alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2588

JOHN ARTHUR YIAADEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DUDLEY BURGESS, individually, and as Administrator of the Southern Regional Jail in

Beaver, WV; JACK ROOP, Individually and as

Director of the Regional Jail Authority for

West Virginia,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,

Chief District Judge. (CA-95-274)

Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Arthur Yiaadey, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yiaadey v.

Burgess, No. CA-95-274 (S.D.W. Va. July 27, 1995). 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### RELIABLE FINANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jessie CONGER and Bernd Koster, Appellees.

No. 77-1656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1978.

Stephen J. Wein of Belcher & Fleece, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the action of the trial court in consolidating this case with that of *William*
      *1263
      *F. Gamble, et ux. v. Jessie Conger, et al.,*Circuit Court Case No. 77-4967-10 since the same subject matter is involved in both cases. Under these circumstances, however, we feel it was error to deny appellant’s motion for summary judgment. We therefore vacate that portion of the order which denied the motion for summary judgment to permit appellant’s motion to remain pending before the trial judge sitting on the consolidated cases. In all other respects, the order appealed from is affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1077 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1077

      To amend the Arms Control and Disarmament Act to authorize 
             appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 1993

  Mr. Pell (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Arms Control and Disarmament Act to authorize 
             appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 49(a)(1) 
(22 U.S.C. 2589 (a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) $62,500,000 for fiscal year 1994, and such sums as 
        may be necessary for fiscal year 1995; and''

                                 <all>
```
# C_2022064EN.01001402.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 5 November 2021 — NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-664/21)

(2022/C 64/23)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS AG

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Question referred

Do the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular Articles 131 and 138(1) thereof, and the principles of EU law, in particular the principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality, preclude national legislation which prohibits the submission and acceptance of new evidence to demonstrate satisfaction of the substantive requirements laid down in Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive, already during the administrative procedure at first instance, and more specifically in the context of the observations submitted on the tax inspection report issued before a tax assessment notice has been issued?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
#### The UNITED STATES of America v. The WEBSTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

No. 6144.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 16, 1937.

Michael L. Igoe, of Chicago, 111., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for appellant, and upon consideration of the certificate of the clerk of the United States District Court filed this day, it is ordered and adjudged that this cause be docketed in this court and that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2



I, Vincent J. Milano, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViroPharma
Incorporated.



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                  
|Vincent J. Milano Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



May 4, 2005
```

[Federal Register: September 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 56015]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se10-20]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-R03-SFUND-2010-0436; FRL-9177-8]

 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Letterkenny Army 
Depot Southeastern (SE) Area and Letterkenny Army Depot Property 
Disposal Office (PDO) Area Superfund Sites

Correction

    In rule document 2010-17776 beginning on page 43082 in the issue of 
Friday, July 23, 2010 make the following correction:

Appendix B to Part 300 [Corrected]

    On page 43088, in Appendix B to Part 300, in Table 2, in the entry 
in the fifth row, in the second column of the table, ``Letterkenny Army 
Depot (SE Area)'' should read ``Letterkenny Army Depot (PDO Area)''.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-17776 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certifications I, Thomas J. Koenig, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International
Group, Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date:
    
    November 1, 2004
    
    By: /s/ Thomas J. KoenigThomas J. KoenigVice President and ChiefFinancial Officer (PrincipalFinancial Officer and PrincipalAccounting Officer)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell HONORE, Marsha Honore and Marguerite Honore.

No. 60633.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Thomas J. Ford, Jr., Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022237EN.01005401.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/54

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2022 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)

(Case T-345/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 237/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aruba SpA (Ponte San Pietro, Italy) (represented by: N. Scardaccione, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 (Case R 1473/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aruba and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and Aruba SpA shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

78 CAF 15-01211 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF SANDRA L. COUGHLIN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KELLY J. COUGHLIN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

HOPPE & ASSOCIATES, INC., BUFFALO (BERNADETTE M. HOPPE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
DAVID E. BLACKLEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LOCKPORT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Lisa Bloch Rodwin, J.), entered July 2, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition seeking modification of the custody provisions in the judgment of divorce with prejudice.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by providing that the petition is dismissed without prejudice, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in Matter of Coughlin v Coughlin ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 10, 2017]).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Patrick McNamee, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

November, 1912.)

Legacy — interest—'payable upon death of residuary legatee—wills.

Where a general legacy is made payable upon the death of the residuary legatee, it bears interest only from the happening of that event; and the income derivable from the sum aggregating the amount of several such legacies passes to the residuary legatee.

Proceeding upon the probate of a will.

Magner & Carew (John A. Carew, of counsel), for executor.

Robert A. B. Dayton, for John McEamee and Anne Quinn.

Ketcham, S.

The general legacies in this will present but one exceptional feature. Instead of being payable, under *325the statute, after the expiration of one year from the grant of letters, they are by the will made payable upon the death of the residuary legatee. In no other respect do they differ from the typical general legacy of money. Except in circumstances which do not appear in this case, legacies bear interest only from the time when they are payable. Lyon v. Industrial S. Assn., 127 N. Y. 402.

The income to be derived during the life of the residuary legatee from the portion of the estate out of which these legacies are to be paid is not given to the general legatees. It must, therefore, remain in the mass of the estate and the residuary legatee takes everything which is not given to anybody else. Riker v. Cornwell, 113 N. Y. 115; Seibert v. Miller, 34 App. Div. 602. Hence, she is entitled to enjoy during her life the income upon the fund applicable to the payment of the pecuniary legacies.

It is no part of the task of construction to direct that the executrix give security for the safety of the fund from which the general legacies are to be discharged.

The probate decree should contain the construction that the legacies contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will bear interest only from the death of the residuary legatee, and that in the gift of the residue the income properly derivable from the sum aggregating the amount of these legacies is given to the residuary legatee.

Decreed accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited statements but include
all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair presentation of
results for this period.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             60,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,462,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       62,000
<INVENTORY>                                     1,860,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,445,000
<PP&E>                                          5,790,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,275,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,914,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,652,000
<BONDS>                                         3,270,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        87,000
<COMMON>                                        1,363,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,020,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,914,000
<SALES>                                         6,862,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,862,000
<CGS>                                           2,551,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,551,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,782,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 90,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,412,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      491,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               921,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      921,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .82


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 535 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 535

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 22, 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. 4422) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast 
Guard, 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 shall not exceed one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. After general debate the bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 recommended by the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather than by 
section. Each title shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. All points of 
order against amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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 with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```