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

No. N-450.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

*Aug.*25, 1970.

Horace Avis, in pro per., for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
# Jan 2020
#### Shedrick LANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 11, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl V. M. Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*244PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal (oral argument having been waived). On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
# C_2021502EN.01001102.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/11

---

Appeal brought on 13 January 2021 by Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 17 November 2020 in Case T-257/20, González Calvet v SRB

(Case C-27/21 P)

(2021/C 502/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board

By order of 30 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Ramón González Calvet and Joan González Calvet to bear their own costs.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Garnet SHROPSHIRE.

No. 60660.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Frank G. De Salvo, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1237

To extend the existing suspension of duty on stuffed dolls, certain toy figures,

and the skins thereof.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. PELL) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the existing suspension of duty on stuffed dolls,

certain toy figures, and the skins thereof.

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 EXISTING SUSPENSION OF

4 DUTY ON STUFFED DOLLS, CERTAIN TOY FIG5 URES, AND THE SKINS THEREOF.

6 Headings 9902.95.01, 9902.95.02, and 9902.95.04

7 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

8 are each amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘12/31/97’’.
2

•S 1237 IS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this

3 Act apply with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn

4 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

7 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

8 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of9 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact10 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub11 heading 9902.95.01, 9902.95.02, or 9902.95.04 of the

12 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that was

13 made—

14 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

15 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

16 date of the enactment of this Act,

17 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

18 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

19 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 123

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for prompt parole

into the United States of aliens in order to attend the funeral of an

immediate blood relative in the United States and to deny parole status

to aliens who are excludable from admission into the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. SIMON) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

for prompt parole into the United States of aliens in

order to attend the funeral of an immediate blood relative in the United States and to deny parole status

to aliens who are excludable from admission into the

United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 123 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROMPT PAROLE OF ALIENS IN ORDER TO AT2 TEND THE FUNERAL OF AN IMMEDIATE

3 BLOOD RELATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(d)(5) of the Immi5 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is

6 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara7 graph:

8 ‘‘(C)(i) The Attorney General shall provide, on an ex9 pedited basis, for the parole of an alien under this para10 graph if—

11 ‘‘(I) an immediate blood relative of the alien

12 has died and the funeral for the relative is to be in

13 the United States, and

14 ‘‘(II) the alien provides the Attorney General

15 with a certified copy of the death certificate of the

16 relative.

17 ‘‘(ii) The period of parole under this subparagraph

18 shall be for a period of not to exceed 30 days (except as

19 may be provided in exceptional circumstances specified by

20 the Attorney General).

21 ‘‘(iii) In clause (i), the term ‘immediate blood relative’

22 means, with respect to an alien, the spouse, mother, fa23 ther, son, daughter, brother, or sister of the alien.’’.

24 (b) REPORT ON OPERATION OF AMENDMENT.—The

25 Attorney General shall report to the Congress, not later

26 than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act,
3

•S 123 IS

1 on the operation of section 212(d)(5)(C) of the Immigra2 tion and Nationality Act (as added by the amendment

3 made by subsection (a)) and on any violations or abuses

4 of the immigration laws resulting from the parole of aliens

5 into the United States under such section.

6 SEC. 2. DENYING PAROLE STATUS TO EXCLUDABLE ALIENS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(d)(5) of the Immi8 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)), as

9 amended by section 1, is further amended by adding at

10 the end thereof the following new subparagraph:

11 ‘‘(D) The Attorney General may not parole into the

12 United States any alien who would otherwise be excludable

13 from admission into the United States under subsection

14 (a).’’.

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

16 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

17 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or sub18 paragraph (D)’’ after ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’.

Æ
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1335

_____________________________
T RAVIS T HURSTON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

July 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and R OBERTS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Travis Thurston, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
# C_2022198EN.01004601.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)

(Case T-315/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark APIAL - Earlier EU word mark APIRETAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

(2022/C 198/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Miralles Llorca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nordesta GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 1560/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Nordesta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
H. Res. 201

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

June 17, 1993.

