alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BOOTH *v.*STATE

[No. 33,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 22, 1962.*

*529The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and Sybert, JJ.

*Julian S. Brewer, Jr.,*and *Norman P. Summers*for the appellant.

*Robert S. Bourbon, Assistant Attorney General,*with whom were *Thomas B. Pinan, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City,*and *George J. Helinski, Assistant State’s Attorney,*on the brief, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant was indicted along with his brother, Kenneth A. Booth, and James J. Garrett, on six counts charging the forgery and uttering of altered money orders. In a trial before the court without a jury, the appellant and Kenneth were convicted of forgery and each sentenced to five years. Garrett was tried separately, convicted of obtaining money by false pretence and sentenced to three years. Garrett took the stand against his co-defendants and testified he was invited by them to stay in their mother’s house, because he was out of work and without funds. Kenneth altered the money orders in the presence of Ronald and the witness cashed them. On one occasion the appellant accompanied him when he cashed an order. All three divided the proceeds.

The appellant’s sole contention is that there was insufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice, Garrett. It is well settled that corroboration is necessary. *Hardison v. State,*226 Md. 53, 61. It is equally well settled that corroboration need not extend to every detail, and need only support some of the material points of the accomplice’s testimony. *Forrester v. State,*224 Md. 337, 345; *Boggs v. State,*228 Md. 168, 170. It was conceded that Garrett lived in the same house with the appellant, and that the paraphernalia for raising the *530orders was found there. Several witnesses testified that the appellant was with Garrett when he cashed one of the money orders. Ronald admitted that neither he nor his brother was employed, and that Garrett bought food for the house. He knew Garrett was cashing checks. Ronald had a rather long record of criminal convictions. The trial judge stated that she believed Garrett and did not believe Ronald’s story. We think the corroboration, although slight, was sufficient. See *Mulcahy v. State,*221 Md. 413, 427.

*Judgment affirmed.*
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 102 

To reduce the amount of financial assistance provided to the Government 

of Mexico in response to the illegal border crossings from Mexico into 

the United States, which serve to dissipate the political discontent with 

the higher unemployment rate within Mexico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

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

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To reduce the amount of financial assistance provided to 

the Government of Mexico in response to the illegal 

border crossings from Mexico into the United States, 

which serve to dissipate the political discontent with the 

higher unemployment rate within Mexico. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BORDER CROSSING ACCOUNTABILITY. 

4 (a) ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL ILLEGAL BORDER

5 CROSSINGS.—Not later than 30 days after the end of each 

6 fiscal year, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the 

7 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall estimate the numVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:29 Jan 28, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S102.IS S102

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 102 IS

1 ber of illegal border crossings that occurred during such 

2 fiscal year along the southern land border of the United 

3 States. 

4 (b) REDUCTION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under 

6 paragraph (2), the Secretary of State, shall propor7 tionately reduce the amount of financial assistance 

8 provided to the Government of Mexico for each fiscal 

9 year by a total of $1,000 for each illegal border 

10 crossing from Mexico to the United States during 

11 the previous fiscal year. 

12 (2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph 

13 (1), the Secretary of State may decide not to reduce 

14 the amounts appropriated for the Government of 

15 Mexico from the International Military Education 

16 and Training Fund, the International Narcotics 

17 Control and Law Enforcement Fund, and the fund 

18 to carry out nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, 

19 demining, and related programs and activities. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
#### Davis H. BARRINGER, Appellant, v. Emily Mabel BARRINGER, Appellee.

No. 71-689.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 2, 1972.

*102Neal D. Huebsch of Huebsch & Aulls, Eustis, and C. Welborn Daniel, Clermont, for appellant.

Jefferson G. Ray, III, of Gaylord, Ray & Gaylord, Eustis, for appellee.

McNULTY, Judge.

