alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Byron, True Name Richard Ifill, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Ifill, Also Known as Richard Byron, Also Known as Richard Farrell, Appellant.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.), rendered on September 9, 1988, convicting defendant, after guilty pleas of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4] [two counts]), and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of five to ten years’ imprisonment on each count, is unanimously affirmed.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered October 7, 1989, convicting defendant upon his guilty plea of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of six to twelve years’ *729imprisonment, is unanimously reversed, upon the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, said judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings including the question of defendant’s mental fitness to proceed.

With respect to defendant’s 1988 plea and conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree, we find defendant’s contentions on appeal to be without merit. Moreover, we find that the pleas therein were adequate in that defendant was represented by counsel and that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered into the pleas and admitted guilt. Accordingly, the 1988 judgment is affirmed.

With respect to the defendant’s 1989 conviction of robbery in the first degree, we find that it was error for the court to withdraw its order directing a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant pursuant to CPL article 730. Upon initially concluding that an expert evaluation of the defendant’s competency to assist in his defense was warranted, it was error for the court to abort that process before it was terminated. *(See, People v Armlin,*37 NY2d 167, 172 [1975]; *People v Mulholland,*129 AD2d 857, 859 [1987].)

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2005 of Prism Software Corporation (the "COMPANY") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

Date:  March 31, 2006                       /S/ DAVID AYRES
                                            ----------------------
                                            President

                                            /S/ MICHAEL CHEEVER
                                            ----------------------
                                            Treasurer
# C_2008209EN.01001802.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/18

---

Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Japan Tobacco, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-128/06, Japan Tobacco, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Torrefacção Camelo

(Case C-136/08 P)

(2008/C 209/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (represented by: A. Ortiz López, abogada, S. Ferrandis González, abogado and E. Ochoa Santamaría, abogada)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Torrefacção Camelo Lda

Other parties to the proceedings:

da

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 30 January 2008 delivered in Case T-128/06 and deliver a judgment amending the judgment of the Court of First Instance and declaring it necessary to apply the prohibition contained in Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) to this case and, consequently, in considering the arguments submitted by Japan Tobacco, decide to refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 1 469 121; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 30 January 2008 delivered in Case T-128/06 and deliver a judgment amending the judgment of the Court of First Instance and declaring it necessary to apply the prohibition contained in Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) to this case and, consequently, in considering the arguments submitted by Japan Tobacco, decide to refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 1 469 121;

1

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the Community Trade Mark Regulation and, more specifically, Article 8(5) thereof. Despite the fact that the Court of First Instance recognised the reputation of the earlier mark, the similarity between the marks in question and the connection between the goods designated by the marks, it required actual, real and current evidence of harm to the earlier mark, whilst Article 8(5) requires a mere likelihood of harm to that mark, of unfair advantage being taken of its distinctive character or of detriment to it.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Gehl
Company's consolidated balance sheet at June 28, 1997 and consolidated
statements of income for the six month period ended June 28, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                            6576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    71235
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      17579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                101166
<PP&E>                                           59928
<DEPRECIATION>                                   36407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  134212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            38884
<BONDS>                                          19989<F2>
<COMMON>                                           620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       70672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    134212
<SALES>                                          95267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 95267
<CGS>                                            66737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    66737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10022
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3608
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Company presents receivables on a net basis in compliance with Article 10
of Regulation S-X.
<F2>Includes all non-current portion of debt obligations
<F3>Restated to reflect the impact of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 128, "Earnings per Share".  The EPS under the "EPS-Primary" tag
represents Basic Earnings per Share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2008064EN.01005301.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/53

---

Action brought on 24 December 2007 — RS Arbeitsschutz v OHIM — RS Components (RS)

(Case T-501/07)

(2008/C 64/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: R. S. Arbeitsschutz Bedarfshandesgesellschaft mbH (Kaltenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Ivens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: RS Components Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 October 2007, notified to the applicant on 26 October 2007 in Case R 531/2007-2 and of the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 February 2007 ruling on Opposition No B 902 660. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 October 2007, notified to the applicant on 26 October 2007 in Case R 531/2007-2 and of the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 February 2007 ruling on Opposition No B 902 660.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative trade mark composed of a device of a stylised glove or hand and the bold capital letters ‘RS’ for goods in class 9, 17 and 25 — application No 4 113 981

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: RS Components Ltd

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative trade mark ‘RS’ for goods in class 9, 17 and 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2021182EN.01001701.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux v Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

(Case C-900/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Articles 5 and 8 - Prohibition of the use of any method of capture of birds - Article 9(1) - Authorisation to use, by way of derogation, a traditional method of capture of birds - Conditions - No other satisfactory solution - Preservation of that traditional method as the sole justification for the absence of an ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Selectivity of catches - National legislation authorising the capture of birds using limes)

(2021/C 182/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association One Voice, Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux

Defendant: Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Interested party: Fédération nationale des Chasseurs

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a method of capture of birds is traditional is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that another satisfactory solution, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be substituted for that method; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a method of capture of birds is traditional is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that another satisfactory solution, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be substituted for that method;

| 2. | Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises, by way of derogation from Article 8 of that directive, a method of capture leading to by-catch where that by-catch, even in small quantities and for a limited period, is likely to cause harm other than negligible harm to the non-target species captured. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 2009/147 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises, by way of derogation from Article 8 of that directive, a method of capture leading to by-catch where that by-catch, even in small quantities and for a limited period, is likely to cause harm other than negligible harm to the non-target species captured.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
Karina D. Dodor, Esq. 35 Highland Circle Needham, MA 02494

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1200 New Jersey Avenue

SE Room W

- 12

- 140 West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590

- 0001

July 31, 2015

RE: Request for an Amendment to Exemption No. 11325 (Regulatory Docket No.

