alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Major L. LANGSTON et al., Appellants, v. Terry Norris DAVIS, Appellee.

No. Q-431.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1972.

M. Howard Williams, Rufus O. Jefferson and John D. Buchanan, Jr., of Henderson, Richardson, Canada, Henry, Buchanan & Munroe, Tallahasse.e, for appellants.

*396Hayward V. Atkinson, of Atkinson & Atkinson, and Clyde W. Atkinson, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
BARRISTER GLOBAL SERVICES NETWORK, INC.

                                                                  EXHIBIT NO. 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Barrister Global Services Network, Inc.
(formally Barrister Information Systems Corporation)


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-8749 and 333-89947) on Form S-8 and registration statement (No.
333-3701) on Form S-3 of Barrister Global Services Network, Inc. of our report
dated June 26, 2000, relating to the balance sheets of Barrister Global Services
Network, Inc. as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended March 31, 2000, and the related schedule, which reports
appear in the March 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Barrister Global
Services Network, Inc.

/s/KPMG LLP
Buffalo, New York
June 29, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 5, 2018, at 1100 First Street NE, Room 104, Washington, DC 20002. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.

                    The agenda will include information technology challenges, career development and merit awards, roadmaps overview, clinical trials, and cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs). No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public wanting to attend may contact Rashelle Robinson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443-5678, or by email at                     *Rashelle.Robinson@va.gov*                     no later than close of business on August 29, 2018. Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must be presented at the Guard's Desk as a part of the clearance process. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Rashelle Robinson at the phone number or email address noted above.                

Dated: July 12, 2018.

LaTonya L. Small,

Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-15271 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION**Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Vitran CorporationInc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended June 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Vitran CorporationInc.       Date:October 19, 2005 By: /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ             Richard E. Gaetz      President and      Chief Executive Officer           By: /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK             Sean P. Washchuk      Vice President Finance and          Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021110EN.01002501.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 January 2021 — FCC Česká republika, s.r.o.

(Case C-43/21)

(2021/C 110/27)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant in the appeal proceedings in cassation: FCC Česká republika, s.r.o.

Defendants in the appeal proceedings in cassation: Městská část Praha-Ďáblice, Spolek pro Ďáblice

Other party to the proceedings: Ministerstvo životního prostředí

Question referred

Should Article 3(9) of Directive 2010/75/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) be interpreted such that a ‘substantial change’ of a plant includes an extension of the duration of waste disposal at a landfill without the maximum approved dimensions of the landfill or its total potential capacity changing at the same time?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17.

---
#### Harold Edward SCHWEHM, Sr. v. HUVAL BAKING CO., Inc., d/b/a Bunny Bread Company, and American Mutual Insurance Company.

No. 4415.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 24, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1971.

Frank S. Bruno, James D. Estopinal, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Mouton, Roy Carmouche & Hailey, Henry D. McNamara, Jr., Metairie, for defendants-appellees.

Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and STOULIG, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his workmen’s compensation suit as prescribed or perempted by one year, R.S. 23 :- 1209.

Plaintiff suffered an injury to an arm muscle, resulting in a knot, while carrying boxes of bread. He admittedly consulted his personal physician for this injury on April 4, 1968, and that doctor’s affidavit in evidence is that plaintiff told him the injury occurred “four or five weeks prior to” April 4. Plaintiff personally filled out an accident report for his employer thereafter, dating the accident March 4, 1968. (Even in his testimony plaintiff referred to four or five weeks after the accident as the time when he sought relief.) .

Suit was filed March 10, 1969, plaintiff having told his counsel the injury occurred on March 10, 1968.

Plaintiff was a bread-route developer, and testified he only carried bread when the delivery was too much for the actual routeman. From March delivery slips in evidence, he testified (as did the routeman) that the March 4 delivery was too light to require two persons to make two trips each from truck to customer, which he and the routeman said were necessary the day of the accident. This was the sole basis on which the routeman excluded March 4 and, shown only the March slips, would pick March 9 or 15 as the accident date. Had he been shown February delivery slips, he might have included the dates of heavy deliveries in February as possible dates of the accident on that basis.

We also note that on March 4, according to the routeman’s statement of how much bread filled a box, two boxes would have been used and plaintiff could then have carried one (although only one trip would have been required).

*565The injury was apparently not serious enough to have other consequences which might help in fixing its date.

Plaintiff argues defendant has the burden of proving the accident occurred over a year before suit; Randol v. Lawrence, 205 So.2d 113 (La.App.1967), cert. denied, 251 La. 930, 207 So.2d 538. We conclude defendant’s evidence met that burden. The rebuttal evidence was not sufficient to overcome defendant’s proof.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 00-1090.