This appeal is brought from an order modifying a judgment of divorce by transferring custody of two minor children from appellant-father to appellee-mother. Appellant raises four points on appeal, three of which concern the merits of the change of custody and one which concerns the propriety of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to appellee. We affirm as to the custody modification but reverse the award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Although we recognize the rule that the trial judge has a “broader discretion” in entering the original custody judgment than in deciding a petition to modify,1 some degree of discretion nonetheless inheres in the trial judge as a finder of fact in the latter proceedings. Viewing the record as a whole, with its conflicting testimony and evidence concerning changes in circumstance and the welfare of the children, we cannot say as a matter of law that the trial judge reversibly abused that discretion - in changing custody from the father to the mother.

The trial judge was in error, however, in granting attorneys’ fees and costs to appellee herein. The cases are clear that such monies are not awardable to the party who attacks an original custody or divorce judgment but only to one who seeks *enforcement*of such judgment or who *defends*against a petition for modification thereof.2

Accordingly, we affirm that part of the judgment appealed from relating to custody, and reverse that part awarding attorneys’ fees and costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

MANN, J., concurs.

LILES, Acting C. J., dissents.

1

. See, Belford v. Belford (1947), 159 Fla.547, 32 So.2d 312, and Wilson v. Condra (Fla.App.1971), 255 So.2d 702.

2

. *See, e. g.,*Simpson v. Simpson (Fla.1953), 63 So.2d 764; Fleming v. Fleming (Fla.App.1965), 177 So.2d 384; and Harris v. Harris (Fla.App.1962), 138 So.2d 376. For a more complete discussion of when parties in a modification proceeding are entitled to attorneys’ fees and when they are not, see, Colbath v. Colbath (Fla.App.1972), 258 So.2d 50.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I would respectively dissent in the judge’s order transferring custody of the minor children from the father to the mother. I recognize the broad discretion set forth in the majority opinion. However, it is my view that from a complete review of the record the trial judge abused his discretion and that he has not found this transfer to be in the best interests of the children.

I would concur in the reversal regarding attorneys’ fees.

Reversed as to change of custody and awarding of attorneys’ fees.
# C_2023071EN.01002201.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Falke v Commission

(Case T-306/21) (1)

(State aid - Framework system to grant support for uncovered fixed costs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany - Decision not to raise any objections - Temporary Framework for State aid measures - Individual examination of the aid scheme notified - Measure aimed at remedying a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Proportionality)

(2023/C 71/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Falke KGaA (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Velte and W. Meilicke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Braga da Cruz and C. Kovács, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: P.-L. Krüger and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 8318 final of 20 November 2020 on State aid SA.59289 (2020/N) — Germany COVID-19 — Support for uncovered fixed costs (OJ 2022 C 124, p. 1), as amended by Commission Decision C(2021) 1066 final of 12 February 2021 on State aid SA.61744 (2021/N) — Collective notification of a modification adapting aid schemes approved under the Temporary Framework, in particular following the fifth amendment to the Temporary Framework (OJ 2021 C 77, p. 18).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Falke KGaA to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Falke KGaA to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
# C_2023296EN.01002901.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 — SE v Commission

(Case T-223/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Contract of employment - Article 2(b) of the CEOS - Rejection of an application - Promotion - Reclassification - New contract - Expiry of the contract - Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 10(3) of the CEOS - Error of law - Equal treatment - Action for annulment - Admissibility)

(2023/C 296/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SE (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr, L. Vernier and I. Melo Sampaio, Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2020 rejecting his application for the vacant post published under reference COM/2020/1474, and of the reply of 28 October 2020 to his request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, pertaining to his eligibility to be promoted, reclassified or assigned to another post and, secondly, compensation for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a consequence of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2020 rejecting the application of SE for the vacant post published under reference COM/2020/1474; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 4 August 2020 rejecting the application of SE for the vacant post published under reference COM/2020/1474;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay SE the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay SE the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the material damage suffered;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10470

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANNON RAY LONG,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-16-2

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Shannon

Ray Long has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Long

has filed a response. Our independent review of the record,

counsel’s brief, and Long’s response discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damon Green, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 31]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), rendered April 26, 1993, convicting defendant, after a trial by jury, of murder in *219the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, we find that the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the shooting was sufficient to prove defendant’s guilt of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v*Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932). Moreover, upon our independent review, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490).

