alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph McByrne et al., Respondents, v Ambassador Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. United Jewish Appeal, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Forest Electric Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

[736 NYS2d 17]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about March 26, 2001, which, *inter alia,*denied the motions of defendants and third-party defendants for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6), unanimously modified, on the law, so as to grant the motions to the extent of dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As plaintiff stood on the second rung from the bottom of an “A-frame” ladder at the work site, a pencil-thick data cable which was attached, along with other similar cables, to a grid in the ceiling above him, swung away from the grid and a wire at its tip struck him in the eye, causing injury.

The IAS court denied the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims, which were predicated upon Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6). We modify by dismissing the claims predicated upon Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1), but affirm the denial of summary judgment with respect to the section 241 (6) claim.

With respect to the section 200 claim, it is clear that Ambassador had no direct supervision or control over the manner of the work’s performance *(see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876). With respect to the section 240 (1) claim, it is clear that the ladder on which plaintiff was standing functioned properly and, further, that the injury was not occasioned as a result of plaintiff (a) falling from a height, or (b) being struck by an object being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident in the absence of or inadequacy of a proper safety device *(see, Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assocs.,*96 NY2d 259, 268).

But, as to the cause of action brought under Labor Law § 241 (6), we believe that an issue is presented as to whether plaintiffs injury is attributable to a violation of 12 NYCRR *24423-1.8 (a), which provides that “Approved eye protection equipment suitable for the hazard involved shall be provided for and shall be used by all persons while employed in welding, burning or cutting operations or in chipping, cutting or grinding any material from which particles may fly, *or while engaged in any other operation which may endanger the eyes”*(emphasis added) (see, *Cappiello v Telehouse Intl. Corp. of Am.,*193 AD2d 478, 479; *Shaheen v International Bus. Machs. Corp.,*157 AD2d 429). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
# C_2022222EN.01000601.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2022 — Antonius Maria Vervloet, Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder v Agència Estatal de Resolució d’Entitats Bancàries (AREB)

(Case C-526/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement of clarity and precision of the pleas in law - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 222/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Antonius Maria Vervloet, Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder (represented by: P. Van der Veld, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: Agència Estatal de Resolució d’Entitats Bancàries (AREB)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Antonius Maria Vervloet and Mrs Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Antonius Maria Vervloet and Mrs Cornelia Wilhelmina Vervloet-Mulder shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---
*Under 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-70048

 

RICHARD HINOJOSA, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division

(SA-01-CA-136-RF)

--------------------

ORDER DENYING APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Richard Hinojosa petitions the court for a

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial

of his application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

After reviewing the briefs, the decision below, and the record, we

find that Hinojosa is not entitled to a COA as to any issue. As
2

this is a death penalty case, it deserves the most exacting

scrutiny from this court, which typically involves a written

opinion. The district court in this case, however, wrote a

thoroughly detailed and well-reasoned 88-page opinion and order

denying Hinojosa’s petition for habeas relief and a COA. Were we

to write a lengthy opinion affirming that court, we would be

exalting formalism and scrupulosity over substance and judicial

economy, adding nothing but repetition and doing nothing more than

filling innumerable pages with synonyms and paraphrases. In this

exceptional case, therefore, we decline to do so and simply deny

Hinojosa’s COA for the reasons well and fully explicated in the

district court’s writing.

PETITION DENIED.
#### MARTHA GUTHRIE *vs.*JOHN V. HYATT.

Assumpsit is a very liberal form of action; and will lie to recover back money paid to a trustee for a specific purpose, if it has not been applied to that purpose, and he promises to refund it.

Case. Narr. Pleas. Non assumpsit; payment; discount, and act of limitations. Issues.

It was an action of assumpsit, and the narr. contained the usual money counts. The plff. proved her case by the production of the following receipt, and by evidence of several promises by the deft, to pay the money. “Received February 6, 1827, of Martha Guthrie by the hands of James Guthrie, $70,00; likewise received, December 26, 1827, of the said Martha Guthrie, $230,00; making together $300,00; which sum is put to interest for the benefit of the said Martha Guthrie.

