alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Knapp vs. Bartlett.

*Execution*— *Exemption.*

The articles exempted from sale on execution by subd. 7, § 31, cbap. 134, R. S., may be claimed by *any*judgment debtor, and not by “farmers” only. *Bemtt v. Ormdatt,*19 Wis. 581, explained.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *'Racvne*County.

Beplevin, for a horse valued at $175, and á sleigh valued at $75, which the defendant, as sheriff, seized under an execution against plaintiff’s property. It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff was a practicing physician; that he had no other horse or sleigh than those in question, and used these in his business. Defendant offered to show, on cross-examination of the plaintiff, that the latter had professional implements and a library worth over $200; but the offer was refused. The jury were instructed that the property was exempt. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff; and defendant appealed.

*C. W.*Bennett, with *Fuller*& *Dyer,*of counsel, for appellant,

contended that subd. 7, § 31, chap. 134, B. S., provides for the exemption of the utensils of a farmer only, while subd. 9 applies to mechanics, tradesmen^ and professional men; citing the language of the statute, and the decision in *Bemtt v. Cran-dall,*19 Wis. 581.

*Paine cb Millett, contra.*

DixoN, C. J.

The counsel for the defendant is mistaken in the application which he seeks to make of the case of *Bevitt*
      *69
      *v.*Crandall, 19 Wis. 581. It was not there held, nor intended to be, that the articles exempted by subdivision I, § 31, chap. 131, E. S., can only be claimed by farmers or persons exclusively engaged in agricultural pursuits. It is true that implements of husbandry are mentioned, but the language of the subdivision is general, that such and such property of the debtor shall be- exempted; and we cannot doubt that the legislature did not intend the exemption to be restricted to any particular class of persons. On the contrary, we think the intention was to make it general as to classes of persons who might enjoy the benefits of it. The articles there named are exempted absolutely, and to all persons alike. The suggestion in *Bevitt v.*Crandall, that persons cannot, by multiplying their employments,'claim the exemption for each, was made with reference to the provisions of subdivision 9, which are applicable to particular classes of persons only. A man cannot, by carrying on the business both of a mechanic and a miner at the same time, double his exemption under that subdivision. We have no doubt that the property in question in this action was exempt; and the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2014140EN.01000401.xml

| 9.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7199 — Nestlé/Galderma)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 140/03

On 5 May 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7199. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7199. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

EDWARD KAPUSCINSKI AND TG COOPER & CO. INC.,

Petitioners

v.

ROBERT M. CAVALIER, ESQUIRE, LUCAS AND CAVALIER, LLC, ARNOLD DRANOFF, ESQUIRE AND DRANOFF & PATRIZIO P.C.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 381 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of January, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Town of Plainfield, Appellant, vs. Village of Plainfield, Respondent.

*November 29*

*December 14, 1886.*

*Submission of controversy without action.*

Where a controversy is submitted without action under sec. 2788, E. S., an, affidavit that the controversy is real and the proceedings in good faith is essential to the jurisdiction; and without such affidavit the decision of the court is not a judgment and not appeal-able.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Wausha/ra*County.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *T. H. Wallcer*and *W. JST.*Kelley, attorneys, and *Q-. W. Gate,*counsel, and for the respondent on the brief of *B. L. D. Potter.*

Lyon, J.

The parties submitted certain questions affecting their pecuniary relations to each other, to the circuit court for its determination. This was done without action, pursuant to E. S. sec. 2788. This appeal is by the plaintiff from the decision by the circuit court of the question so submitted.

Sec. 2788 provides that, when such a submission is made, “it must appear by affidavit that the controversy is real, and the proceedings in good faith to determine the rights of the parties.” The required affidavit is essential to the jurisdiction of the court to render a valid judgment on the matters submitted. Without it, the decision of the court is not *526a judgment which can be enforced as a judgment in an action, or which may be appealed. At most, it is a mere award, as in a common-law arbitration.

This record contains no such affidavit, and it is conceded that none was made. Hence no appeal lies from the decision of the circuit court.

