alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (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 fully presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 11, 2010 | By:                          | /s/ Donald Fallon |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------|
|                        | Donald      Fallon           |
|                        | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. George KASTENBAUM, Respondent.

No. 39642.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, Asst. Executive Director, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.

Marion E. Sibley, Miami Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The petition of respondent George Kas-tenbaum, representing unto the Court that the Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari seeking to question the Order of this Court dated May 6, 1970, suspending the respondent from the practice of law effective June 8, 1970, together with the response to the petition by The Florida Bar, has been duly considered by this Court. Whereupon,

It is ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby denied and that the order of May 6, 1970, effective June 8, 1970, suspending the petitioner from the practice of law in this state, be and the same is hereby declared in effect instanter.

This Order shall not be construed to prohibit the respondent from taking such steps as shall be necessary to terminate his practice of law; but in doing so the respondent shall not directly or indirectly engage in the practice of law, appear as counsel in any of the courts of this State, or file any pleading as counsel.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
# C_2021320EN.01002601.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/26

---

Appeal brought on 17 May 2021 by Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl, Aquind SAS against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2021 in Case T-885/19, Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case C-310/21 P)

(2021/C 320/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Aquind Ltd, Aquind Energy Sàrl, Aquind SAS (represented by: S. Goldberg, E. White, C. Davis, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Order under appeal;

| — | decide that the Application at first instance is well-founded and annul the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 (1) insofar as it applies to the Appellants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the Application at first instance is well-founded and annul the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 (1) insofar as it applies to the Appellants; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants claim that the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 should have been considered a definitive act on the day it was adopted and not on the day of its entry into force, which was subject to absence of Parliament’s or Council’s objections. As such, this regulation was open to challenge even before the date of its publication. The appellants therefore consider that the General Court wrongly applied the Court’s case law concerning acts that are not open to challenge.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest (OJ 2020, L 74, p. 1).

---
**EXHIBIT
        23.3**
  **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
    COMC,
        Inc.
 Concord,
        California
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        SB-2 of COMC, Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2004, except for the matters
        described in Note 1(b), as to which the date is February 4, 2005, relating
        to
        the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2003 and for the
        year
        then ended, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. Our
        report
        contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as
        a going concern.
  BDO
        Seidman, LLP
  San
        Jose,
        California
 June
        17,
        2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          69,260
<SECURITIES>                                    38,913
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,624)
<INVENTORY>                                        188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,523
<PP&E>                                          45,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (19,038)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,402
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       207,979
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   289,717
<SALES>                                        197,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,754
<CGS>                                           29,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (4,048)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,626
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.30


</TABLE>
#### In re FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AMENDMENTS TO RULES 3.140 AND 3.170.

No. 42218-B.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

The following amendments or additions to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (as revised December 6, 1972, 272 So.2d 65) 33 F.S.A., are hereby adopted and shall govern all proceedings within their scope after 12:01 a. m., February 1, 1973. These rules shall supersede all conflicting rules and statutes. The notes appended to each rule are not adopted by the Court.

*514CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J.,

concurs as to Rule 3.170; dissents as to Rule 3.140.

3.140. Indictments; Informations.

(a) *Methods of Prosecution.*

(1) Capital Crimes. An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment.

(2) Other Crimes. The prosecution of all other criminal offenses shall be as follows :

In circuit courts and county courts, prosecution shall be solely by indictment or information, except that prosecution in county courts for violations of municipal ordinances and metropolitan county ordinances may be by affidavit or docket entries. A grand jury may indict for any offense. When a grand jury returns an indictment for an offense not triable in the circuit court, the circuit judge shall either issue a summons returnable in the county court, or shall bail the accused for trial in the county court, and such judge, or at his direction, the clerk of the circuit court shall certify the indictment and file same in the records of the county court.

Note: The purpose of the amendment is to provide the same method for prosecution of violations of metropolitan county ordinances as for violations of municipal ordinances.

3.170. PLEAS.

(a) *Types of Plea.; Court’s Discretion.*A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or, with the consent of the Court, nolo contendere. Except as otherwise provided by these rules, all pleas to a charge shall be in open court and shall be entered by the defendant. If the sworn complaint charges the commission of a misdemeanor, the defendant may plead guilty to such charge at his first appearance under Rule 3.130, and the judge may thereupon enter judgment and sentence without the necessity of any further formal charges being filed. A plea of not guilty may be entered in writing by counsel. Every plea shall be entered of record; but a failure to enter it shall not affect the validity of any proceeding in the cause.

Note: The purpose of this amendment is to provide a method whereby a defendant may plead guilty to a misdemeanor at first appearance without the necessity of the state attorney subsequently filing an information.
#### M. P., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 18, 1977.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert K. Burlington, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal from an adjudication of delinquency is that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the respondent (a juvenile) to make a proffer for the record of testimony, where the court sustained the State’s objection thereto. On this appeal, the State admits that such a refusal is ordinarily error. See *Francis v. State,*308 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and *Piccirrillo v. State,*329 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The State urges, nevertheless, that reversible error does not appear because enough appears from the record to show that the testimony was inadmissible.

Our examination of the record convinces us that the State’s position is not supported by the record. The testimony concerned a critical point, placing a witness’s credibility in issue, and was critical to the defense. See *State*v. *Johnson,*284 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973).

We, therefore, reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand the cause for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 569

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the work of

grassroots organizations should not be considered lobbying.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of

Texas, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. CANADY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. TALENT,

Mr. EHLERS, and Mr. LUCAS), submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the work of grassroots organizations should not be considered lobbying.