, Signed, John V. Hyatt.”

*Bayard*

objected that on the face of the paper it appears that the deft, did not take the money as a borrower, but merely as a trustee; in which character he is not liable in this action, nor otherwise than upon a bill in chancery. If he received the money as a trustee, his promise to refund it was as such, and the promise of a trustee affords no ground of action at law. This defence was made in behalf of Hyatt’s bail for whom Mr. Bayard appeared.

*Gilpin*for plff.

denied that the paper proved the money to have *447been paid in Hyatt’s hands in the character of a trustee to lend at interest, or that there was any evidence that it was so loaned by Hyatt. The action of assumpsit is a remedy peculiarly suited to such a case as this. Wherever money is received by one which belongs to another, and which he equitably ought to pay to that other, he may be compelled to do so in this form of proceeding. If Hyatt did put out the money it was in his own name and was such a conversion as would charge him. The payments on account and promises to pay the balance, show the character in which Hyatt received the money.

*Gilpin,*for plff.

*J. Ji. Bayard,*for deft.’s bail.

The *Court*

construed the paper as an acknowledgment of money received by the deft, for his own use; but they said, additionally, that if it had been merely deposited in his hands to loan out for the plff. she might recover it back under the proof in this cause. The action of assumpsit has been likened to a bill in equity. Wherever a man has in his hands money belonging to another which he cannot equitably retain and he either promises or the law can raise an implied promise to pay it, it may be recovered in this form of action. The deft, here acknowledges the receipt of money belonging to Mrs. Guthrie, and if you please to loan out for her, he still retains it in his hands, or he has shown no other investment of it; and when called on he promises to pay it repeatedly. Assumpsit will well lie in such a case. Verdict and judgment for plff.
Appeals Reinstated, Judgments Affirmed, and Memorandum Opinion filed 

April 14, 2020

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00263-CR

NO. 14-19-00264-CR

NO. 14-19-00265-CR

RODERICK PALMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1557128, 1557129, and 1557130

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

These appeals were abated on March 5, 2020. We reinstate the appeals.

Roderick Palms appeals his three convictions for aggravated robbery. Tex. 

Penal Code § 29.03(a)(2). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he

concludes the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a 
2

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of his right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more 

than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the 

records. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
# C_2023035EN.01005201.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Zeta Farmaceutici v EUIPO — Specchiasol (EUPHYTOS)

(Case T-515/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU wordmark EUPHYTOS - Earlier EU figurative mark EuPhidra - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 56(2) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 64(2) and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relevant periods - Submission of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2023/C 35/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Zeta Farmaceutici SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica, F. Fischetti and F. De Bono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia, J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Specchiasol Srl (Bussolengo, Italy)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 June 2021 (Case R 2094/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 June 2021 (Case R 2094/2019-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 June 2021 (Case R 2094/2019-1);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zeta Farmaceutici SpA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zeta Farmaceutici SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-51264

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERRICK TOMMY ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CR-25-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derrick Tommy Robinson, federal prisoner # 03339-180, has applied for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the denial of his

motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction of his sentence in light of the

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA). The district court determined that Robinson

was not eligible for a reduction of his sentence under the FSA. 

The Sentencing Commission has amended the drug quantity table in

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, effective November 1, 2011. See United States Sentencing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 18, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-51264 Document: 00511889440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2012
No. 11-51264

Commission, Guidelines Manual, Supp. to Appendix C-Vol. III, Amendment 750,

at 391-98 (Nov. 1, 2011) (Amend. 750). Amendment 750, Part A, re-promulgated

portions of temporary emergency Amendment 748, which altered the base

offense levels for various crack cocaine quantities in the drug quantity tables of

§ 2D1.1(c) to conform with the new statutory sentences set out in the FSA. See

id. 

