alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frederick James WALDINGER, II, Petitioner, v. Ronda WALDINGER, Respondent.

No. 44691.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 15, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 285 So.2d 441.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements of Unitil Corporation and subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File No. 333-158537 effective April 29, 2009), Form S-3 (File No. 333-152823 effective December 5, 2008), Form S-8 (File No. 333-114978 effective April 29,2004), Form S-3 (File No. 333-42264 effective July 26, 2000) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-42266 effective July 26, 2000) of our report dated February 10, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of UnitilCorporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the three years ending December 31, 2009 and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2009, appearing in the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

 

Caturano and Company P.C. 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

February 10, 2010
#### George James NOVAK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

Richard W. Bonehill, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 129, and as to an additional point see Murphy v. State, Fla.App.1971, 252 So.2d 261.
#### Herbert M. WEIL v. WEBSTER HALL CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

No. 7659.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 4, 1937.

Herbert M. Weil, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On petition of Herbert M. Weil, appellant, and upon stipulation of counsel, it is ordered that the appeal of Herbert M. Weil be, and the same is hereby, docketed and dismissed.
#### Joseph M. AUDITORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
TX116 - 007 - 06 2009TCEQpointSOURCEdata .mdb

This type of file ( Microsoft Access Database ) cannot be posted to the docket. This file is available upon request. For questions or requesting copies of availa ble files and making arrangements, contact either Erik Snyder via email at Snyder.erik@epa.gov or phone 214 - 665 - 7305 or Michael Feldman via email at Feldman.michael@e pa.gov or phone 214 - 665 - 9793.
# C_2023112EN.01000501.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-555/21, (1) UniCredit Bank Austria)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2014/17/EU - Credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property - Article 25(1) - Early repayment - Consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract - Article 4(13) - Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ - Costs that are independent of the duration of the agreement)

(2023/C 112/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UniCredit Bank Austria AG

Defendant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that the consumer’s right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of that credit includes only interest and costs which are dependent on the duration of the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           6,203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                       705
<INVENTORY>                                     96,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,122
<PP&E>                                       1,214,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                 545,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 953,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,539
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       127,816
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,997
<SALES>                                        704,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               704,481
<CGS>                                          638,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  638,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   929
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,040)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Calendar No. 113

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 121

[Report No. 103–72]

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the

vessel Enterprise.

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Reported without amendment
II

Calendar No. 113

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 121

[Report No. 103–72]

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Enterprise.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Reported by Mr. HOLLINGS, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

Enterprise.

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

3 SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

5 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer6 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica7 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
2

S 121 RS

1 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

2 for the vessel Enterprise, United States official number

3 692956.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           15674
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4907
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2210
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      66129
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         367017
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  474383
<DEPOSITS>                                      377333
<SHORT-TERM>                                     53398
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3226
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2128
<OTHER-SE>                                       38298
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  474383
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  27333
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3822
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   573
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 31728
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               12517
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1482
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            17729
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      956
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   9
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  14956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5308
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5308
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3403
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.72
<LOANS-NON>                                       2251
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3018
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      409
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3582
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3582
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Lonnie C. MORRIS, Appellant, v. EAST GULF SHIPPING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 71-701, 71-719.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Placido Raso, Appellant, v Gladys Raso, Defendant. Rita Brettschneider, Nonparty Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 422]

In a matrimonial action, in which the complaint was dismissed by virtue of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cohen, J.), dated March 21, 1985, which also directed the plaintiff to pay $1,500 to the former attorney for the defendant as and for counsel fees, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the same court (McCarty, J.), dated January 10, 1996, as, upon, in effect, reargument, adhered to its prior determinations denying the plaintiff’s prior motions to vacate a judgment of the same court (Morrison, J.), entered March 3, 1986, which was in favor of the defendant’s former attorney and against the plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The order under review denied the last in a series of applications for the same relief, i.e., vacatur of a judgment entered March 3, 1986. The motion that resulted in this order was thus, in effect, one for reargument, and inasmuch as the court carefully reviewed the merits of the plaintiff’s arguments, the court, in effect, granted reargument, and then adhered to its prior determinations (see, *e.g., Purdie v Crestwood Lake Hgts. Section 4 Corp., 229*AD2d 523; *Tobjy v Tobjy,*181 AD2d 822).

The Supreme Court did not err in its disposition of the plaintiff’s latest motion. The interest on the 1986 judgment, which accords with the judgment dated March 21, 1985, properly runs from April 11, 1985. The plaintiff’s remaining arguments are equally meritless. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### Henry Franklin HOWSER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-875.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### John N. TURNAGE v. Guy RYE.

No. 49635.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1977.

Houston, Chamberlin & Houston, David W. Houston, III, Aberdeen, for appellant.

