alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 420

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 10, 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. 2442) to reauthorize appropriations under the

Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as

amended, to revise administrative provisions of the Act to improve the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to administer grant programs, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made in

order by this resolution and shall not exceed ninety minutes,

with sixty minutes equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Public Works and Transportation and thirty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban
2

HRES 420 EH

Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the committee amendments now printed in the bill, 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 printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee

on Rules accompanying this resolution. The amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Before

consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to

consider the amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the

Committee on Rules, if offered by a Member designated in

the report. All points of order against the amendments 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. 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 amendment in the nature

of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
3

HRES 420 EH

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 515 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 515

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       August 19, 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. 4908) to authorize the hydrogen and fusion research, development, and 
demonstration programs, and the high energy physics and nuclear physics programs 
of the Department of Energy, 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 Science, Space, and Technology. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The bill shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each 
title shall be considered 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. 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.
```
#### John J. MACKEY, III, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-555.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021349EN.01001701.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/17

---

Appeal brought on 21 May 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-378/20, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19)

(Case C-321/21 P)

(2021/C 349/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic, SAS AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2416 final of 15 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56795 (2020/N) — Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 2416 final of 15 April 2020 on State Aid SA.56795 (2020/N) — Denmark — Compensation for the damage caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to Scandinavian Airlines is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the Commission breached the requirement that aid granted under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU is not to make good the damage suffered by a single victim.

Second plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle in relation to damage caused to SAS by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Sixth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and committed a manifest distortion of the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.

---
#### GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. Robert M. HEWITT, Appellee.

No. 67-969.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1968.

Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for appellant.

Joseph A. Perkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

*45CHARLES CARROLL, Chief Judge.

This interlocutory appeal by General Dynamics Corporation is from an order which rejected appellant’s motion to be dismissed as a defendant to the counterclaim and cross-claim of Robert M. Hewitt, and which order made the appellant a party defendant to the cause. In the iatter respect the order provided:

> “Ordered and Adjudged that the defendant General Dynamics Corporation be, and the same is hereby, made a party defendant to this cause of action, as provided by the Rules, and the complaint by the said Robert M. Hewitt against General Dynamics Corporation shall stand pursuant to Rules 1.170 and 1.210; and it is further

> “Ordered and Adjudged that General Dynamics Corporation be, and it is hereby, allowed 20 days within which time to answer Counts Two and Three.”

On viewing the record and having heard argument we conclude that the trial court was not in error in entering the foregoing order. Hewitt was one of the defendants in the cause. He filed a pleading entitled “Answer, counterclaim, Cross-claims and Third Party Complaint.” In counts 2 and 3 thereof he stated allegations upon which he sought relief against parties to the cause and against the appellant, not theretofore a party. We agree with the trial judge that the joinder of appellant as a party defendant to the counterclaim and cross-claim was proper and permissible under subsection “(h)” of rule 1.170 R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., which provides as follows:

> “When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants as provided in these rules if jurisdiction of them can be obtained and their joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the action.”

It is noted that the trial court fixed a time within which appellant could answer counts 2 and 3 of the Hewitt counterclaim or cross-complaint. Thus the trial court recognized that only those two counts of the Hewitt complaint concerned the appellant, but the court’s order was that the appellant was “made a defendant to this cause of action.” That quoted portion of the order should be modified to provide that the join-der of General Dynamics Corporation in the cause is only as defendant to the counterclaim or cross-complaint of Hewitt, and as so modified the challenged order is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Robert N. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1978.

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

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt and Ronald A. Dion, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Cunningham v. State,*239 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1975); Section 924.33, Florida Statutes (1975).
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-726

Lower Tribunal No. 22-134M

_____________________________

RACHEL ELOISE WILSON,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Charlotte County.

Peter A. Bell, Judge.

March 19, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephania A. Valantasis, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison C. Heim, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                           8,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                    105,999
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,325
<PP&E>                                       1,336,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                 746,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 845,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,008
<BONDS>                                        455,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,484
<OTHER-SE>                                    (46,596)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   845,404
<SALES>                                        648,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               648,987
<CGS>                                          606,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  606,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (13,785)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,597)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-139735, 333-127829, 333-111842 and 333-114613) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-74016 and 333-51310) and FormSB-2 (333-64192) of ImageWare Systems, Inc. of our reports dated April 17,2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ StonefieldJosephson, Inc.

Los Angeles, California

April 16, 2007 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7096
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRAVIS MCKINNLEY FRIEND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-201, CA-01-836) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 19, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis McKinnley Friend, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Travis McKinnley Friend appeals from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Friend pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000), and carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000). Thereafter, Friend pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to a separate incident of carjacking. Both carjackings resulted in the deaths of the victims, and Friend received two life sentences. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Friend has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a3 certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Howard PENDERGRASS, Appellant, v. Samuel R. SCHACKOW, Sr., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-349.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 19, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and the
Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 1999 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,200,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,172
<INVENTORY>                                    326,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,004,568
<PP&E>                                         663,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                 207,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,109,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          856,190
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       167,768
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,078,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,109,792
<SALES>                                        763,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               763,801
<CGS>                                          850,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,351,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               182,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,256,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,256,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
### RE: GE submission Kline, Kelley (GE Indust, ConsInd) to: Monica Shimamura 10/23/2008 06:05 PM Follow Up: Normal Priority.

Thank you, and we are looking forward to working with you on it and answering any questions you may have.
Kelley -----Original Message----- From: Shimamura.Monica@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Shimamura.Monica@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 5:05 PM To: Kline, Kelley (GE Indust, ConsInd) Subject: GE submission Hi Kelley, We received GE's SNAP submission today. Thank you, Monica
Monica Shimamura U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stratospheric Protection Division 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (6205J) Washington DC 20460 (tel) 202.343.9337 (fax) 202.343.2362 Address for hand delivery (UPS/Fed Ex/etc): 1310 L St. NW, 10th Floor (1027N) Washington DC 20005 .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> ,.· ́ ̄`·. ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>  ̧.· ́ ̄`·..· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o> .· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ >< ((((o> .· ́ ̄`·.><((((o> ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧ ><((((o>.· ́ ̄`·.><((((o> ̧.· ́ ̄`·. ̧><((((o>
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mackie Designs Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James T. Engen, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2003 | By:    | /s/ James T.  Engen                                     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | James T.  Engen*President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mackie DesignsInc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 21.1



NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of Registrant

As of May 27, 2005





N.E.T. APLA, Inc. .  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)



N.E.T. Cone Sul do Brasil Ltda. .  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Brazil)



N.E.T. de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. . (Incorporated Under the Laws of Mexico)



N.E.T. Southeast Asia Pte Ltd.  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Singapore)



N.E.T. China, Inc.  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)



N.E.T. Europe, Ltd. . (Incorporated Under the Laws of England)



N.E.T. Europe S.A.S.  (Incorporated Under the Laws of France)



N.E.T. Federal, Inc. .  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)



N.E.T. Japan, Inc.  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)



Netdotcom Broadband Technologies, Inc. .  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Canada)



Network Equipment Technologies Europe GmbH..  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Germany)
# C_2022073EN.01004001.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Rotondaro v EUIPO — Pollini (COLLINI)

(Case T-69/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark COLLINI - Earlier EU and national word marks POLLINI and STUDIO POLLINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 73/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carmine Rotondaro (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pollini SpA (Gatteo, Italy) (represented by: F. Sanna, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2020 (Case R 2518/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pollini and Mr Rotondaro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carmine Rotondaro to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carmine Rotondaro to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---
#### Conoiso Servando FERNANDEZ v. STATE.

No. 38822.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 88.