alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rose, d. b. a. Carroll Upholstering Co., Appellant, *v.*Glander, Tax Commr., Appellee.

(No. 31965

Decided April 5, 1950.)

*364
      *Messrs. Amer, Cunningham & Sclmur,*for appellant.

*Mr. Flerbert 8. Duffy,*attorney general, and *Mr. Donald B. Leach,*for appellee.

By the Court.

The only records kept by the appellant during the audit period were the salesmen’s separately executed orders and a record of materials purchased by appellant.

The appellant testified that semi-annual sales-tax returns were prepared by ascertaining from the salesmen’s order books the work which had been delivered to customers during the period, figuring the cost of material used in completing those orders and then computing the tax on the basis of the actual cost of material to the appellant or on the basis of the markup price. In preparing sales tax returns, no consideration was given to the amount of sales tax stated on the salesmen’s orders.

Section 5546-1, General Code, reads in part:

> “ ‘Price’ shall not include the consideration received for labor or services used in * * * repairing the property sold if the consideration for such services is separately stated from the consideration received for *365the tangible personal property transferred in the retail sale.”

Rule 73 of the Tax Commissioner, relating to repairmen, provides in part: “Where the charges for material and labor or service are not separately stated, the tax base for the application of the tax is the full amount charged with no deductions.” That rule provides also for computing the tax only on material, where charges for material and labor or services are separately stated.

In *Wilson, d. b. a. Nu-Tred Tire Co.,*v. *Glander, Tax Commr.,*151 Ohio St., 479, 86 N. E. (2d), 761, involving a sales-tax assessment, this court held in the syllabus:

> “Where a person sells material to another and in connection therewith furnishes labor or service in applying such material to his customer’s property, the entire transaction shall be considered a sale and subject to tax, unless there is a clear separation, in the making or billing of a charge therefor, of the material furnished and the labor or service performed. ’ ’

Counsel for appellant contend in this court that the right to orally contract, conferred by Section 8383, General Code, has been restricted by the interpretation given in this case to Section 5546-1, General Code.

The sales tax law levies a tax on the transfer of tangible personal property and the oral or written form of the contract is unimportant to the validity of the transfer. If a repairman separately states labor or services they shall not be included in the “price” predicating the tax, but if a repairman does not so separately state them they shall be included in the determination of the tax.

The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and is, therefore, affirmed.

*Decision affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart and Turner, JJ., concur.
# C_2013313EN.01001801.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total v Commission

(Case T-548/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties - Presumption of innocence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds nearly 100 % of the shares)

2013/C 313/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Total SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Total SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 COMMUNICATION FROM CONSTITUENT SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE, THE HONORABLE 
                  J. RANDY FORBES, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from CeJae Johnson, Constituent Services Representative, 
the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, Member of Congress:
                                                  J. Randy Forbes,

                                       United States Congress,

                             4th District, VA, September 10, 2012.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker:  This is to notify you formally pursuant 
     to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     that I have been served with a subpoena, issued by the 
     Chesterfield, Virginia General District Court (Civil) for 
     hearing testimony.
       After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I 
     have determined that compliance with the subpoena is not 
     consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.
           Sincerely,

                                                CeJae Johnson,

                              Constituent Services Representative,
                                      Congressman J. Randy Forbes.

     

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

and Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Dennis Calvert, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed Amendment No. 2 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BioLargo, Inc.;

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.



|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 7, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ DENNIS CALVERT     
|                    |  |     |  | Dennis Calvert         
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
steam_record - Fw: Mississippi Power Company - ICR Extension Request 

 

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 08:11PM ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Berry, Charles Rick (MPC)" <CRBERRY@southernco.com> 

Date: 06/29/2010 06:28PM 

cc: "Hill, Flinda R." <FRHILL@southernco.com>, "Hill, Donna B." <DBHILL@southernco.com> 

Subject: Mississippi Power Company - ICR Extension Request 

Ms. Alicea, 

Please find attached a request for a deadline extension for the 

completion and submittal of the Steam Electric Guidelines 

Information Collection Request for Mississippi Power. I trust you 

will find it complete as well as compelling. Feel free to contact 

us should you require additional information. 

Rick Berry 

Manager, Environmental Quality 

Mississippi Power Company 

10406 Lorraine Road 

P.O. Box 4079 

Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-4097 

Tel: 228.897.6420 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steam_record@erg.com>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov>

Date: 7/2/2010 7:12 PM

Subject: Fw: Mississippi Power Company - ICR Extension Request

Attachments: DOC001.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C2E3A39D... 3/21/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,487
<SECURITIES>                                    11,262
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,182
<INVENTORY>                                        314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,601
<PP&E>                                          21,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,751
<BONDS>                                            188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,439
<SALES>                                         19,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,180
<CGS>                                            2,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   433
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,321
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,040
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
#### WILSON v. STATE.

No. A-12022.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 23, 1954.

William N. Mounger, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

. Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Judge.

■ This is an appeal from a conviction sustained by J. D. Wilson in the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County for the unlawful possession of whiskey. The whiskey was obtained by a search of defendant’s automobile which was sitting in the driveway of a neighbor of defendant’s and not on the premises of defendant.