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. 2403) making appropriations for the Treasury

Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive

Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to

comply with clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. 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 Appropriations. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. Points of order under clause 2 or

6 of rule XXI against provisions in the bill are waived except

as follows: beginning with ‘‘Provided’’ on page 17, line 2,
2

HRES 201 EH

through ‘‘Code:’’ on line 5; beginning on page 19, line 22,

through page 20, line 16; and beginning on page 62, line 22,

through page 63, line 2. Where points of order are waived

against only part of a paragraph, a point of order against

matter in the balance of the paragraph may be applied only

within the balance of the paragraph and not against the entire paragraph. It shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if offered by a named proponent or

a designee. That amendment shall be considered as read,

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

divided and controlled by its proponent and an opponent, and

shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order against

the amendment printed in the report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ricardo Bernandes, in my capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc., for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on March 27, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.

Dated: March 27, 2006



By:

/s/ Ricardo BernardesRicardo Bernardes, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
#### Edward Boyle et al., Appellants, v Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 740]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Carpinello, J.), entered March 4, 1996 in Ulster County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed, upon the opinion of Justice Anthony J. Carpinello.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Doile H. SMITH.

No. 60680.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 3, 1978.

S. Patrick Phillips, Assistant Indigent Defender, 26th Judicial District Indigent Defender Office, Bossier City, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry N. Brown, Jr., Dist. Atty., A. L. Blondeau, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1261

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 for the Board

for International Broadcasting, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 20 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. PELL (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and 1995

for the Board for International Broadcasting, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Board for Inter5 national Broadcasting Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 Section 8(a)(1)(A) of the Board for International

8 Broadcasting Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 287(a)(1)(A)) is

9 amended to read as follows:
2

S 1261 IS

1 ‘‘(A) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 1994

2 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal

3 year 1995 and such additional amounts for

4 each such fiscal year as may be necessary to

5 offset adverse fluctuations in foreign currency

6 exchange rates; and’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                              HARBINGER CORPORATION

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended
                                                         June 30               June 30
                                                   -------------------   -------------------
                                                     1998       1997       1998       1997
                                                   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic:

    Net income (loss) available to common
      shareholders .............................   $  1,959   $  2,724   $    622   $(13,630)
                                                   ========   ========   ========   ========

    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding .......................     41,853     36,847     41,451     36,639
                                                   ========   ========   ========   ========

    Basic earnings (loss) per share ............   $   0.05   $   0.07   $   0.01   $  (0.37)
                                                   ========   ========   ========   ========

Diluted :

    Net income (loss) available to common
      shareholders .............................   $  1,959   $  2,724   $    622   $(13,630)
                                                   ========   ========   ========   ========

    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding .......................     41,853     36,847     41,451     36,639

    Effect of potentially dilutive stock options      2,522      2,070      2,552         --

    Effect of potentially dilative warrants ....        105         70        100         --
                                                   --------   --------   --------   --------


    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding assuming dilution .....     44,480     38,987     44,103     36,639
                                                   ========   ========   ========   ========

    Diluted earnings (loss) per share ..........   $   0.04   $   0.07   $   0.01   $  (0.37)
                                                   ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>


Computational Note:

In connection with the computation of diluted earnings per share for the six
months ended June 30, 1997 all common share equivalents have been excluded
because their impact on the Company's net loss per share is antidilutive.
# C_2023329EN.01002101.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-377/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Final report of the investigation by OLAF into the performance of a service contract financed by the EDF - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 329/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 26 April 2021, by which the latter refused the applicant access to its final report and the annexes thereto at the end of investigation OC/2019/0766/B4.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 26 April 2021, by which the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) refused Eurecna SpA access to its final report and the annexes thereto at the end of investigation OC/2019/0766/B4; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 26 April 2021, by which the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) refused Eurecna SpA access to its final report and the annexes thereto at the end of investigation OC/2019/0766/B4;

| 2. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---
#### Solomon MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1971.

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

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned
officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief,
that:




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2008 (the "Form
10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      July 1, 2008/s/TamiJ.StoryTami J. Story,
      Chief Financial Officer




This
certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.