alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Solely  for  the  purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, I, the
undersigned  Chairman  of  the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Earth Search
Sciences,  Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Annual  Report  on  Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2005
(the  "Report")  fully  complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  Company.




Date:  August  10,  2005                /s/  Larry  F  Vance
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Larry  F  Vance
                                        Chairman  of  the  Board  and
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer
# C_2022326EN.01000301.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/3

---

Appeal brought on 23 March 2021 by OH against the order of the General Court delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-704/20 AJ, OH v European Court of Human Rights

(Case C-692/21 P)

(2022/C 326/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: OH

Other party to the proceedings: European Court of Human Rights

By order of 17 May 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal brought by OH is dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and that OH is to bear her own costs.

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,569
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,069,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,130
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,090,337
<PP&E>                                      47,511,081
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,576,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,098,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,738,820
<BONDS>                                      8,521,391
<COMMON>                                       174,063
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,544,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,098,169
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,167,470
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,945,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (64,191)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,245,891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,048,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,718,113
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,330,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,330,654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28



</TABLE>
#### Altamease EVANS, Appellant, v. POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, formerly the Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 2, 1971.

*726Wallace L. Storey, Bartow, for appellant.

C. A. Boswell of Boswell & Boswell, Bartow, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Altamease Evans appeals from a final judgment in a declaratory decree action filed in the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County in which the trial judge ruled against her.

Altamease Evans was a teacher in Polk County and was suspended on the grounds of willful neglect of duty and incompetency, under F.S. § *231.36(6),*F.S.A.

Her suit for declaratory relief asked that the trial judge declare the appellant to be entitled to have the hearing officer rule on matters of law as to the charges, the sufficiency thereof and all matters touching upon due process of law, and a determination of the laws, rules and regulations under which said charges should be adjudged and such other and further relief as might be just. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge held, among other things, that Altamease Evans had been

> “[Ijnformed with reasonable certainty of the nature and accusation against her and has had reasonable opportunity to defend against attempted proof of such charges, and there is no proof before this Court that would show that the proceedings to date before the defendant Board and before the Hearing Examiner have not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from any suspicion of prejudice, unfairness, fraud or oppression.”

We believe the trial judge committed no error in his ruling on the declaratory judgment and for that reason we affirm.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
NO. 12

- 15

- 00138

- CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 123 rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2014 -CR- 19231

JUAN MERINO §

§ IN THE 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRI EF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Juan Merino , Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause,

and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant

to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proce dure, and for good cause shows

the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 123 rd District Court of Shelby County,

Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Juan Merino

,

and numbered 2014

- CR

- 19231 . Appellant was convicted of Aggrava ted Sexual

Assault

.

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Sixty (60 ) years in Texas

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on April 16, 2015

.

5. Notice of appeal was given on April 23, 2015

.

6. The clerk's record was filed on June 3, 2015 and a supplemental clerk’s

record was filed on June 29, 2015; the reporter's record was filed on July 14, 2015

and the reporter’s exhibits were filed on July 15, 2015

. ACCEPTED

12-15-00138-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

10/14/2015 1:38:09 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK7. The appellate brief was presently due on October 14, 2015

.

8. Appellant reques ts an extension of time of twenty ( 2 0) days from the

current due date.

9. Two extension s to file the brief ha ve been received in this cause.

10. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the reques ted

extension:

The brief is complete excepting one point of error. Due to a recent stroke,

Counsel is physically unable to sit at a computer for extended periods of time and

would like a few extras days as to not neglect the final appeal point.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appellant prays that this

Court grant this Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

/s/John D. Reeves

____________________ John D. Reeves

Attorney at Law

1007 Grant

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Phone (936) 632

- 160

Fax: (936) 632

- 1640

tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000

Counsel for AppellantCERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred

with opposing counsel who is not opposed to an extension.

/s/John D. Reeves

___________________________ John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify tha t a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s

Motion to Extend Time to file Appellant’s Brief on this 14 th day of October , 2015

forwarded to State’s Attorney, Kenneth B. Florence, Shelby County, by electronic

service at shelbyda@sbcglobal.net

.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________ John D. Reeves

Attorney for Appellant,

Juan Merino
#### WILDER NATIONAL TAVERN SYSTEM *v.*JILLSON.