*By the*Gov/rt.— The appeal is dismissed.
TO: Tina Ndoh and Keith Barnett, EPA

FROM: ERG

DATE: April 1, 2015

SUBJECT Notes from meeting between EPA and J.R. Simplot ( Simplot ) about wetting management practice

Summary:

A phone meeting was held with Simplot to discuss their practice of wetting gypsum stacks

, which is described as a fluoride control technique in one of their Title V air permit s as “keeping phosphogypsum areas active (wetted)”.

Names of participants:

• Tina Ndoh

– EPA/OAQPS

• Burl Ackerman

– Simplot

• Eddie Baker

– Simplot

• Chelly Reesman

– Simplot

• Darin Howe

– Simplot

• Bob Score

– Simplot

• Kelly Brandt

– Simplot

• Kirk Adkins

– Simplot

• Brandon Long

– ERG

• Jason Renzaglia

– ERG

Discussion Points :

• Simplot asked that the EPA language for the ‘wetting’ practice be clarified to note the water source, and that ‘process water’ be listed as an acceptable source.

• Simplot clarified that this technique is used on gypsum that typically has a consistency of

mud and is located w ithin cells of a stack. This gypsum “mud” is not always covered completely by gypsum pond water so Simplot uses the control technique to prevent the

gypsum “mud” from drying out during warmer months

. They further clarified that this technique is not applied to the side slopes of the gypstacks.

• Simplot stated that they notice, in their ambient air monitoring results, that fluoride emissions increase after rain stops and the gypsum “mud” begins to dr y out; therefore, in order to prevent these areas of gypsum “mud” from drying out, they use a system of weirs to help

direc t gypsum pond water (not fresh water) to the se gypsum “mud” areas to keep them wet.

• Simplot stated that the research around this technique is minimal and there are discrepancies on whether or not the technique actual reduces or increases fugitive HF emissi ons. This was previously brought up in Simplot ’s comments which are included in the docket.

• Simplot said that, with the exception of their Rock Springs facility, they are not aware of any other facility that is using this control technique.

• Simplot stated that this technique h as nothing to do with “spraying” gypsum pond water on the side slopes or roadways of a gypsum dewatering stack ; although, this is sometimes done

at their Don Pocatello location to prevent dust emissions.

Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               1,168
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,107
<INVENTORY>                                          8,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18,021
<PP&E>                                              20,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                      10,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      33,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               24,672
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                96
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        33,528
<SALES>                                             15,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    15,941
<CGS>                                                8,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        8,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (2,480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (893)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.17)



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION

      In   connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report   of   Barrington   Foods
International, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the date
hereof  (the "Report"), I, Rendal Williams, Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my 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  the
            Company.

                                    /s/ Rendal Williams
Date:  August 19, 2002              -------------------------------------
                                    Rendal Williams
                                    CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER






                                        22
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-1384 

L.T. Case No. 2020-CF-006689-A

_____________________________

MELISSA JO SCHAFER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County,

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden,

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

August 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, HARRIS, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 22, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 22, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A1623. ORLANDO GATEWAY HOSPITALITY, LLC v. MHG ORLANDO 

GATEWAY HM, LP.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
/~EeRET/ 

...____~_J(}ft_I+_¥14_aae _ ___JJ /'/ .,, INCOMINGo- /' l 

/ROUTINE/ INFO ¢62 

FROM CI NCUSAFE 

' ' 27 MAR 55 ACTION ¢621 v1 _ 

C/S 

S/ASST 

TO DIRNSA 115 5 

MSG NR: 

t .-

EIAl-AE 7117 

///NOFORN/// 

~­

_NO\ ftELtA:!Ad- lu fOftEhJC tv.iiei~•\ .. & 

'The IOtormlltlOR oonl&ined Jn 

this document will oo\ lie dlaoloaeJ 

lei tor•llll nal1011al11 01. tll.ell ra11r•'> 

•lllltll.,VH · ///MOFC!'RN/// ///N0F9RN/// 

USAFE DAILY INTEL SUM MR 48. DAILY INTEL_SUM OF 22 MAR 55 

ERRONEOUSLY NUMBER NBR 4,o CORRECT TO READ NBR 47 ITEM 1. 