#### Aleman *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory NEFF.

No. 62753.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Gregory Neff, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied.
#### Henry Louis GANDY v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47322.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 7, 1973.

J. H. Richmond, Jr., Starkville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

*434SMITH, Justice:

Henry Louis Gandy was indicted for assault and battery with intent to murder, tried in the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County on that charge, convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. He has appealed here, assigning as ground for reversal that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence.

The question was properly raised by motion for a new trial and the trial court’s action in denying the motion is before us for review.

A careful reading of the record reveals that, in the incident which gave rise to the charge, Gandy armed himself with an ax and severely cut his adversary in the head with it. The evidence offered on behalf of Gandy, if it had been accepted by the jury, would have been sufficient to support his contention that he had acted in necessary self-defense. However, the testimony of a number of other persons, who were eyewitnesses and who testified for the prosecution, was to the contrary. The substance of the testimony of these latter witnesses was that, at the time Gandy armed himself with the ax and struck the blow, he was in neither real nor apparent danger of suffering death or great bodily harm. In other words, the testimony of the witnesses was in direct conflict and made a fact issue for resolution by the jury as to whether Gandy, in striking his adversary with an ax, had acted in necessary self-defense, real or apparent or had not. The jury, as trier of facts, found against Gandy on this issue, and its verdict cannot, on the record, be said to have been against the weight of the evidence. Under such circumstances the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. McLelland v. State, 204 So.2d 158 (Miss.1967).

Affirmed.

RODGERS, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG and WALKER, JJ., concur.
# C_2023063EN.01004002.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — TM v ECB

(Case T-440/21) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Procedure for filling a post of [confidential information redacted] - Selection criteria - Professional experience - Rejection of application - Appointment of another candidate - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Interests of the service - Liability - Material and non-material damage)

(2023/C 63/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TM (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: B. Ehlers and D. Nessaf, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks (i) annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 15 December 2020 not to appoint him to the position of [confidential information redacted] but to appoint [confidential information redacted] to that position, and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 391, 27.9.2021.

---
IV 

House Calendar No. 145 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 748 

[Report No. 113–617] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5682) to approve the Keystone 

XL Pipeline. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2014 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5682) to 

approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 5682) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. All points of 

4 order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 

5 shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

6 provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 

7 shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

8 amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 748 RH 

1 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 

2 among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

3 member of the Committee on Transportation and Infra4 structure and the chair and ranking minority member of 

5 the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one mo6 tion to recommit. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 145 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 748 

[Report No. 113–617] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5682) 

to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

NOVEMBER 12, 2014 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Raymond CABALLERO v. Flora WILKINSON, wife of/and Julius W. Cerdes.

No. 62858.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Raymond Caballero, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson.

Granted. It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### In re Philbert John MARTIN applying for the Adoption of Chancey Layne Gould.

No. 12118.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1978.

John Haas Weinstein, Opelousas, of counsel for plaintiff-appellant, Larry Allen Gould.

Joseph R. Oelker, III, Lafayette, of counsel for defendant-appellee, Philbert J. Martin and Aliene Martin.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a trial by jury.

We *ex proprio motu*notice that such an order is interlocutory and that no right of appeal exists absent the showing of irreparable injury. *Triche v. City of Houma,*342 So.2d 1155 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977); *Guidroz v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,*334 So.2d 535 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976). There has been no such showing in this case.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Jessica A. PolletAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

March 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00106

- CV

Nell RAMEY

, Ap pellant

v.

Jessica A. POLLET

, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bex ar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 04119 Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A filing fee of $1 9 5.00 was due from Nell Ramey when she filed this appeal

, but it was not paid. See T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N THE S UPREME C OURT , I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE C OURTS OF A PPEALS , AND B EFORE TH E J UDICIAL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 13

- 91 27 , Aug. 16 , 20 13 )

. The clerk of the court notified Ramey of this deficiency in a letter dated February 26, 2015. The fee remains unpaid. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure p rovides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We therefore order appellant Nell Ramey

, not later than March 23, 2015 to either (1) pay the $195.00 filing fee or (2) provide written proof to this court that she is indigent or otherwise excuse d by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond satis factorily within the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3._________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E . Hottle Clerk of Court
#### Kenneth William COYKENDALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(A) CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Connelly certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CT Holdings Enterprises,
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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting.

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/ RICHARD CONNELLY
--------------------
Richard Connelly
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS OF NEORX CORPORATION AS OF 12-31-98 AND 12-31-97 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR EACH OF THE 12 MONTHS ENDED 12-31-98 AND 12-31-97
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10K REPORT FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED 12-31-98.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,910
<SECURITIES>                                    28,242
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,009
<PP&E>                                           8,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,202
<BONDS>                                          1,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                           420
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,441
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,087
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,449)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,449)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>