alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY PACKING CO. v. BROOKS PAPER CO.

No. 12848.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

May 20, 1933.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1933.

Slay & Simon and Richard U. Simon, all of Fort Worth, for appellant.

McGown & McGown, B. E. Godfrey, and' Clifford G. Keith, all of Fort Worth, for ap-pellee.

LATTIMORE, Justice.

In this cause there appeared in the court papers a document styled “Defendant’s original answer.” Thereafter defendant filed an amended original answer upon which it went to trial, and in this last pleading the language was different from that of the original answer. The original answer was not introduced in evidence.

In argument to the'jury plaintiff’s attorney read from the original answer and also from the amended answer and contended that the defense relied on by defendant was not set up in the original answer and that therefore that defense was an afterthought fabricated to attempt to defeat a just debt.

Abandoned pleadings must be introduced in evidence in order to have same presented to the jury. They are subject to being contradicted, denied, or explained like any other declaration against interest. Without being introduced in evidence they are no more entitled to be presented to the jury than any other portion of the history of the case not in the record.

Appellee’s contention that the pleadings stated in the two answers are substantially the same makes the situation worse — not better. For if the pleadings are the same in substance, then counsel’s statement to the jury, if believed, has led the jury to believe something that in fact was not only not proven, but in fact never could have been.

Nor do we believe that an error can be harmless which suggests facts tending to show that all the testimony of defendant’s witnesses is perjured.

*623We have examined the other assignments of error, and believe them without merit and raising no question justifying us with burdening the law books with a discussion thereof.

Reversed and remanded.
# C_2022335EN.01000901.xml

| 2.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/9

---

Opinion on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 20 June 2022 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40511 - Insurance Ireland: Insurance claims database and conditions of access

Rapporteur: Latvia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 335/08)

(1)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

(2)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as described in the draft Decision.

(3)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the offered commitments are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding, as set out in the draft Decision.

(4)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision that, in light of the offered commitments, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

(5)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Bruce L. Bisson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Torch Energy Royalty Trust,for which Wilmington Trust Company acts as Trustee;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15(e)), or for causingsuch procedures to be established or maintained, for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.          In giving the certifications in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I have relied to the extent Iconsider reasonable on information provided to me by Torch Energy Advisors Incorporated.       Date:June 5, 2007 By: /s/ Bruce L. Bisson Bruce L. Bisson      Vice President      Wilmington Trust Company
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
      1350)




The
      undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
      respectively, of 2020 ChinaCap Acquirco, Inc., certify that, to the best of
      their knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended September 30, 2008, which accompanies this certification, fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 2020 ChinaCap
      Acquirco, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing
      certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002
      (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.
      The
      undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing
      certification except as required by law.




Date:
                November 13, 2008
            /s/
                George LuGeorge
                LuPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
                November 13, 2008
            /s/
                Louis KooLouis
                KooVice
                President & Chief Financial
                Officer
Exhibit 23

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

The Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Porta Systems Corp.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements:
(Reg.  No.  33-12146) on Form S-8 and (Reg.  No.  33-41992) on Form S-8 of Porta
Systems Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 9,1998, relating to the
consolidated  balance  sheets of Porta  Systems  Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as of
December  31,  1997  and  1996  and  the  related  consolidated   statements  of
operations,  stockholders'  equity  (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 1997,  1996 and 1995,  which  report  appears in the Porta  Systems
Corp. annual report on Form 10-K.

                                          /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                          --------------------
                                              BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                  
Mitchel Field, New York
March 18, 1998
Exhibit
14.1







April 28,
2017



Grupo Financiero Santander México,
S.A.B. de C.V.

Avenida Prolongación Paseo de la
Reforma No. 500

Colonia Lomas de Santa Fe

Delegación Álvaro Obregón

01219 México City





Re: Related Party Transactions Item 7.B.2. Form 20-F





Ladies and Gentlemen:



I am the General Legal
Director of Grupo Financiero Santander México, S.A.B. de C.V., a Sociedad Anónima Bursátil organized and existing
under the laws of the United Mexican States (the “Company”), and have acted as counsel to the Company in connection
with the reportable related-party transactions under Item 7.B.2 of Form 20-F. This opinion is being furnished to you pursuant to
Instruction 3 to Item 7.B. of Form 20-F.



Banco Santander (México),
S.A., Institución de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander México, subsidiary of the Company ("Banco Santander"),
is duly organized and validly existing and holds the proper authorization to operate as a credit institution (institución
de banca múltiple), organized and existing under the laws of the United Mexican States.



Pursuant to the foregoing,
Banco Santander is subject to the Mexican banking laws, rules and regulations, and in particular the Credit Institutions Law (Ley
de Instituciones de Crédito) ("LIC"). Banco Santander is also under the supervision of the National Banking and
Securities Commission (Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores) ("CNBV”) as well as the Ministry of Finance and
Public Credit (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público).



In connection with the
foregoing, I have reviewed the laws, rules and regulations that I have deemed appropriate, and in this regard, section 142 of the
LIC as recently amended (formerly article 117), prohibits credit institutions to disclose information on the deposits, services
or any other type of operations to any other person than the corresponding depositor, creditor, holder or beneficiary or its legal
representatives, as well as any Mexican judicial authority as a result of a subpoena and to tax authorities by request of the CNBV.