PERLI M INTERROGATION OF SOVIET YOUTH WHO DEFECTED TO WEST 

BELIN ON 18 MAR INDICATES HE IS ONLY SLIGHTLY KNOWLEDGEABLE 

ON SOVIET AIR MATTERS. THE BOY, VA LYSIKOV, IS SON OF 

SOVIET AF LT COL STATIONED AT SCHONEFELD AFLD, EAT GERMANY. 

A SOV TRANSPORT REGIMENT IS BASED AT SCHONEFELD WHICH IS 

FEW MILES SOUTMEAST OF BERLIN. LYSIKOV, WHOSE INTERROGATION IS BEING CONTINUED BY USAFE UNIT, IS BELIEVED TO BE 

THE flRST DEFECTOR ASSOCIATED WITH SOVIET AF IN EAST GERMANY 

SINCE A PO.LITICAL OFFICER FROM _TRANSPORT REGIMENT DEFECTED 

TO BRIT I SH .AUTHOR l.T I ES IN JULY 1953 -( SEeRET) (USA FE AND 

DCS/INDIA, USAFE) 

Copy (f CoplH . PARAPHRASE MOT REQUIRED AGI NO. gj659lf . Page /:ff 1 Pages - , CONSULT CRYPTOCEHTER BEFORE DECLASSIFYING DTG 241 ~~OZ ::::::;::1 r---___ S_E __ c-.R-E_'f ____ I 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-14-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
APPENDIX D
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11615

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-21031-PCH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

COREY LEMAR WRIGHT, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(November 10, 2016)

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11615 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Corey Lemar Wright appeals pro se the denial of his third motion to reduce 

his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Wright moved for a reduction based on 

Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court did not err by denying Wright’s motion. Wright pleaded 

guilty to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (a)(2), and the district court sentenced him to five years of 

imprisonment. Because Wright’s sentence was based on the statutory mandatory 

minimum, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b), not on the 

drug quantity tables, see id. § 2D1.1, he was ineligible for a reduction of his 

sentence under Amendment 782, see id. § 1B1.10 cmt n.1(A). The district court 

lacked authority to reduce Wright’s sentence.

We AFFIRM the denial of Wright’s motion to reduce.

Case: 16-11615 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,

      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HomeCom
Communications, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the period ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Timothy R. Robinson, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


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


                                               By: /s/ Timothy R. Robinson
                                               ---------------------------
                                               Name: Timothy R. Robinson
                                               Date: May 12, 2004


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HomeCom
Communications, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015039EN.01000201.xml

| 5.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 February 2015

(2015/C 39/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1446 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4440 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,75160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4281 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0602 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6305 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,770 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1607 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4080 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7796 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4722 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4253 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8753 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5486 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5396 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 243,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,0730 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1526 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,7110 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 468,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0824 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,458 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 75,5000 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,325 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0919 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8433 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,7736 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1446

JPY

Japanese yen

134,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4440

GBP

Pound sterling

0,75160

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4281

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0602

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6305

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,770

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1607

RON

Romanian leu

4,4080

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7796

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4722

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4253

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8753

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5486

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5396

KRW

South Korean won

1 243,24

ZAR

South African rand

13,0730

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1526

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,7110

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 468,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0824

PHP

Philippine peso

50,458

RUB

Russian rouble

75,5000

THB

Thai baht

37,325

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0919

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8433

INR

Indian rupee

70,7736

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015257EN.01000501.xml

| 6.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 August 2015

(2015/C 257/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0883 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4617 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69630 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4776 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0658 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9955 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,037 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1697 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4145 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0247 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4755 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4334 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4386 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6641 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5057 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 273,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,8983 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,7580 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 707,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2202 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,758 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,5840 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,346 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7721 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7295 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,3846 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0883

JPY

Japanese yen

135,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4617

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69630

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4776

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0658

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9955

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,037

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1697

RON

Romanian leu

4,4145

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0247

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4755

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4334

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4386

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6641

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5057

KRW

South Korean won

1 273,24

ZAR

South African rand

13,8983

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,7580

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 707,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2202

PHP

Philippine peso

49,758

RUB

Russian rouble

68,5840

THB

Thai baht

38,346

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7721

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7295

INR

Indian rupee

69,3846

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---