alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
rXxJLw7rim 11. TEan 

November 14, 1962 

Mr. W. W. Kllgore Opinion No. W-1473 

County Attorney 

Victoria, Texas Re: Whether or not the plea 

of nolo contendere is 

available In Justice 

Dear Mr. Kilgore: Court. 

You have requested an opinion as to whether or not a plea 

of nolo contendere Is available In Justice Court. 

The procedures governing practice in Justice Courts are 

found in Title 11, Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 879- 

920. The provisions contained therein applicable to this 

opinion are as follows: 

Article 898: 

"After the jury is lmpaneled, the defendant 

may plead guilty or not guilty OF the special plea 

named In the succeeding article. 

Article 899: 

"The only special plea allowed Is that of 

former acquittal or conviction for the same offense." 

Article 900: 

"All pleading in justice court Is oral. The 

justice shall note upon his docket the plea offered." 

Article 902: 

"The justice shall enter a pl$a of not guilty 

if the defendant refuses to plead. 

There is, therefore, no provision contained In Title 11 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizing a plea of nolo 

contendere in Justice Court. 

It Is observed that the legislature, by Senate Bill 199, 

Acts 1959, 56th Legislature, p. 257, ch. 149, has recently 

amended Articles 501, 502, 505, 517, 518 and 519 ofthe Code 

of Criminal Procedure to provide for a plea of nolo contendere 

In some Instances; It Is clear by the act that it only amends 

those articles enumerated, and applies only to practice in the 

District and County Court. 
Mr. W. W. Kilgore, Page 2 ,(w-l473) 

The legislature has specifically set out rules governing 

the practice loJustice Court, and only those pleas specified 

by Articles 898 and 899, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, are 

available in the Justice of the Peace Court. 

SUMMARY 

"The plea of nolo contendere is not available 

in a Justice of the Peace Court!' 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

ms 

Assistant Attorney General 

PP:cjs 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Charles R. Lind 

Cecil Rostch 

Ernest Fortenberry 

RFVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Leonard Passmore
Arthur L. BELTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4372

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Arthur L. Belton, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Roberts, Ray, and Jay, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LISA GOODMAN and MARC R. GOODMAN, individually and as natural parents and guardians of N.G., a minor

, Appellant s ,

v.

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., and NINGBO LITESUN ELECTRIC CO., LTD

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D18

- 3002

[ May 16, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Howard K. Coates , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502016CA010435

.

John H. Pelzer and Neal W. Hirschfeld of Greenspoon Marder LLP, Fort Lauderdale, f or appellants.

Alan P. Mirelman and Martin T. Buckley of Ringer, Henry, Buckley & Seacord, PA, for appellee Home Depot

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Chart17

Chart 172015 Average Airframe Hours for Active Aircraft by Aircraft Type

Aircraft Type

Average Airframe Hours

# 6.1

Page 6 - &P
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 James River Coal Company (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samuel M. Hopkins,
      II, Chief Accounting 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 result of operations of the
                registrant.






August
      8,
      2007




/s/    
                Samuel M. Hopkins, IISamuel
                M. Hopkins, IITitle: 
                Chief Accounting Officer
REGAR-DIO-1 (02/12) 

DECLARATION 

of 

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS 

The undersigned owner of aircraft N____________, Manufacturer __________________ 

Model ___________________________ Serial Number __________________________ 

declares that this aircraft is scheduled to make an international flight* on ____________ , 

(date)

as flight Number ____________ departing _____________________________________ 

(City/State)

with a destination of _____________________________________________________ . 

(City/Country) 

*[If required route between two points in the United States involves international navigation, explain under 

Comments below, e.g. “partly over Canada” or “partly in international airspace”.] 

Expedited registration in support of this international flight is requested this 

____________ day of _______________________ 20_____ with knowledge that: 

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the 

Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully makes or uses any 

false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, 

fictitious or fraudulent statement of representation shall be fined under Title 18 

United States Code or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. 

§1001(a).

Name of Owner 

Signature

Typed Name and Title of Signer 

Phone: _______________________ Fax: ____________________________________ 

Comments:
Santos HERRERA-MONTIEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - massachusetts(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(2)
              - 2023(2)
              - 2022(2)

staff profileJacob E Poletti, M.S.

staff profileRoger Borcherdt

MOUs        June 3, 2005        MOU between the USGS and Clean Beaches Council

staff profileAdrian M Bender

staff profileMichelle Guy

staff profileMichael Pribil

staff profileClaudia Flores
# C_2022294EN.01002202.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Pokój (Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA)

(Case T-355/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Pokój TRADYCJA JAKOŚĆ KRÓWKA SŁODKIE CHWILE Z DZIECIŃSTWA TRADYCYJNA RECEPTURA - Earlier international figurative mark KOPOBKA KOROVKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 294/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 April 2020 (Case R 1974/2019-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---
E.W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4524

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - (-)other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - (-)colorado(1)

## By Year

General        August 1, 2023        22-23. Geoelectromagnetic hazard science for modern society
# C_2022128EN.01000201.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet v Dustin Sverige AB

