alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Application of Adolph WYATT, for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12425.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 6, 1957.

*173Laynie W. Harrod, Wm. Mounger, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

J. W. (Bill) Berry, County 'Atty., and Robert H. Reynolds, Asst. County Atty., Oklahoma City, for respondent.

POWELL, Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus, instituted by the petitioner, Adolph Wyatt, for the purpose of being admitted to bail upon a charge of murder, said charge now pending pursuant to a legal preliminary information pending before a justice of the peace of Oklahoma County, and filed on •January 8, 1957. On January 9, 1957 a hearing was had in case No. 140257, in the district court of Oklahoma county upon a petition praying that a borld be set in said case for this petitioner, and the writ was denied.

The accused, a colored man, is now held by the Sheriff of Oklahoma County in the Oklahoma County jail. The complaint alleges that petitioner did on August 26, 1956, in Oklahoma County, shoot and kill one George Bigelow, shown to have also been a colored man.

We have read a complete transcript of the evidence produced at the hearing in the district court of Oklahoma County on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It appears that prior to the present preliminary information, an earlier preliminary information had been filed, and that on hearing defendant had been discharged. Such fact, of course, did not prevent the filing of a second preliminary complaint, if the county attorney possessed evidence that in his judgment would justify him in so doing.

From the record before us, it appears that petitioner and the deceased had had some difficulty prior to the shooting. The last meeting prior thereto had been at the home of a friend of the accused by the name of Bruce, at 1405 Northeast Third Street, Oklahoma City. We shall not go into the evidence, other than to say that defendant claims that he was trying to get out of George Bigelow’s way and that a pistol he had was discharged but that he did not intend to hit Bigelow. Thomas Bruce, who was present, claimed that he did not see the actual shooting. He was a reluctant witness.

Bearing on the credibility of defendant’s testimony is evidence that defendant had previously been convicted on a charge of assault with attempt to kill in 1929, and had *174served time in the penitentiary; and that a second time he was convicted on an assault charge .and served a second term in the penitentiary. There was evidence of other minor convictions.

The evidence is conflicting as to what happened just prior to and at the time of the killing. We shall not comment upon the weight of the evidence, but conclude that the petitioner has made a sufficient showing to entitle him to be admitted to bail.

It is therefore ordered that petitioner be admitted to bail in the reasonable sum of $20,000, conditioned as required by law, and to be approved by the Court Clerk of Oklahoma County.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
152 P.3d 1

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### Brende v. Hara

27964

01/25/2007

Granted

—Hawai'i-, — P.3d-
# C_2020215EN.01002901.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Agmin Italy v Commission

(Case T-290/18) (1)

(Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the European Development Fund for a two-year period - Principle of impartiality - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2020/C 215/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Agmin Italy SpA (Verona, Italy) ((represented by: F. Guardascione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 7 March 2018 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union, from participating in procedures for the award of funds from the European Development Fund (EDF) and from publishing information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agmin Italy SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agmin Italy SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
October 31, 1996

19317

#### State v. Tomasa

Order No. 96-34

Affirmed
# C_2019065EN.01003902.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/39

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)

(Case T-70/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark HEAR THE WORLD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 65/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pansch and A. Sabellek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl, D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 (Case R 1645/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign HEAR THE WORLD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Sonova Holding AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sonova Holding AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Annex 36. Item 6.7. – Article 9.3.2. of Chapter 9.3. ‘Infection with decapod iridescent virus 1’

CHAPTER 9.3.

INFECTION WITH DECAPOD IRIDESCENT VIRUS 1

[...]

Article 9.3.2.

