alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-1085.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 13, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Edwards was charged by information with the crime of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit, grand larceny. He was tried by the court without a jury. At the close of the state’s case, the court granted a directed verdict reducing the charge against Edwards to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit, petit larceny. This appeal is from his judgment of conviction on the reduced charge.

On appeal, appellant concedes that the state offered sufficient proof that he broke into and entered the building in question, and that he was properly and sufficiently identified as the individual who committed the breaking and entering.

He contends, however, that there was insufficient proof that he broke and entered the building with the intent to commit a specific crime and, therefore, his conviction must be reversed, or reduced to the lesser included crime of trespassing and remanded for a proper sentence. He relies on Fla. Stat. § 924.34, F.S.A.

In breaking and entering with the intent to commit petit larceny, there must be a proper showing by the state that the breaking and entering was with the intent to take personal property of some value. See Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; Scott v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 625; and Channell v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284.

Intent, being a state of mind, is not subject to direct proof and can only be inferred from circumstances. Scott v. State, supra. Under the rationale of the above cited cases there was sufficient for the trier of facts to find the requisite intent to commit petit larceny.

Affirmed.
# C_2015117EN.01000401.xml

| 11.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/4

---

Notice concerning the countervailing measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India: change of name of one company subject to an individual countervailing duty rate

(2015/C 117/04)

Imports of certain stainless steel bars originating in India are subject to countervailing duties imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 405/2011 (1) (‘Regulation (EU) No 405/2011’).

1

Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane, a company subject to an individual countervailing duty of 0 %, following Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 721/2013 (2) (‘Regulation (EU) No 721/2013’) amending Regulation (EU) No 405/2011, notified the Commission of its change of name and locations to Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra and Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2

The company argued that its change of name and locations does not affect its right to continue to benefit from the individual countervailing duty rate previously applied to Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name and locations in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) No 405/2011, amended by Regulation (EU) No 721/2013.

Therefore, the reference in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 405/2011 and in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 721/2013 to:

Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane

should be read as:

Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra and Mumbai, Maharashtra.

The TARIC additional code B004, previously attributed to Viraj Profiles Vpl. Ltd, Thane, shall apply to Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra and Mumbai, Maharashtra.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 405/2011 of 19 April 2011 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India (OJ L 108, 28.4.2011, p. 3).

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 721/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 405/2011 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India (OJ L 202, 27.7.2013, p. 2).

2

---
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Population
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.36 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2012 What's Trending on the Nation's Population Twitter Chat: A Look at the Nation's Population Since the 2010 Census Join Census Bureau staff on Thursday, June 28, at 1 p.m. EDT for a conversation about the release of the latest population estimates at the national, state, city and county level since the 2010 Census. On Thursday, the Census Bureau will release the population estimates and rankings of the nation's incorporated cities, towns, townships, villages and boroughs. Tweet questions to our experts about the nation's population growth at @uscensusbureau using #population to follow the chat. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Frank MARAMAN, Appellee.

No. 72-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 26, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James PRESTON.

No. 54302.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1974.

In re: James Preston, applying for writ of Habeas Corpus.

Writ denied. We find no merit to the contentions made. See the transcript of evidentiary hearing below, and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) and State ex rel. Le Blanc v. Henderson, 261 La. 315, 259 So.2d 557 (1972).
259 La. 770

#### Charles E. SCHWING et al. v. The CITY OF BATON ROUGE et al.

No. 51633.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1971.

In re: The City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 249 So.2d 304.

Application denied; on the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in their judgment.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted as to Assignment of Error No. 3.

TATE, J.,

feels that a writ should be granted due to the public importance of the question, even though (as the majority noted) under “the facts found by the Court of Appeal” (namely that the Master Plan putting property owners on notice was not filed until after the subdivision plan and building permit were denied) the result in this case may be correct.
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





The undersigned, Timothy J. Neher, the Chief Executive
Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of ACCELERATEDACQUISITIONS XI, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.The Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed
this statement this16thday ofNovember,
2010.





/s/ Timothy J. NeherTimothyJ.
      NeherChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to ACCELERATEDACQUISITIONS XI,
INC. and will be retained by ACCELERATEDACQUISITIONS XI,
INC. and furnishedto the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTE

      Reference is made to that $56,017,698.87 Promissory Note of STAR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation with its chief executive
offices located at 223 East De La Guerra, Santa Barbara, California, 93101
(together with its successors and assigns, the "Maker"), effective February 3,
2000 (as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time,
including any extensions, refinancings, refundings or renewals thereof in whole
or in part, collectively, the "Note"), payable to MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation with offices located at 6929 N. Lakewood Avenue,
Mail Drop 5.2-510, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74117 (the "Holder"). Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Note to the contrary, from and after the date hereof,
unless sooner accelerated, the Note shall mature on or before the earlier to
occur of (such date being referred to herein as the "Maturity Date"): (a)
termination of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 11, 2000, by and
between the Maker, STI Merger Co. and World Access, Inc. (the "Merger
Agreement"); (b) consummation of the merger transaction contemplated by the
Merger Agreement; or (c) August 31, 2000, without notice or presentment. Nothing
herein shall be considered or construed to be an agreement by Holder to extend
the Maturity Date beyond August 31, 2000.

      When attached to the Note, this Amendment No. 1 shall become a part of the
Note, and the terms and provisions of the Note as modified by this Amendment No.
1 shall remain in full force and effect.

