alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth Ray RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Floyd L. MARTIN, Judge of the District Court, and Jerry L. Ervin, Sheriff, Canadian County, State of Oklahoma, Respondents.

No. H-74-138.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 8, 1974.

*1376ORDER DECLINING JURISDICTION AND DIRECTING DISMISSAL OF PETITION

On this 8th day of March, 1974, this Court declines jurisdiction herein and directs dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Bail, for the reason the petition discloses that the present incarceration of petitioner arises from punishment assessed by respondent, The Honorable Floyd L. Martin, Judge of the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, on a direct contempt charge. Under State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Glenn A. Young v. Hon. Charles S. Woodson, Judge of the District Court of Creek County, No. 46,564, Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, December 11, 1973, the exclusive jurisdiction in contempt cases, both civil and criminal, is vested in said Court.

Accordingly, said Petition and Motion are dismissed.
Opinion issued September 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00576-CR

NO. 01-15-00577-CR

———————————

BELANDA FAYE PRUITT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 and Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case Nos. 209426 & 209428

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 19, 2015, appellant, Belanda Faye Pruitt, filed motions to dismiss 

these appeals. The motions to dismiss comply with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.2(a) and no prior decision has issued in these cases. See TEX. R. APP.
2

P. 42.2(a), (b). Accordingly, we grant the motions and dismiss the appeals. We 

dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
# C_2018427EN.01003002.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/30

---

Action brought on 2 October 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-619/18)

(2018/C 427/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by K. Banks, H. Krämer and S. Kaleda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by lowering the retirement age of judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and applying it to judges appointed to the Supreme Court before 3 April 2018, and by granting the President of the Republic of Poland discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by lowering the retirement age of judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and applying it to judges appointed to the Supreme Court before 3 April 2018, and by granting the President of the Republic of Poland discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligation under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Commission claims that the provisions of the Law of 8 December 2017 on the Supreme Court (ustawa z dnia 8 grudnia 2017 r. o Sądzie Najwyższym), lowering the retirement age of judges currently in office, appointed to the Supreme Court before the date of entry into force of that law (3 April 2018), infringes the principle of security of tenure of judges.

Second, the Commission maintains that the provisions of the Law on the Supreme Court, granting the President of the Republic of Poland discretion to extend the active mandate of Supreme Court judges, infringes the principle of judicial independence.

---
19952

#### State v. Munzig

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of income and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000857264
<NAME> KRUPP GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                    4,627,499
<SECURITIES>                            133,307,578<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                               973,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,187,021<F2>
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          142,095,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     3,943,046<F3>
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                137,921,227
<OTHER-SE>                                  231,316<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            142,095,589
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         15,632,229<F5>
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,314,848<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          12,317,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      12,317,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             12,317,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<FN>
<F1> Includes Participating Insured Mortgage Investments ("PIMIs")(insured
     mortgages of $60,129,492 and Additional Loans of $8,350,990), Participating
     Insured Mortgages  ("PIMs") of $47,331,673 and  Mortgage-backed  Securities
     ("MBS") of $17,495,423.
<F2> Includes  prepaid  acquisition  fees and expenses of $8,333,461 net of
     accumulated  amortization of $6,089,755 and prepaid participation servicing
     fees of $2,777,749 net of accumulated amortization of $1,834,434.
<F3> Includes deferred income on Additional Loans of $3,918,021.
<F4> Unrealized gain on MBS.
<F5> Represents interest income on investments in mortgages and cash.
<F6> Includes  $48,272  for  impaired  mortgage  loans and  $1,672,143  of
     amortization of prepaid fees and expenses.
</FN>


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

927 CAF 12-00627 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTAL L. BUTTON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD J. ALLEN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

----------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD J. ALLEN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V

CHRISTAL L. BUTTON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
BETZJITOMIR & BAXTER, LLP, BATH (SUSAN BETZJITOMIR OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

SAMANTHA PETERS SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, CANISTEO.

VIVIAN CLARA STRACHE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATH.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Timothy K. Mattison, J.H.O.), entered March 27, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded the parties joint custody, awarded primary physical custody of two children to Richard J. Allen and awarded primary physical custody of one child to Christal L. Button. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ sons to respondent-petitioner father and awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ daughter to the mother. On appeal, the mother contends that Family Court abused its discretion in awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ sons to the father because splitting physical placement of the children is not in their best interests. We reject that contention. The court’s custody determination following a hearing is entitled to great deference ( see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56-2- 927 CAF 12-00627 NY2d 167, 173-174). We will not disturb the custody determination here inasmuch as the court made extensive factual findings that are supported by the record and “that warrant the conclusion that the needs of each of the children will best be met by the court’s disposition” ( Matter of Roulo v Roulo , 201 AD2d 937, 937-938).