Whereas grassroots organizing and political participation is

one of the truest expressions of democracy; and

Whereas lobbying reform legislation may have the unintended

effect of infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens

who participate in the political system at the grassroots

level: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the 104th Congress should take actions

3 necessary to ensure that any lobbying reform legislation
2

• HRES 569 IH

1 does not consider the grassroots work of organizations to

2 be lobbying.

Æ
# C_2020191EN.01003301.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/33

---

Action brought on 31 March 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Tikal Tef-Gel)

(Case T-185/20)

(2020/C 191/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Mangonia Park, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Tikal Tef-Gel — European Union trade mark No 12 971 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 in Case R 2500/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the trade mark at issue valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the trade mark at issue valid;

| — | order EUIPO and intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT NO. 99

Supplemental Segment Information

                         Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
In thousands                October 31,          October 31,
-----------------------  -----------------   -------------------
                           2000      1999      2000      1999
                         --------  --------  --------- ---------
Orders Received:
 Sign Making &
  Specialty Graphics     $ 70,717  $ 75,644   $137,199  $150,153
 Apparel & Flexible
  Materials                44,991    55,082     97,125   109,405
 Ophthalmic Lens
  Processing               22,190    25,003     44,219    48,769
                         --------  --------   --------  --------
                         $137,898  $155,729   $278,543  $308,327
                         ========  ========   ========  ========

                         October 31, April 30,
                             2000       2000
                         ----------- ---------
Backlog:
 Sign Making &
  Specialty Graphics        $  2,738   $  4,504
 Apparel & Flexible
  Materials                   35,520     34,897
 Ophthalmic Lens
  Processing                   4,286      5,844
                            --------   --------
                            $ 42,544   $ 45,245
                            ========   ========
H. Res. 8 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2013. 

Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 

1929, as amended, the six minority employees authorized 

therein shall be the following named persons, effective January 3, 2013, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit: 

John Lawrence, George Kundanis, Richard Meltzer, Wyndee 

Parker, Wendell Primus, and Nadeam Elshami, each to receive gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of House 

Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of Public Law 95–94. In addition, 

the Minority Leader may appoint and set the annual rate of 

pay for up to 3 further minority employees. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### Sybil SHEPARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. SHEPARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6297.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Sept. 8, 1977.

*1027Arthur I. Robison of Allen, Gooch & Bourgeois, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Olivier & Brinkhaus by John L. Olivier, Sunset, for defendant-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and FORET, JJ.

GUIDRY, Judge.

MOTION TO REMAND

The appellee, James E. Shepard, moves to remand these consolidated suits to the trial court to enable him to traverse the right of the appellant, Sybil Shepard, to proceed with her appeal in forma pauperis. The motion is unopposed. We remand.

The record of this appeal has not yet been lodged with this court.

Judgment was rendered in these consolidated cross-suits for divorce on June 10, 1977. On July 5, 1977, the appellant, Sybil Shepard, timely moved for an appeal in forma pauperis, which request was granted by the trial court that same date. The appellant’s original suit was not filed in forma pauperis, nor had the appellant previously sought a pauper order prior to the time she moved for her appeal.

The jurisprudence is well settled that where a devolutive appeal has been taken in forma pauperis without allowing the appellee sufficient time in which to traverse the affidavits of poverty, the appellate court may, upon timely application therefor, remand the cause to give the ap-pellee the opportunity to do so. *Oldham v.*Hoover, 140 So.2d 417 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972).

Under the facts of this case, the appellee has had no opportunity to traverse in the district court, and thus is clearly entitled to an opportunity to do so. *Ross v. Hatchette,*247 So.2d 399 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1971); *Darby v. Travelers Insurance Company,*272 So.2d 798 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973).

The appeal is hereby remanded to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the appellee to traverse the appellant’s right to proceed with her appeal in forma pauperis.

APPEAL REMANDED.
#### SHOREY *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 12, (Adv.).]

September Term, 1962

*Decided June 18, 1962.*

Before the full Court.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Harlan below,

*The application for leave to appeal is denied.*
Document

Exhibit 10.31
						
	
	Amendment No. 3 to Underwriting Agreement between
North American Title Insurance Company
and Lennar Title, Inc.




			
	


Whereas, North American Title Insurance Company, a California corporation ("North American") and, Lennar Title, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Title Agency") made and entered into an Underwriting Agreement, dated August 7, 2020 ("Agreement"); and
Whereas, North American and Title Agency desire to amend the Agreement.
Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, North American and Title Agency agree to modify and amend the Agreement, effective      11/13/2020        (the “Effective Date”), as follows:
1.As to Exhibit No. 15, Section 1 (Territory): addition of the following Texas counties: Caldwell.
The provisions of this Amendment shall control over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions set forth in the Agreement. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect other than as modified herein. All capitalized words and phrases contained in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as is assigned to them in the Agreement unless a new meaning is assigned in this Amendment.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, which, when assembled, will be deemed to be an original copy of this Amendment and all of which, when taken together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly and properly executed by their respective officers having full authority to do so, to be effective as of the Effective Date.
						
	LENNAR TITLE, INC.
		
	By:	/s/ Cristina Pardo
		Cristina Pardo
	Its:	Executive Vice President


						
	NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
		
	By:	/s/ Emilio Fernandez
		Emilio Fernandez
	Its:	President


			
	NATIC AGENCY ADMIN ONLY
	System records updated on:
1/6/2021

	By:
/s/ Beatrix Ciprian





Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNIMAR COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED WITH FORM 10-K FILED ON
MARCH 19, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           4,882
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,508
<PP&E>                                       1,051,972
<DEPRECIATION>                                 673,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 407,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,463
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   407,214
<SALES>                                        202,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,019
<CGS>                                           66,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                134,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                    94,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,141
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>