Johnny N. Tackett, Aberdeen, for appel-lee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Monroe County; Fred P. Wright, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED ON DIRECT AND CROSS-APPEAL.
#### Harry Franklin PHILLIPS v. Louie WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38653.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
T he Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Wester n 1 District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2939

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Rickey Layne Keeth, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 14, 1998 Filed: December 18, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. AfterR ickey Layne Keeth pleaded guilty to making a false statement in th e acq uisitionof a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and to possessin g firea rms while subject to a domestic violence protection order, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the district court sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment and 1 three ye ars supervised release. Keeth & s period of supervised release commenced i n January 1998. As a condition of his supervised release, Keeth was not to attempt to contact his-2-

ex-wife in a

ny manner. At a revocation hearing in June 1998, the district court found Keeth had v iolated this condition, revoked Keeth & s supervised release, and sentenced hi m to 12 months imprisonment and 24 months supervised release. Keeth no w challenges his prison term, and we affirm. After a thorough review of the record, we reject Keeth & s argument that th e distric t court failed to consider the applicable policy statements in Chapter 7 of th e U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion i n sentencing him to 12 months imprisonment. See18 U.S.C. § 35 83(e)(3); United States v. Grimes , 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United States v
. Carr , 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Chapter 7 Guidelines are advisory and no nbinding; district court may depart from revocation imprisonment range when, in its considered discretion, such departure is warra nted). We deny Keeth & s motion for a stay pending appeal and tempora ry injunction, as well as his motion for appointment of counsel. Keeth & s counsel & s motion to withdraw is granted. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Jack Harrison OWEN, Relator, v. The Honorable William Lamar ROSE, as Judge of the Court of Record, in and for Lee County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-716.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 15, 1972.

Prohibition dismissed.
# C_2023278EN.01000401.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2023 — DI v European Central Bank

(Case C-513/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Central Bank (ECB) - Conditions of employment - Disciplinary proceedings - Competent authority - Delegation - Legal certainty - Time-barred disciplinary proceedings - Presumption of innocence - Criminal proceedings - Distortion - Absence)

(2023/C 278/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DI (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner, F. Malfrère and M. Van Hoecke, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders DI to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DI to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
-  Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (PACCARB)      -  About Us 
  -  Upcoming Meetings 
  -  Charter 
  -  Membership 
  -  Reports & Recommendations 
  -  Timeline & Past Meetings 
  -  Federal Resources on AMR 
  -  FAQs 
  -  Contact Us 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Voting Member (SGE): Brian Lubbers, DVM, PhD, DACVCP

**Brian Lubbers, DVM, PhD, DACVCP; Associate Professor, Food Animal Therapeutics Outreach Department of Clinical Sciences, Kansas State University; Manhattan, KS.**

Dr. Lubbers is currently an Associate Professor of Food Animal Therapeutics at Kansas State University. Dr. Lubbers began his veterinary career as a private practitioner in California and Iowa working primarily with dairy and beef producers. In 2005, he returned to Kansas State University, where he completed his PhD in Microbiology (Pharmacology). He served as the Director of Clinical Microbiology at the Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory for 10 years. He is a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Clinical Pharmacology and currently serves as the chairholder for the CLSI – Veterinary Antimicrobial Susceptibility testing subcommittee. His teaching and research interests are antimicrobial stewardship & therapy, antimicrobial resistance, and application of diagnostic testing in food animals.

Content last reviewed April 4, 2024
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40207

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR GONZALEZ-FERNANDEZ, also known as Omar Fernandez-Gonzalez,

also known as Carlos Gonzalez-Hernandez, also known as Carlos Manuel

Gonzalez-Hernandez, also known as Omar Hernandez-Gonzalez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:07-CR-1456-ALL

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Gonzalez-Fernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following a previous deportation. He

argues that the district court’s written judgment of sentence conflicts with its

oral pronouncement of sentence. The Government agrees. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40207

2

At the sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a supervised release

term of two years. However, the written judgment reflects a three-year term of

supervised release. Because the written judgment in this case conflicts with the

oral pronouncement of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See United

States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the case is

remanded for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its

oral pronouncement of sentence. See id.

REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 775 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 775

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 10, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 2244) to extend the termination date of the 
Terrorism Insurance Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 
of 2002, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one 
motion to commit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of December 
11, 2014, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall consult 
with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for 
consideration pursuant to this section.
    Sec. 3.  On any legislative day of the second session of the One Hundred 
Thirteenth Congress after December 11, 2014--
     (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered 
as approved; and
    (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date 
and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
    Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair 
for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as 
though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
    Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this 
resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the 
War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546).
    Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this 
resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of 
rule XIII.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
---

EXHIBIT 23.1






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-148442 and No. 333-149753 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-49837, No. 333-44436, No. 333-101962, No. 333-153079, and No. 333-162748 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 7, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc., and the effectiveness of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. for the year ended March 25, 2011.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




San Jose, California


June 7, 2011