alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Strachan vs. Muxlow.

*Excerption to charge must be specific.*

Where the charge of the court contains a number of propositions of law, and a summary of the leading facts disclosed by the evidence, a general exception “to said charge, and particularly to that part of it Which is adverse ” to the appellant, presents no question for review on appeal.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *La Fayette*County.

*Henry &*Smith, for appellant.

*Orton & Osborn*and *M. M.*Cothren, for respondent.

Cole, J.

The only exception in this record is the one following the charge of the court, and is in these words: “ To *208which, said charge the plaintiff did then and there except, and particularly to that part of said charge which is adverse to the plaintiff.”

The charge of the court contains a number of propositions of law, as well as a brief summary of the leading facts disclosed by the evidence. To what particular part of the charge the plaintiff intended the exception to apply, it was impossible for the court to determine. Of course the court would give the jury the law applicable to the case as he understood it. And for a party to say to a charge which contains several propositions of law and statements of fact, that he excepts particularly to that part of the charge adverse to him, is simply to take a general exception to such charge. We have held, in numerous cases, that a general exception to an entire charge raised no question which this court could review, unless the whole charge was erroneous. *Milwaukee & Chicago R. R. Co. v.*Hunter, 11 Wis., 168; *Thrasher v. Tyack,*15 id., 257; *Tomlinson v. Wallace,*16 id., 225; *Jenks v. State,*17 id., 665; *Smith v. Coolbaugh,*21 id., 427; *Strohn v. The Detroit & Milwaukee R. R.,*23 id., 126; *Nicks v. The Town of Marshall,*24 id., 139. The exception must be sufficiently specific to call the attention of the court to that part of the charge complained of, in order that the court may have an opportunity tq modify and withdraw the objectionable instruction, if incorrect. It is obvious that a general exception can serve no such purpose, and for that reason it raises no question which this court will review.

The interesting questions of law, therefore, so fully discussed by the counsel for the plaintiff on the argument, are not before us for examination.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
# C_2015113EN.01000501.xml

| 8.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 April 2015

(2015/C 113/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0830 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,59 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4708 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3445 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0400 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6506 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,570 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,58 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0647 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4168 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8145 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4343 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3693 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3958 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4499 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4719 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 183,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,9950 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,7105 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6303 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 080,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9640 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 48,092 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 61,8285 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,187 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4307 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3666 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,3430 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0830

JPY

Japanese yen

129,59

DKK

Danish krone

7,4708

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73160

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3445

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0400

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6506

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,570

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,58

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0647

RON

Romanian leu

4,4168

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8145

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4343

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3693

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3958

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4499

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4719

KRW

South Korean won

1 183,31

ZAR

South African rand

12,9950

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,7105

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6303

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 080,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9640

PHP

Philippine peso

48,092

RUB

Russian rouble

61,8285

THB

Thai baht

35,187

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4307

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3666

INR

Indian rupee

67,3430

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2015106EN.01000101.xml

| 28.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.7529 — Mohawk Industries/International Flooring Systems)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 106/01)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 2 March 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Mohawk Industries and International Flooring Systems. On 24 March 2015, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certification of CEO/Treasurer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO of the Company, and Alyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer 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 our 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND, IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO/s/ ALYSON G. BEASLEYAlyson G. Beasley, Vice President & Treasurer


Date: August 23, 2010
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ASIA CORK INC. on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof, I, Yi Tong, Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.







February 11,
      2010By:
            /s/ Yi
TongYi Tong, CFO and
      Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF  JENNIFFER COLLINS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF IGI LABORATORIES, INC.  I, Jenniffer Collins, Chief Financial Officer of IGI Laboratories, Inc., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31, 2013 of IGI Laboratories, Inc.; and  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.   Date: August 9, 2013


| |     |                                                                        
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ | Jenniffer Collins                                                      
| |     | Jenniffer Collins
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
\ 

I 

'OP SE CRE pi9;n: A5944 9 

DhIJlFrnG SHEET FOR TlIE CHAIRMAN, JOINT C!UEE'S OF S'TAFF 

JOii'l'.l' CHIEFS OF STAFF MEE.TING, 1400, THURSDAY 

9 APRIL 1953 

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9· 

J.c.s. 2074/25 

SUDJECT : REPLACEMENr OF THE CCMBINED CIPHER MACHINE 

BACKGROUND: 

1. In reply to a request by the British Chiefs of Staff for a decision by · 1 January 1953 on the cryptoprinciple to be used in the replacement of the 

current Combined Cipher Machine (Enclosure to J.C.S. 2074/23), the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff stated that they could not concur in the British reconnnendation to adopt the BR\JrUS cryptoprinciple because that cryptoprinciple is no 

longer viewed witJ. favor. ·Instead, the Joint Chiefs of Staff preferred the 

ADONIS cryptoprinciple for reasons of greater cr;y'ptosecurity and for the 

logistical advantages it offers; and if. service tests of the AFSAM-7 incorporating the ADONIS cryptoprinciple are satisfactory, that machine will be 

adopted as a basic cryptographic system for U.S. joint communications •. A 

period of four months was given by which time service test results were 

expected. The Joint Chiefs of Staff would then inform the British Chiefs of 

Staff of their decision on the cryptoprinciple to be adopted. 