Scope

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.: ~~[fleshy prawn (*Penaeus chinensis*), gazami crab (*Portunus trituberculatus*), giant river prawn (*Macrobrachium rosenbergii*), kuruma prawn (*Penaeus japonicus*), oriental river prawn (*Macrobrachium nipponense*), red claw crayfish (*Cherax quadricarinatus*), red swamp crawfish (*Procambarus clarkii*), ridgetail prawn (*Exopalaemon carinicauda*) and white-leg shrimp (*Penaeus vannamei*), giant tiger prawn (*Penaeus monodon*), red claw crayfish (*Cherax quadricarinatus*), giant freshwater prawn (*Macrobrachium rosenbergii*), red swamp crayfish (*Procambarus clarkii*),~~~~oriental river prawn (*Macrobrachium nipponense*) and ridgetail white prawn (*Exopalaemon carinicauda*)] (under study)~~.

[...]

____________
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of First Financial Service Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company;

 
| Date:** **March 15, 2006 | By:    | /s/    | B.  Keith Johnson                      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |   | B. Keith Johnson                       |
|                          |   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                          |   |   |                                   |
| Date:  March 15, 2006         | By:    | /s/    | Gregory  Schreacke                     |   |
|                          |   |   | Gregory Schreacke                      |
|                          |   |   | Chief Financial  Officer               |
|                          |   |   | Principal Accounting  Officer          |
|                               |        |        |                                        |        |  |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been providedto us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
      ended June 30, 2009 of Belden & Blake
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:
    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):
   Date:August 13, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
      of the Board of Directors and Director
#### Emmanuel W. Metz, Appellant, *v.*G. J. S. Realty Corp., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 22, 1959.

*522
      *John 8. Dorf*for appellant.

No one appearing for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The defense designated as a “ Complete Defense ’ ’ herein is not one which completely defeats the cause of action. Since defendant has admitted an overcharge, although less than that claimed by plaintiff, the cause of action may not be dismissed for in any event plaintiff would at least be entitled to recover that amount. Nor does the tender of the check for $231.42 prior to the commencement of this action constitute a complete defense. The failure to accept the tender would serve only to deprive plaintiff of an award of statutory costs should there eventually be a recovery by plaintiff for no more than the amount of defendant’s offer.

It was error, therefore, to deny plaintiff’s motion to strike the “ Complete Defense ”.

The orders should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Orders reversed, etc.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 452 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the Clerk 

of the House to conduct the election of the Speaker of the House 

by secret ballot. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

Mr. ASHFORD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require the Clerk of the House to conduct the election 

of the Speaker of the House by secret ballot. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Effective Lead4 ership Elections for Congressional Trust Resolution’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ELECTION OF SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF REPRESENT6 ATIVES BY SECRET BALLOT. 

7 Clause 2 of rule II of the Rules of the House of Rep8 resentatives is amended by adding at the end the following 

9 new paragraph: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 452 IH 

1 ‘‘(l) The Clerk shall conduct the election of the 

2 Speaker by secret ballot.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1 Rule 10 Court of Appeals - (a) Affirmance Without Opinion . The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges pa rticipating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by order without rendering a formal opinion when a n opinion would have no precedential value and one or mor

e of the f ollowing circumst ances e xist and are

dispositive

of the ap peal: (1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary

implication by the 

# FILED Feb. 4, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE, WESTE RN SECTION AT JACKS ON

_______________________________________________________ ) BRADLEY MARK BUTLER, ) Chester County Chancer y Court ) No. 8796 Plaintiff/Appellee. ) ) VS. ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9608-CH-00188 ) PRINCE E. SPRADLIN and wife, ) SYLVIA S. SP

RADLIN , ) ) Defendants/Appe

llants. )

)

_____________________________________________________________________________ OPINION

AND ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________________

The p urpose of this litigation was to establish the boundary line between prop ert y owned by the Plaintiff, B radley Ma rk Butler, and the de

fendants, Prince E. Spradlin a nd Sylvia S. Spradlin. Each pa

rty present

ed sever al witnes ses and e

xhibits including the

testimony

of their respectivesurveyors. Upon c o mpletion of the evidence, the chancellor made f indings of fact including a finding

that the plaintiff

had esta blished hi s title by

a cle ar preponderance of the evidence. The cour

t accepted the su

rvey of Eddie Coleman, the surveyor who te stified in behalf of th e p la in ti ff , a nd es ta bl is he d t he pr op er ty l in e a cc or di ng to th e C ol em an su rv ey.