Licenses — Blue Sky Law — Subscription op Promoter.

Where subscriber to stock of Illinois corporation was interested in its organization and agreed to subscribe for stock when it was organized, his subscription is not in violation of Illinois blue sky law (Cahill Rev. Stat. Illinois, chap. 32, ¶ 258, subd. [2]; Smith-Hurd Rev. Stat. Illinois, chap. 121%, § 100[2]).

Appeal from Wayne; Campbell (Allan), J.

Submitted October 29, 1931.

(Docket No. 218, Calendar No. 36,056.)

Decided January 4, 1932.

Assumpsit by Wilder National Tavern System, an Illinois corporation, against Oren B. Jillson on a stock subscription. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*480
      *Max Kahn (Leonard V. Pylkas,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Younglove & Chockley,*for defendant.

Wiest, J.

Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation, organized February 23, 1926. Defendant was interested in its formation and organization and tendered a subscription to its capital stock. This tender was not effective because of change in the proposed capitalization. April 3, 1926, defendant, in Michigan, signed a subscription for stock to the amount of $1,050, and mailed it, with his check for $100, to an officer of the company at St. Louis, Missouri. The check was taken to Columbia, Illinois, where the home office of plaintiff was located, and there cashed and stock certificates executed in favor of defendant and kept by the company under the terms of the subscription. This suit was brought to recover the balance due on the subscription and defendant prosecutes this appeal from a'judgment awarded plaintiff.

The decisive question presented is whether the subscription violated the so-called blue sky law of Illinois, where it was accepted and shares of stock executed.

If defendant was interested in promoting the organization of the corporation and agreed to subscribe for shares of stock therein when it was organized, then there was no violation of the blue sky law of Illinois.

At the date of organization of the corporation defendant was in Germany and sent a radiogram, asking reservation of stock for him in the new company. The later subscription is explained by change in the capitalization.

The case does not present an instance of sale of corporate stock to a purchaser, upon solicitation *481after incorporation, bnt a subscription by one interested in tbe creation of the corporation, and defendant’s subscription falls within the issue of stock to organizers of the corporation.

The Illinois blue sky law exempts from its provisions distribution of capital stock to stockholders without incurring any expenses or liability therefor, such as commissions. Cahill Rev. Stat. Illinois, chap. 32, ¶258, subd. (2); Smith-Hurd Rev. Stat. Illinois, chap. 121%, § 100(2).

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### Nate GOLDBY v. PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION #519, et al.

No. 38631.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Antonio Menelao, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered August 23, 2013, convicting him, after a jury trial, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered August 23, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of forcible touching (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 130.52[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]).  Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to minor inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determination (<i>see People v Romero</i>, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; <a href="../2007/2007_06892.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Baksh</i>, 43 AD3d 1072</a>, 1073 [2007]<i>, lv denied </i>9 NY3d 989 [2007]), in which it credited the testimony of the victim and eyewitness police officer, and found defendant not to be credible (<a href="../2018/2018_07669.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Ramos</i>, 166 AD3d 442</a> [2018]<i>, lv denied </i>32 NY3d 1177 [2019]). Nor was the testimony of the victim and the officer so implausible as to be incredible as a matter of law (<i>see People v Garafolo</i>, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: February 19, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Deny and Opinion Filed March 19, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00276-CV IN RE PETER BEASLEY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-13433 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridge s, Stoddart, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamu s contending that the tr ial court abused its discretion in allowing real party in interest to withdraw deemed admissions and in continuing a hearing on a motion for summary judgment to allow real party in interest to conduct discovery. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus reli ef, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no ade quate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins.
Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. procee ding). Relator has not met those requirements. We deny the petition.

150276F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### J. G. ROWLAND, surviving partner of ROWLAND & STOCKLEY *vs.*HENRY BENNETT’S Adm’r.

In a case standing referred, the court refused to make new parties, by suggestion of plaintiff’s death, and on motion merely; several terms having elapsed.