Based on the foregoing,
I am of the opinion that Banco Santander, a subsidiary of the Company, cannot disclose the information required to be set forth
in Item 7.B.2 of Form 20-F, because such disclosure would conflict with the LIC.



This opinion is limited
to matters of Mexican law in force on the date hereof. I express no opinion with respect to the law of any other jurisdiction.



This opinion is given
as at the date hereof and I disclaim any obligation or undertaking to advise any person of any change in law or fact which may
come to our attention after the date hereof.













| | Very Truly Yours,
| | -----------------
| |                  
| |                  
| |                  
| | By:              
| |                  
| |
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL 12, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K.
Choksi, Director, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2008                                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                                                          
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                                                    
|Paritosh K. Choksi Director, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Associates 12, LLC (Managing Member)

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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22756]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 3, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 27, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 406 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-767, K2024-60.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22756 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JONATHAN LACUE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1300

[ April 17, 2019 ]

Appeal and cross

- appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Tim Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 96

- 023020 CF10B

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

In 1999, Jonathan Lacue was found guilty and convicted of first

- degree murder and robbery with a firearm. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the first

- degree murder conviction and 15 years’ imprisonment for the robbery conviction.

In 2012, Lacue moved for post

- conviction relief based on Miller v.

Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Because Lacue was 17 years old when he committed the crime, he argued that his life sentence violated the Eighth

Amendment. The circuit court denied t he motion, but on appeal, this

c ourt reversed and remanded. Lacue v. State , 183 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). On remand, Lacue was resentenced to life imprisonment.

Lacue raises five issues on appeal, and we affirm without comment with one exception.

Lacue argues

— and the s tate concedes

— that the trial court should have

incl uded language in the resentencing order providing for sentence review2 after 25 years as r equired by section 921.1402(2)(a ). We accept the concession and remand for the trial court to provide for sentence review.

See § 775.082(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2017) ( “The court shall make a written finding as to whether a person is eligible for a sentence review hearing

under s. 921.1402(2)(a) or (c). ”) ; Cook v. State , 225 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming the sentence but remanding for the trial court to enter the written finding required by the applicable provision of section 775.082, Florida Statutes).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

M AY
, C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00228-CV

ULLJA KUNTZE,

Appellant

v.

SANDRA COWAN,

Appellee

From the 335th District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26,129

ORDER

“Appellant Ullja Kuntze’s Motion to Reconsider the December 06, 2017 Order of 

this Court,” filed on December 14, 2017, is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed January 3, 2018
# C_2017078EN.01002602.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-686/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 078/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 2517/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350


(SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)








In connection with the Annual Report of, MIP Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 19, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeff Lamberson, President, Principal Accounting Officer and Director, and I, Gary McDonald, Chief Executive Officer and Director
of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.








Dated: August 19, 2009





By: /s/ Jeff Lamberson                                                                                                           /s/ Gary
MacDonald


Jeff Lamberson                                                                                                                  
Gary MacDonald


President, Principal Accounting Officer and Director                                                  Chief
Executive Officer and Director





1
## Re: New Docket Number John Mietus

Hello to all. I have completed the poll for this application, and there are no objections. I will file a copy of this email in the docket. Best regards, John

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:03 AM, "Angelia.Ames@dot.gov" <Angelia.Ames@dot.gov> wrote:

> Good Morning John, > > Thanks so much for your payments on pay.gov. Tracking number 810b6e22, Application of Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and Aerolitoral, S.A. de C.V., assigned docket number DOT-OST-2012-0131. Please remember to file your polling results in the docket. > > > Angelia Ames > U.S. DOT/OST/Docket Operations > (202) 366-5115 > > From: John Mietus [ mailto:john@mietuslaw.com ] > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:03 PM > To: Finamore, Robert (OST); Kruger, Brett (OST); Hedberg, Brian (OST); Ames, Angelia (OST) > Subject: New Aeromexico/Aerolitoral application > > Dear all, enclosed please find a joint Aeromexico/Aerolitoral application for Mexico City-Dallas/Ft. Worth authority filed in the shell docket, tracking number 810b6e22. Three pay.gov receipts (AM exemption, Aerolitoral exemption, Aerolitoral statement of authorization) are attached. I'll be polling. > > Best regards, John > > > _________________________ > John Mietus > Law Office of John Mietus, LLC > 6701 Democracy Blvd Ste 300 > Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 > (202) 747-5212 > (240) 396-5362 fax > john@mietuslaw.com< mailto:john@mietuslaw.com > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distribute or copy the information it contains; destroy this e-mail and notify the sender by reply e-mail or an e-mail to admin@mietuslaw.com< mailto:admin@mietuslaw.com >. Thanks. > > > Sent : T hursda y, Au g ust 02 , 2012 14:30 To : A ngelia.Ames@dot.gov Cc : Robert.Finamore@dot. g ov ; brett.kru g er@dot. g ov ; Brian.Hedber g @dot. g ov 

### Page 1 of 1 Re: New Docket Numbe r

8 /2 /201 2 htt p s://ch1 p rd0610.outlook.com/owa/?ae=It em&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAB3oWeo gvz qRI...
----

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Abba and Others v European Parliament

(Case F-15/06)

(2006/C 96/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Abba and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others v Commission (1).

----

(1)OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.

----