CURRENT REPORr : 

2. Basically, the AFSAM-7 is of sound design and workable. The manufacturer 

has only recently grasped the full importance of the production of this machine 

and is now whole-heartedly endeavoring to expedite the production of satisfactory equipments. The first production models of the AFSAM-7 exhibited some 

faults whicb must be corrected before useful service tests on production models 

can be conducted. 

3. In correcting the major production faults of the AFSAM-7, there have been 

delays which necessitate re-scheduling.the service test period. Consequently, 

final jud@llent based upon the outcome of these service tests must be deferred 

for an estimated two months. 

4. A memor8.ndum for.the British Chiefs ·or Staff (Enclosure to J.C.S. 2074/25) 

informs them of the two-month deferment on the .final decision, and also, in 

light of the considerable interest they have in using the AFSAM-7 for Combined 

connnunications as well as for use in the U.K. military Services, tells them of 

the major production difficulties and steps taken to correct them. 

5, Since the preparation of J.C.S. 2074/25, four production models of the 

AFSAM-7 received on 1 April 1953 were shipped to the London Cypher Policy Boa.rd 

on 3 April and nine models will be shipped by 10 April, all for U.K. service 

testing. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

6. It is recommended the J.C.S. 2074/25 be ap roved. 

us Army 

Briefing Sheet Prepared by Mr • James H. Douglas · Plans and Policy Div. 

Ext. 60421 

cc: Secy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, A'ITN: Mr. Kearney ( 5) 

NSA Pentnt1on Liaison Group (2) 

cc: AG 

c/s 

l!/P Declassified by NSNCSS 

. . te Director for Policy and RecOf'ds Deputy Assoc1a 

On 'AD/3¢ 70 gtry/~fih1 ;TQP SECRET •
Exhibit 99.1



     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications
Ltd. (the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I,
Eric Paneth, Chief Executive 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:

     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: June 23, 2003
By: /s/ Eric Paneth
Name:    Eric Paneth
Title:   Chief Executive Officer



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Orckit Communications Ltd. and will be retained by Orckit
Communications Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15777-15778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-54-000]


East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 17, 2015, East Texas Electric 
Cooperative, Inc. submitted an application of cost-based revenue 
requirements schedule for reactive power production capability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

[[Page 15778]]

``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bef8fbecfdf1d0d2d7d0dbedcbceced1cccafed8dbccdd90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 7, 2015.

     Dated: March 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06741 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus D i smiss ed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 2 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00780

- CV

IN RE VICTORIA I. OK O & UWAKWE C. OKO , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF INJUNCTION County Court at Law No

. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CCV

- 055306



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 15, 2015, relator s Victoria I. Oko and Uwakwe C. Oko filed a petition for writ of injunction in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this court to enjoin Constable Ruben Davis of Precinct 2 in Fort Bend County, from evicting relators from certain property pursuant to a writ of possession until this court2 considers the appeal from the judgment awarding possession of the property to real party in interest Junior Properties, LLC. 1

Junior Properties brought an eviction action against relators in Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 2 of Fort Bend County. The justice court awarded possession of the property to Junior Properties. Relator s appealed the justice court’s judgment to County Court at Law No. 1 in Fort Bend County. On August 13, 2015, the coun ty court at law granted Junior Properties’ motion for summary judgment and signed a final judgment awarding Junior Properties possession of the property. The judgment further stated a writ of possession would issue if relators did not vacate the premises by August 26, 2015. A writ of possession was issued on September 1, 2015. A notice to vacate was served on relators on September 3, 2015, ordering them to vacate by September 5, 2015.
The purpose of a writ of injunction is to enforce or protect the appel late court’s jurisdiction. In re Olson , 252 S.W.3d 747, 747 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding). The use of a writ of injunction is limited to cases in which we have actual jurisdiction of a pending proceeding. Id. The appellate

cou rt may grant injunctive relief if the failure to do so would result in the appeal becoming moot and the subject matter being destroyed. Becker v. Becker , 639 S.W.2d 23, 24 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ).

1 Although relators titled their petition “Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” we construe it as a petition for writ of injunction because they are requesting injunctive relief from this court.3 Relators state that they filed a n otice of appeal. However, there is no appeal pending in this court from the judgment in the underlying case. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction over this original proceeding.
Accordingly, we dismiss relators’ petition for writ of injunction for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan.
---

Exhibit 32.1





(a) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Executive Officer.





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 amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of GraphOn Corporation (the “Company”)  for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eldad Eilam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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




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




/s/ Eldad EilamEldad EilamChief Executive OfficerApril 11, 2013









(b) Certification of Annual Report by Interim Chief Financial Officer.





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 amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of GraphOn Corporation (the “Company”)  for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Dixon, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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




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




/s/ Robert L. DixonRobert L. DixonInterim Chief Financial OfficerApril 11, 2013
# C_2014240EN.01001201.xml

| 24.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7215 — AMEC/Foster Wheeler)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 240/04

On 17 July 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7215. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7215. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2015011EN.01000101.xml

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7369 — Santander/PSA/JVs)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 11/01)

On 3 December 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 the 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7369. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7369. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Charles Claude Carlton v

. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00700

- CR , 01

- 3

- 00701

- CR, and 01

- 13

- 00702

- CR

Trial court case nu mber: 868139 , 868140, and 873521

Trial court: 248th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: March 6, 2014

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp

Date: April 22, 2014