upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence to establish his authority to act for the plaintiff in the matter.

Reversed.
#### Marvin HARRIS, Appellant, STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-296.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 14, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR MODIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

Following this court’s per curiam af-firmance without opinion of the judgment reviewed herein, the Public Defender filed his petition for rehearing or modification. We have considered said petition and find that the same has merit. Accordingly, we withdraw our earlier per curiam decision dated August 1, 1972, and substitute therefor the following.

Appellant seeks review of his judgment of conviction and sentence. The Public Defender was appointed to represent appellant on this appeal. In furtherance of his duties to.represent the appellant, the Public Defender reviewed the entire record on appeal and upon consideration thereof concluded that there was no reversible error. The Public Defender filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), wherein he stated his view that there was no error in the trial process and accompanied said brief with a motion to allow appellant to file his own brief raising such issues as he deemed meritorious.

Said motion was granted by the court and, although we granted appellant thirty days to do so, no brief has been filed by him. Accordingly, the court has considered the record on appeal and, finding no error therein, the judgment reviewed is

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### NEW HOLLAND MACHINE CO. DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORP., Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORP., Appellee.

No. 46206.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 19, 1971.

Wroten, Orlansky & Miller, Greenville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall & Hunger, Greenville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.