Our review of this matte

r is de novo on the record, with a presumption that the trial court’s findi ngs of fact are correct unless the pr eponderance of the

evidence is otherwise. Rule 13(d) T.R.A.P. The trial court, having had the oppor

tunity to see and observe the witnesses, is accorded de fe re nc e i n d et er mi ni ng th ei r c re di bi li ty.

Having reviewed this record in i ts entirety , we do not find the e

vidence to prepond erate against the trial court’s findi ng and t herefo re aff irm in acc ordance

with Rule 10(a)(1) (3) 1 of the Court of Appeals. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellants, for whichtrial cou

rt.

. . . . (3) no re versible error of law app ears. ex ec ut io n m ay i ss ue if

ne ce ss ar y.

_______________________________ FAR MER , J.

______________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. (Conc urs)

______________________________ LI LL ARD, J. (Conc

urs)
| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

----

| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |   |
|--------|--------|
# C_2019406EN.01002802.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — UZ v Parliament

(Case T-47/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Psychological harassment - Disciplinary sanction - Downgrading by one grade and resetting of promotion points to zero - Rejection of the applicant’s request for assistance - Manner in which the administrative investigation was carried out - Requirement of impartiality - Right to be heard - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the procedural irregularity)

(2019/C 406/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by V. Montebello-Demogeot and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, and subsequently by V. Montebello-Demogeot and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 27 February 2017 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero and, secondly, annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 imposing on UZ the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 imposing on UZ the disciplinary sanction of downgrading from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, and resetting the merit points acquired in grade AD 13 to zero;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders UZ and the Parliament to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders UZ and the Parliament to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.

---
CONSENT OF GEO. S. OLIVE & CO., LLC

We consent to the incorporation by reference into this Annual Report on Form 
10-K of our report dated February 3, 1997 with respect to the consolidated 
financial statements of Central Newspapers, Inc. for the year ended December 29,
1996, included in the Central Newspapers, Inc. Annual Report to Shareholders and
to the incorporation of such report by reference into (a) the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 33-37566, 33-40776 and 33-61397) and 
related Prospectus pertaining to the Central Newspapers, Inc. Stock 
Compensation Plan (formerly Central Newspapers, Inc. Stock Option Plan) and (b)
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 33-33026) and related 
Prospectus pertaining to the Central Newspapers, Inc. Savings Plus Plan.


/s/ Geo. S. Olive & Co., 
------------------------
GEO. S. OLIVE & CO. LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 20, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Harry Dickerson, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County,

February 22, 1971.

*Burton B. Roberts, District Attorney (Jerry L. Wegman*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Martin Jaffe*for defendant.

Alfred H. Kleiman, J.

Defendant pleaded guilty as a youthful offender on the underlying charge of assault in the third degree (Penal Law, § 120.00). Defendant was sentence^,to the New York State Reformatory for an indefinite period pursuant to section 913-m (subd. 1, par. [d]) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment and for resentence, his attorney contending that this court was without power to sentence the defendant to more than a one-year term, citing in support thereto *People*v. *Soto*(64 Misc 2d 515). The rationale of that decision and of *Matter of Hogan*v. *Rosenberg*(24 N Y 2d 207), cited therein, was based upon the then unavailability of a jury trial for defendants in the Criminal Court of *707the City of New York. However, following *Baldwin*v. *New York*(399 U. S. 66), the procedural machinery for obtaining a trial by jury was established in this court and was available to this defendant. (The defendant specifically waived his right to such trial by jury prior to the court’s accepting defendant’s plea.) Accordingly, I hold that this court is no longer bound by the former decisions, and that this court may now impose a reformatory sentence.

Accordingly, the motion is in all respects denied..