Entered: September 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE>

<S>                                                                        <C>
Arugus Health Systmes, Inc.                       Delaware                 50
Hereford, LLP                                     Missouri                 50
Oak Lane Associates                               Texas                    50
Oak Lane, L.C.                                    Texas                    50
Oak Lane/GSL & Venture, G.P.                      Texas                    50
Americo International Corporation                 Missouri                 100
Americo Services, Inc.                            Missouri                 100
Broadway Realty Company, LLC                      Missouri                 100
Broadway Square Redevelopment Company             Texas                    100
College Insurance Group                           Missouri                 100
Financial Assurance Life Insurance Company        Texas                    100
Great Southern Life Insurance Company             Texas                    100
Great Southern Vida Compania de Seguros, S.A.     Argentia                 100
GSSW LM I L.P.                                    Missouri                 100
GSSW LM II L.C.                                   Missouri                 100
GSSW LM, Inc.                                     Missouri                 100
GSSW REO Landmark L.P.                            Texas                    100
GSSW WR I, L.P.                                   Missouri                 100
GSSW WR II, L.C.                                  Missouri                 100
GSSW WR, Inc.                                     Missouri                 100
GSSW WWA I, L.P.                                  Missouri                 100
GSSW WWA II L.C.                                  Missouri                 100
GSSW WWA, Inc.                                    Missouri                 100
GSSW-REO Briarwood, L.P.                          Texas                    100
GSSW-REO L.C.                                     Texas                    100
GSSW-REO Westwood Arlington                       Texas                    100
Landmark Mortgage Company                         Missouri                 100
NAP Partners, Inc.                                Texas                    100
National Farmers Union Life Insurance Company     Texas                    100
Pension Consultants and Administration            Texas                    100
Riverdale Square-REO, L.P.                        Texas                    100
The College Life Insurance Company of America     Texas                    100
The Ohio State Life Insurance Company             Texas                    100
United Fidelity Life Insurance Company            Texas                    100
Windrush-REO, L.P.                                Texas                    100
</TABLE>
# C_2018152EN.01004301.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/43

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)

(Case T-113/18)

(2018/C 152/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd (Alfreton, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Mellor, QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FREE — Application for registration No 15 083 091

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2164/2016-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 2, 2017

a0424

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2017

154280

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154280

COA: 332878 

Isabella CC: 2015-001059-FH

WILLIAM NEIL LEE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted
               from  the  Condensed   Consolidated   Balance  Sheet,   Condensed
               Consolidated  Statements of Operations and Condensed Consolidated
               Statements  of Cash Flows,  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
               reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000856143
<NAME>                        BCAM International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1.000
<CASH>                           526,344
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                     33,782
<ALLOWANCES>                      11,245
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 723,734
<PP&E>                           864,379
<DEPRECIATION>                   670,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,304,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            285,065
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                         156,429
<OTHER-SE>                       858,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,304,681
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 604,554
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    272,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               1,899,769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                14,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,514,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,514,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,514,140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.010)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.010)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mrs. BIGGERT:
       H.R. 6229.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 18--To make all Laws which 
     shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
     any Department or Officer thereof.
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1113 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to remand certain civil actions 

transferred by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to remand certain 

civil actions transferred by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION. 

4 Section 1407(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘When’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) 

7 When’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(2) Upon a motion of a plaintiff in a civil action 

10 described in paragraph (1), if the panel does not remand 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1113 IS

1 the action at or before the conclusion of such pretrial pro2 ceedings to the district from which it was transferred be3 fore the date that is 5 years after the date on which the 

4 action is transferred— 

5 ‘‘(A) the action shall be remanded to the dis6 trict court from which it was transferred; and 

7 ‘‘(B) on remand, the district court shall set a 

8 schedule for the time for completion of discovery and 

9 a trial date for the action in accordance with chapter 

10 23 and the civil justice expense and delay reduction 

11 plan of the district court implemented in accordance 

12 with that chapter.’’. 

13 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to any 

15 civil action pending in a transferee district court described 

16 in section 1407 of title 28, United States Code, on or after 

17 August 1, 2010. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 106 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to permit removal to 

United States district courts of certain civil actions filed in State courts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to permit 

removal to United States district courts of certain civil 

actions filed in State courts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Legacy Law5 suit Abuse Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS FILED IN STATE 

7 COURTS. 

8 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended 

9 by inserting after section 505 (33 U.S.C. 1365) the fol10 lowing: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 106 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 505A. REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS FILED IN STATE 

2 COURTS. 

3 ‘‘Any civil action filed in a State court that involves 

4 a claim of environmental contamination that impacts or 

5 threatens to impact any waters of the United States sub6 ject to the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers may be 

7 removed by the defendant to the United States district 

8 court for the district in which the civil action is pending.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2010234EN.01000802.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08)

(Joined Cases C-447/08 and C-448/08) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Gambling - Offer of gambling via the internet - Promotion of gambling organised in other Member States - Activities reserved to public or non-profit-making bodies - Criminal penalties)

2010/C 234/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Otto Sjöberg (C-447/08), Anders Gerdin (C-448/08)

Re:

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Arts. 12, 43, 49 and 54 EC — National legislation prohibiting, by means of criminal penalties, the promotion of participation in a lottery only in the case where it is organised in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main actions, which prohibits the advertising to residents of that State of gambling organised for the purposes of profit by private operators in other Member States; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main actions, which prohibits the advertising to residents of that State of gambling organised for the purposes of profit by private operators in other Member States;

| 2. | Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the promotion of gambling operated on national territory without a licence. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is true of the national legislation at issue in the main actions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State subjecting gambling to a system of exclusive rights, according to which the promotion of gambling organised in another Member State is subject to stricter penalties than the promotion of gambling operated on national territory without a licence. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is true of the national legislation at issue in the main actions.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---