The sole question presented by the appeal is whether the trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress evidence.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, it was shown that on March 17,- 1952, two deputy sheriffs' of Oklahoma County procured a search warrant to search certain premises occupied by the defendant in Oklahoma City. A search was made of the premises described in the warrant and no contraband was found. Immediately after the search had ended, one of the officers detected the automobile of defendant parked in the driveway of the house adjacent to the premises of defendant. He asked defendant for the keys to his car and the keys were delivered to him. The car was then searched and several pints of whiskey were found in the trunk of the car. Defendant testified that the automobile and the whiskey belonged to him.

The evidence was undisputed that the search warrant did not extend to the premises where the automobile was found and did not purport to authorize a search of the automobile.

In Jones v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 91, 166 P.2d 443, this court held, “A search of an automobile without a search warrant and not as an incident of a lawful arrest, and not on any probable cause of the commission of a felony, but on mere suspicion, violates the constitutional provision forbidding unreasonable searches or seizures, and evidence obtained by such a search is inadmissible.” See also Bowen v. State, 50 Okl.Cr. 36, 295 P. 623; Lamb v. State, 59 Okl.Cr. 360, 60 P.2d 219; Hoppes v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 179, 105 P.2d 433; Crim v. State, 78 Okl. *577Cr. 153, 145 P.2d 444. In the instant case, the officers admitted that they searched defendant’s car upon mere suspicion. Defendant was not under arrest and no crime was committed in the presence of the officers which would have justified the search of the car without a warrant. Furthermore, there was no valid waiver by the defendant of his right to demand a search warrant. Edwards v. State, 83 Okl.Cr. 340, 177 P.2d 143; Dawson v. State, 83 Okl.Cr. 263, 175 P.2d 368; Denton v. State, 62 Okl.Cr. 8, 70 P.2d 135.

The search was illegal. The motion to suppress evidence should have been sustained. The judgment and sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County is reversed.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# Kemper - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Central Planning and Development District Executive Director Kawana McCary Email kmccary&#64;ecpd&#100;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;The post East Central Planning and Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4609 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4609

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To provide for the conveyance of a Forest Service site in Dolores 
            County, Colorado, to be used for a fire station.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``West Fork Fire Station Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Dolores County, 
        Colorado.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Agriculture.
            (3) West fork fire station conveyance parcel.--The term 
        ``West Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel'' means the parcel 
        of approximately 3.61 acres of National Forest System land in 
        the County, as depicted on the map entitled ``Map for West Fork 
        Fire Station Conveyance Parcel'' and dated November 21, 2017.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF WEST FORK FIRE STATION CONVEYANCE PARCEL, DOLORES 
              COUNTY, COLORADO.

    (a) In General.--On receipt of a request from the County and 
subject to such terms and conditions as are mutually satisfactory to 
the Secretary and the County, including such additional terms as the 
Secretary determines to be necessary, the Secretary shall convey to the 
County without consideration all right, title, and interest of the 
United States in and to the West Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel.
    (b) Costs.--Any costs relating to the conveyance under subsection 
(a), including processing and transaction costs, shall be paid by the 
County.
    (c) Use of Land.--The land conveyed to the County under subsection 
(a) shall be used by the County only for a fire station, related 
infrastructure, and roads to facilitate access to and through the West 
Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel.
    (d) Reversion.--If any portion of the land conveyed under 
subsection (a) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with the use 
described in subsection (c), the land shall, at the discretion of the 
Secretary, revert to the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4609

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To provide for the conveyance of a Forest Service site in Dolores 
            County, Colorado, to be used for a fire station.
```
# C_2010024EN.01000701.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat — Austria) — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten v Kärntner Landesregierung

(Case C-205/08) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary hearing - Article 234 EC - Concept of ‘national court or tribunal’ - Admissibility - Directive 85/337/EEC - Environmental impact assessment - Construction of overhead electrical power lines - Length of more than 15 km - Transboundary constructions - Transboundary power line - Total length exceeding the threshold - Line mainly situated in the territory of a neighbouring Member State - Length of national section below the threshold)

2010/C 24/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

Applicant:

Defendant: Kärntner Landesregierung

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Umweltsenat (Austria) — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Requirement for an environment impact assessment for constructions of overhead electrical power lines of a length of more than 15 km — Length to be taken into account in the case of trans-frontier constructions — Scheme for an electrical power line with a total length exceeding the threshold but with only a section of 7.4 km on national territory, the remainder being situated on the territory of the neighbouring Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, are to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a Member State must make a project referred to in point 20 of Annex I to the Directive, such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure even where the project is transboundary in nature and less than 15 km of it is situated on the territory of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2009129EN.01000201.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/2

---

Appeal brought on 1 July 2008 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2008 in Case T-38/08 Corriea de Matos v Commission

(Case C-290/08 P)

2009/C 129/02

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos (represented by: C.I. Correia de Matos, advogada)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 10 February 2009, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
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
   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
  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 operation of the Company.
  3. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: May 14, 2010By:
/s/ Joseph AzzataJoseph Azzata,Chief Executive Officer and Director