Furthermore, we find that the trial court’s decision to declare a mistrial at defendant’s first trial was properly based on its conclusion that the majority of jurors had become "grossly unqualified” (CPL 270.35 [1]; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290) and that, as a result, it was "physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law” (CPL 280.10 [3]; *Matter of Colcloughley v Johnson,*115 AD2d 58, 61, *lv denied*68 NY2d 604).

During the course of the first trial, the honesty of the jurors was called into question by the accusation of one of the jurors who claimed that her diamond ring had disappeared and demanded that all the jurors be strip searched. Ultimately, she focused her accusation on a single juror, at which time the entire jury was called upon to take sides in and participate in the dispute. Clearly, in these unusual circumstances, the trial court was in a unique position to evaluate the jurors’ responses to the individual inquiries made by the court and determine the impact of this disturbing event on the jurors’ ability to calmly and dispassionately deliberate on the evidence before them and render an impartial verdict. The court’s conclusion that such deliberation was no longer possible, and that, as a result, so many of the jurors had become grossly unqualified that it was impossible to proceed with the trial, should not be disturbed. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1028 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1028

To provide for the income tax treatment of certain distributions under 
                          a governmental plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 26 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Ms. Mikulski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the income tax treatment of certain distributions under 
                          a governmental plan.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS UNDER A GOVERNMENTAL 
              PLAN.

    If--
            (1) during calendar years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, 
        distributions were made under a governmental plan (as defined 
        in section 414(d) of the internal Revenue Code of 1986) in 
        connection with the transition to a new retirement system being 
        established by the governmental entity maintaining such plan,
            (2) one or more of the employees receiving such 
        distributions erroneously treated such distributions as 
        eligible for rollover treatment under section 402(a)(5) of such 
        Code, and
            (3) with respect to such distributions received in calendar 
        years 1987, 1988, and 1989, the Internal Revenue Service is 
        providing relief to employees who erroneously treated such 
        distributions as being so eligible,
the Internal Revenue Service shall provide the same relief for 
distributions received in calendar year 1990 as is being provided for 
distributions received in calendar years 1987, 1988, and 1989.

                                 <all>
```
#### Shirley Ann WHEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41708.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 18, 1972.

The motion for summary reversal is hereby granted and the judgment and sentence below is hereby reversed and this cause remanded to the Felony Court of Record, Volusia County, for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court in State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431, opinion filed February 14, 1972.
Exhibit 21.  Subsidiaries of the Registrant

     Interchange  Bank (formerly  known as Interchange  State Bank),  and Clover
Leaf Mortgage Company,  Inc., both of which are incorporated in New Jersey,  are
wholly owned direct subsidiaries of the Registrant.

     FCBC LLC, Clover Leaf Investment Corporation,  Clover Leaf Insurance Agency
Inc.(d/b/a  Interchange  Insurance  Agency),  Bridge View Investment Company and
Interchange  Capital  Company,  L.L.C.  are  incorporated  in New Jersey and are
wholly owned direct  subsidiaries  of Interchange  Bank.  Clover Leaf Management
Realty  Corporation,  which is also  incorporated in New Jersey, is 99% owned by
Clover Leaf Investment  Company.  Bridge View Investment  Company has one wholly
owned subsidiary, Bridge View Delaware, Inc. ("BVDI").
# C_2022472EN.01003602.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 — MCO (IP) v EUIPO — C8 (C2 CYPRUS CASINOS)

(Case T-460/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union figurative mark C2 CYPRUS CASINOS - Earlier national figurative mark C8 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Interdependence of factors - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 472/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: C8 (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot and C. Cuny, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2) in so far as it relates to services for which only a low degree of similarity was found; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) of 26 May 2021 (Case R 908/2020-2) in so far as it relates to services for which only a low degree of similarity was found;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd, EUIPO and C8 to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders MCO (IP) Holdings Ltd, EUIPO and C8 to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Medizone International, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Edwin G. Marshall,
Chief Executive Officer and Steve M. Hanni, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                 /s/ Edwin G. Marshall
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Edwin G. Marshall
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer
                                 Medizone International, Inc.

                                 /s/ Steve M. Hanni
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Steve M. Hanni
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Accounting Officer)