The record reflects that Robinson’s offense involved 3.67 kilograms of crack

cocaine and 1.73 kilograms of cocaine, resulting in a total marihuana

equivalency of 24,955.08 kilograms. Although Amendment 750, Part A, has been

made retroactively applicable, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), it did not lower base

offense levels for offenses such as Robinson’s. See Amend. 750, at 394. 

Because Robinson was not eligible for a sentence reduction under

Amendment 750, he cannot show that he will present a nonfrivolous issue with

respect to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v.

United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220

(5th Cir. 1983). The request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and

the appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th

Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

2

Case: 11-51264 Document: 00511889440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2012
# C_2022266EN.01002602.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/26

---

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — SS and ST v Frontex

(Case T-282/21) (1)

(Actions for failure to act - Right to asylum - Invitation to act - Position taken by Frontex - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 266/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SS, ST (represented by: M. Van den Broeck and L. Lambert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, S. Drew and W. Szmidt, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that Frontex unlawfully failed to adopt, under Article 46(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ 2019 L 295, p. 1), a decision suspending or terminating its activities in the Aegean Sea region.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | SS, ST and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

SS, ST and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 31.4



PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Ryan A. Benton, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Exar Corporation;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: July 30, 2015



|/s/    Ryan A. Benton                            
|-------------------------------------------------
|Ryan A. Benton                                   
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Robert HOUGH, Petitioner, v. Honorable David POPPER, as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Respondent.

No. 44245.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 533.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
# C_2023216EN.01004302.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-794/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark MOULDPRO - Genuine use of the mark - Nature of use - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Legitimate expectations)

(2023/C 216/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W. Rebernik, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2021 (Case R 646/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
Exhibit 23.1
                                                            ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                    --------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-09507) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-61837,
333-14681 and 333-76809) of our report dated July 12, 1999 relating to the
financial statements which appear in ION Networks, Inc. and Subsidiaries' Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 1999.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
July 13, 1999
Exhibit 24 - Consent of Certified Public Accountants

 

 

 

CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

 

 

Board of DirectorsElectronic Systems Technology, Inc.Kennewick, Washington

We hereby consent to the use of our opinion, dated February 7, 2003 onthe financial statements of Electronic Systems Technology, Inc., for the years endedDecember 31, 2002 and 2001 in the Form 10-KSB.

 

 

MOE O'SHAUGHNESSY & ASSOCIATES, P.S.

 

 

 

Jenny E. Anderson,Certified Public Accountant

 

Spokane, WashingtonMarch 5, 2003
Digitally signed by Pagefreezer

### PDF export                        ×

We are preparing your PDF. Downloading will start momentarily.

Please try again later.                            

1st snapshot

   2nd snapshot

#### **                    Compare Web Pages                

####
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1280

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for a biennial report

on nutrition and health by the Surgeon General of the Public Health

Service, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 22 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human

Resources

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for

a biennial report on nutrition and health by the Surgeon

General of the Public Health Service, 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 ‘‘Nutrition and Health

5 Information Act’’.
2

•S 1280 IS

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF REQUIREMENT OF BIENNIAL

2 REPORT ON NUTRITION AND HEALTH.

3 Title XVII of the Public Health Service Act (42

4 U.S.C. 300u et seq.), as amended by section 302 of Public

5 Law 102-531 (106 Stat. 3483), is amended by adding at

6 the end the following section:

7 ‘‘BIENNIAL REPORT REGARDING NUTRITION AND HEALTH

8 ‘‘SEC. 1709. (a) BIENNIAL REPORT.—The Secretary

9 shall require the Surgeon General of the Public Health

10 Service to prepare biennial reports on the relationship be11 tween nutrition and health. Such reports may, with re12 spect to such relationship, include any recommendations

13 of the Secretary and the Surgeon General regarding the

14 public health.

15 ‘‘(b) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary

16 shall ensure that, not later than February 1 of 1995 and

17 of every second year thereafter, a report under subsection

18 (a) is submitted to the Committee on Energy and Com19 merce of the House of Representatives and the Committee

20 on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

21 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the

22 purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized

23 to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for

24 each of the fiscal years 1994 through 1998.’’.

Æ