FAA

- 2015

- 0017) to Change the Name of Petitioner

Dear Administrator:

On April 16, 2015 Cambervision, Inc., (“ Petitioner ”) received a grant for an exemption

from the Federal Aviation Administration (“ FAA ”), Exemption No. 11325 (“ Exemption ”), under which the Petitioner is permitted to commercially operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for training workshops, research and development, and aerial inspections of buildings and land

within the United States.

The Petitioner would like to request an Amendment to Exemption No. 11325 to change the name from Cambervision, Inc. to Cambervision, Inc. dba Fly4.me. On June 24, 2015 Petitioner filed an amendment with the State of Massachusetts Department of Corporations to change the name f

rom Cambervision, Inc, to Cambervision, Inc. dba Fly4.me. The Amendment is effective June 24, 2015.

Very Truly Yours,

Karina D. Dodor Esq. Attorney for Cambervision Inc.

35 Highland Circle Needham, MA 02494 Tel: (617) 991

- 5677
EXHIBIT 21

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF MANUGISTICS GROUP, INC.

Listed below are the significant  subsidiaries of the Company as of February 29,
2000 and their  jurisdictions  of  organization.  All of these  subsidiaries are
wholly owned by the Company.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  State or
                                                  Jurisdiction
                                                  of Incorporation        Name Under Which
Name                                              or Organization         Subsidiary Does Business
----------------------------------------------    --------------------    --------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>                     <C>
Manugistics, Inc.                                 Delaware                Manugistics, Inc.

Manugistics California, Inc.                      California              Manugistics California, Inc.

Manugistics France S.S.A.                         France                  Manugistics France S.A.

Manugistics FSC, Inc.                             Barbados                Manugistics FSC, Inc.

Manugistics U.K. Ltd.                             United Kingdom          Manugistics U.K. Ltd.

Manugistics Canada Company                        Nova Scotia             Manugistics Canada Company

Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH                    Germany                 Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH

Manugistics European Holding                                              Manugistics European Holding
Company B.V.                                      Netherlands             Company B.V.

Manugistics Services, Inc.                        Delaware                Manugistics, Inc.

Manugistics Japan K.K.                            Japan                   Manugistics Japan K.K.

Manugistics do Brasil Limtada                     Brazil                  Manugistics do Brasil Limtada

Manugistics Singapore PTE LTD                     Singapore               Manugistics Singapore PTE LTD

Manugistics Australia Pty LTD                     Australia               Manugistics Australia Pty LTD

Synchronized Manufacturing LTD                    United Kingdom          Synchronized Manufacturing LTD

Manugistics Holdings Delaware, Inc.               Delaware                Manugistics Holdings Delaware, Inc.

Synchronized Manufacturing Group, Ltd.            United Kingdom          Synchronized Manufacturing Group, Ltd.

Synchronized Manufacturing SA                     Belgium                 Synchronized Manufacturing SA
</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136681 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## HENRY B. JOY, IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136681 COA: 274854 Emmet CC: 05-008995-DM ROBERTA T. JOY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012

No. 113
```
EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT




This
Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement (the "First Amendment") is made as of
this 31st day of December 2016 by and between Envision Solar International,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and Jay S. Potter, an individual
(the "Grantee"), with respect to the following facts:


RECITALS


A.      The Company and the
Grantee have entered into that certain Restricted Stock Agreement, dated February
12, 2016 (the "Agreement"), and the Company and the Grantee desire to amend the
Agreement pursuant to this First Amendment.


B.       In conjunction with this
First Amendment, the Company has agreed to grant to the Grantee (i) 750,000
restricted shares of the Company's common stock and (ii) an
additional 750,000 restricted shares of the Company's common stock to vest in
the future from time to time, based on the Grantee achieving certain
performance criteria to be agreed upon by the Board of Directors after
discussion with senior management at a future date.


C.       The terms used in this
First Amendment will have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement unless
otherwise defined herein.


NOW,
THEREFORE,
for one dollar
and other good and valuable consideration, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:


1. Amendment.


The following sentence is added to Section 2.1 of the Agreement as
follows:


"Any
Restricted Shares not released from escrow as of December 31, 2016 are no
longer eligible for release from escrow and will not vest, and are hereby
cancelled and returned to the authorized but unissued shares of the Company's
common stock."


2. Effect
of First Amendment.


The
Agreement will remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified
by this First Amendment.  In the event of any conflict between the First
Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this First Amendment will govern.


3. 
Counterparts.


This
First Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts,
each of which counterparts will be deemed to be an original and such
counterparts will constitute but one and the same instrument.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment
is executed as of the date first above written.


 


	COMPANY: ENVISION SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 	GRANTEE: JAY S. POTTER
	 	 	 
	
    
      By:

    	 	
    
 

    
	Desmond Wheatley, President	 	Jay S. Potter
##### 



Exhibit 11
 Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Computation of Per Share Earnings
for the Years Ended December 31
 2005
    
    2004A Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    542.9
    
    
    
    298.6B Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    (10.2
    )
    
    
    (8.1
    )C Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    532.7
    
    
    
    290.5D Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    108,568,000
    
    
    
    107,967,000E Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation
    
    
    2,510,000
    
    
    
    2,772,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    5.00
    
    
    
    2.77Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    4.89
    
    
    
    2.70UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    4.91
    
    
    
    2.69Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))
    
    
    4.80
    
    
    
    2.62
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip L. Calamia, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Philip L. CalamiaPhilip L. CalamiaInterim Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)




April 19, 2010




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.