Amicable action. March 24, 1831, by consent of parties, and order of court, referred to Jacob Paris, George Platt and Nathan Boulden.

At the November term, 1845, *Mr. Wales,*for plaintiff, made a suggestion of the death of Joseph G. Rowland, which took place in 1839, and moved that his executors be admitted party to the record. *(Canst. Art.*6, *Sec.*18.)

*Wales,*for plaintiff.

*The*Court.

—In the case now presented there has been a lapse of fourteen years, without any thing done in the premises, and we think it would be a bad precedent to make a party now on a suggestion of the death, and authorize a continuance of the old suit. The practice has uniformly been in cases *fending,*to suggest the death *at the next term*and not after; and there is no reason to depart in this case from the usual practice. It might well be otherwise if there had been an award made in this case and confirmed, that is, if the matter had passed into judgment.

Motion refused.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Analytical Surveys,Inc. 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements(No. 33-53950, No. 33-59940, No. 333-47365 and No. 333-116513) on Form S-8 of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and registration statement (No. 333-22609) on Form S-3/A of Analytical Surveys, Inc. of our report dated December 22, 2003, relating to theconsolidated balance sheet of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the years endedSeptember 30, 2003 and 2002, which report appears in the September 30, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys, Inc. 

 

Our report refers to a change in the Company’s method of accounting for goodwill in 2002. 

 

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered significant operating losses in 2003 and 2002 anddoes not currently have any external financing in place to fund working capital and debt requirements, which raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do notinclude any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

 

**KPMG LLP**

 

San Antonio, Texas 

December 10, 2004
#### ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION OF the STATE TAX COMMISSION v. Sylvester McLAURIN and One 1965 Model Chevrolet Impala Automobile.

No. 46646.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 2, 1973.

James E. Williams, Jackson, for appellant.

Jerry T. Johnston, Brandon, for appellee.

SMITH, Justice:

The single issue presented for determination by this Court on the present appeal is whether it is or is not an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Rankin County. An examination of the record reveals that, as to the dispositive question, it is in the same attitude as the appeal recently dismissed as premature in the case of State Tax Commission v. Clinton, 267 So.2d 312 (Miss.1972). The order sought to be appealed from in the present case is not a final judgment of the circuit court from which an appeal to this Court will lie.

The appeal is, therefore, premature. The motion of the appellee to dismiss it is sustained and the case is remanded for trial on all issues.

Appeal dismissed and the case remanded.

RODGERS, P. J., and PATTERSON SUGG and BROOM, JJ., concur.
#### Rudolph HEYM, Appellant, v. Rudolph H. KUEBLER, Appellee.

No. 69-569.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 25, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 10744.

#### Phillips *v.*Stauffer et al.

Decided December 22, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Monroe county.

*Messrs.*.Mallory, *Jeffers & Sears; Messrs. Spriggs & Gallaher*and *Mr. A. C.*Denbozv, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Mats & Kremer,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Arthur Lee COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 10, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022418EN.01002802.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — France v Commission

(Case T-475/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - Voluntary coupled support - Eligibility conditions - Eligible sectors and production - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013)

(2022/C 418/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, F. Alabrune, T. Stéhelin, G. Bain and J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the French Republic seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9), in so far as it excluded from EAGF financing the sum of EUR 45 869 990,19, corresponding to expenditure incurred under a voluntary coupled support measure for the production of fodder legumes, relating to the claim year 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
# C_2023235EN.01007602.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/76

---

Order of the General Court of 16 May 2023 — C&C IP UK v EUIPO — Tipico Group (t)

(Case T-762/21) (1)

(2023/C 235/91)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---
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.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

###### Information Security Oversight Office

          - [NARA-2018-045]

# AGENCY:

Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations, NARA announces a meeting of the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee.

# DATES:

The meeting will be on July 19, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at 202.357.5335, or by email at                         *robert.tringali@nara.gov.*                         Contact ISOO at                         *ISOO@nara.gov*                         and the NISPPAC at                         *NISPPAC@nara.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and                           ( print page 30195)                        telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, July 13, 2018. ISOO will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.                

Patrice Little Murray,

Alternate Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-13399 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7515-01-P