Dated as of: July ___, 2000


ATTEST:                                STAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

By:                                    By:
   -------------------------------        -------------------------------
Name:                                  Name:
     -----------------------------          -----------------------------
Title:                                 Title:
      ----------------------------           ----------------------------

                                       Agreed to and Accepted By:


ATTEST:                                MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK
                                       SERVICES, INC.

By:                                    By:
   -------------------------------        -------------------------------
Name:                                  Name:
     -----------------------------          -----------------------------
Title:                                 Title:
      ----------------------------           ----------------------------


                                        1
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Adam B. Weinstein, Chief Financial Officer of New Mountain Finance Corporation, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of New Mountain Finance Corporation;

 

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.

 

Dated this day of November 14, 2011

 
| /s/ Adam B. Weinstein |
|-----------------------|
| **Adam B. Weinstein** |

 

----
# C_2014053EN.01000301.xml

| 25.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 February 2014

2014/C 53/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3735 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4624 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82465 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9372 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2209 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2780 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,362 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,24 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1578 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5098 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9945 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5271 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5243 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6530 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6558 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7413 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 475,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9980 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3751 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6663 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 994,06 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5104 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,336 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,8393 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,711 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2183 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,2126 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,2446 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3735

JPY

Japanese yen

140,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4624

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82465

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9372

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2209

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2780

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,362

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,24

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1578

RON

Romanian leu

4,5098

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9945

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5271

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5243

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6530

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6558

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7413

KRW

South Korean won

1 475,58

ZAR

South African rand

14,9980

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3751

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6663

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 994,06

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5104

PHP

Philippine peso

61,336

RUB

Russian rouble

48,8393

THB

Thai baht

44,711

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2183

MXN

Mexican peso

18,2126

INR

Indian rupee

85,2446

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3692

To limit the amount an Executive agency may obligate for office furniture

and decorating in fiscal years after fiscal year 1994, and to rescind

amounts available for that purpose for fiscal year 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To limit the amount an Executive agency may obligate for

office furniture and decorating in fiscal years after fiscal

year 1994, and to rescind amounts available for that

purpose for fiscal year 1994.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AMOUNTS OBLIGATED FOR

4 FURNITURE AND DECORATING.

5 The amount obligated by an Executive agency in a

6 fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 for office furniture and

7 decorating may not exceed the amount obligated by the

8 agency in fiscal year 1994 for furniture and decorating.
2

•HR 3692 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OFFICE

2 FURNITURE AND DECORATING.

3 Of the funds made available in appropriations Acts

4 for fiscal year 1994 to each Executive agency for purposes

5 of office furniture and decorating, 25 percent of the unob6 ligated balance is rescinded. The Director of the Office

7 of Management and Budget shall allocate such rescission

8 among the appropriate accounts, and shall submit to the

9 Congress a report setting forth such allocation.

10 SEC. 3. EXECUTIVE AGENCY DEFINED.

11 In this Act, the term ‘‘Executive agency’’ has the

12 meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5, United

13 States Code.

Æ
#### James McFarland, Plaintiff in Error *vs.*James Tunnel, Defendant in Error.

1. *Attachment writs.*— Service *by Elisor.*— Where there is no sheriff or coroner in the county, a writ of attachment may be served by an Elisor appointed by the court.

*Error to Greene Circuit Court.*

*J. F.*Hardin, for Plaintiff in Error.

*L. P. Cunningham,*for Defendant in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit brought by attachment in the Jasper Circuit Court, and taken by change of venue to the Greene Circuit Court. The attachment was issued in 1864, and levied on real estate. After the suit had been pending on plea of *335abatement to the affidavit till 1870, a motion was filed to quash the writ of attachment because it had not been served by a sheriff. On the trial of the motion it appeared in evidence that the person who served the attachment, had been appointed Elisor by the Jasper Circuit Court in 1864, because there was then no sheriff or coroner in that county, and as such he served the writ. The court sustained the motion and also dismissed the suit. It seems to me this action of the court was without authority of law.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other Judges concur.
# C_2014434EN.01000701.xml

| 4.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 434/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/7

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2014/C 434/05)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 10.9.2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 74316 |
| Decision No | : | 322/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title | : | An amendment to the Norwegian Special Tax System for Shipping concerning joint and several liability for employer obligations |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Aid scheme |
| Objective | : | Promotion of the maritime sector |
| Form of aid | : | Tax exemption |
| Budget | : | n.a. |
| Duration | : | From the income year 2014 until re-notification |
| Economic sectors | : | Maritime transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Ministry of Finance |
| P.O. Box 8008 Dep. |
| N-0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

10.9.2014

Case number

Case number

:

74316

Decision No

Decision No

:

322/14/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title

Title

:

An amendment to the Norwegian Special Tax System for Shipping concerning joint and several liability for employer obligations

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Aid scheme

Objective

Objective

:

Promotion of the maritime sector

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Tax exemption

Budget

Budget

:

n.a.

Duration

Duration

:

From the income year 2014 until re-notification

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Maritime transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Ministry of Finance

P.O. Box 8008 Dep.

N-0030 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanyingQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VR Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2013, I, John E. Baker, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of VR Holdings, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ending June 30, 2013, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2013, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of VR Holdings, Inc.

 

Date August 19, 2013.

/s/ John E. Baker

John E. Baker, Chief ExecutiveOfficer