(Case C-461/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 72 - Modification of contracts during their term - Transfer of a framework agreement - New contractor assuming on the insolvency of the initial contractor the rights and obligations attributed to the latter under a framework agreement - Whether need for a new procurement procedure)

(2022/C 128/02)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Advania Sverige AB, Kammarkollegiet

Defendant: Dustin Sverige AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 72(1)(d)(ii) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which, following the insolvency of the initial contractor which led to its liquidation, has taken over only the rights and obligations of the initial contractor arising from a framework agreement concluded with a contracting authority must be regarded as having succeeded in part to that initial contractor, following corporate restructuring, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - (-)alaska(1)
              - california(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(1)
              - 2022(6)

staff profileAdrian M Bender
# C_2020423EN.01002601.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2020 — S v Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-411/20)

(2020/C 423/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S

Defendant: Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Question referred

Must Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a national of another Member State, who establishes a permanent residence or habitual residence in the Member State concerned and does not prove that he has national income from agriculture and forestry, business, employment or self-employment, has no entitlement to family benefits within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in conjunction with Article 1(z) thereof, for the first three months of establishing a permanent residence or habitual residence, whilst a national of the Member State concerned, who is in the same situation, does have an entitlement to family benefits within the meaning of Article 3(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in conjunction with Article 1(z) thereof, without proving national income from agriculture and forestry, business, employment or self-employment?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_maps(6)
              - products_publications(9)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - (-)other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - (-)new mexico(1)
              - rhode island(1)

## By Year

General        July 30, 2020        New Mexico Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory
Andre L. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and Grand Island Oaks Homeowners' Association, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-7

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

Latasha Scott, of Lord Scott, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellant.

Shannon T. Sinai, of Albertelli Law, Tampa, for Appellee, U.S. Bank National Association.

No Appearance for Other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Andre Phillips appeals the final judgment of foreclosure entered by the trial court in favor of U.S. Bank National Association. We affirm the final judgment in all respects except for the award of attorney's fees which was not supported by competent, substantial evidence. *See* *Peuguero v. Bank of Am., N.A.*, 169 So.3d 1198, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ; *Diwakar v. Montecito Palm Beach Condo. Ass'n*, 143 So.3d 958, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney's fees without remand. *See* *Michel v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon*, 191 So.3d 981, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

BERGER, GROSSHANS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Abraham SIMMONS, Jr., DOC #109310, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2527

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 403 

Recognizing the 10th anniversary of the USA Rice-Ducks Unlimited Rice 

Stewardship Partnership. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 4, 2023 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. PADILLA) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 10th anniversary of the USA Rice-Ducks 

Unlimited Rice Stewardship Partnership. 

Whereas the USA Rice-Ducks Unlimited Rice Stewardship 

Partnership (referred to in this preamble as the ‘‘Rice 

Stewardship Partnership’’) is celebrating its 10th anniversary in 2023; 

Whereas the Rice Stewardship Partnership is a unique collaboration between an agricultural commodity group and 

a conservation organization that has led to historic outcomes for both United States rice farmers and migratory 

shorebirds and waterfowl, namely ducks; 

Whereas, since its inception, the Rice Stewardship Partnership has beneficially impacted more than 800,000 acres 

of rice and rice rotation lands on more than 1,000 farms, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 403 ATS 

primarily through the Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program of the Department of Agriculture; 

Whereas additional conservation funding has been provided to 

United States rice farmers to conduct on-the-ground conservation efforts, contributing exponentially to the environment; and 

Whereas the work of Ducks Unlimited and USA Rice, along 

with tremendous support from more than 100 partners 

and the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the 

Department of Agriculture, has made the Rice Stewardship Partnership possible: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate recognizes— 

2 (1) the contributions of Ducks Unlimited and 

3 USA Rice to environmental stewardship for rice 

4 farmers, conservationists, and duck hunters alike; 

5 and 

6 (2) the 10th anniversary of the USA Rice7 Ducks Unlimited Rice Stewardship Partnership. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 30 Filed 02/28/02 Page 1 of 1 PageID 135
# C_2020215EN.01002001.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 March 2020 — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WH

(Case C-123/20)

(2020/C 215/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendants: Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WH

Questions referred

| 1. | Can unregistered Community designs in individual parts of a product arise as a result of disclosure of an overall image of a product in accordance with Article 11(1) and the first sentence of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can unregistered Community designs in individual parts of a product arise as a result of disclosure of an overall image of a product in accordance with Article 11(1) and the first sentence of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  What legal criterion is to be applied for the purpose of assessing individual character in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 when determining the overall impression of a component part which — as in the case of a part of a vehicle’s bodywork, for example — is to be incorporated into a complex product? In particular, can the criterion be whether the appearance of the component part, as viewed by an informed user, is not completely lost in the appearance of the complex product, but rather displays a certain autonomy and consistency of form such that it is possible to identify an aesthetic overall impression which is independent of the overall form? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

What legal criterion is to be applied for the purpose of assessing individual character in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 when determining the overall impression of a component part which — as in the case of a part of a vehicle’s bodywork, for example — is to be incorporated into a complex product? In particular, can the criterion be whether the appearance of the component part, as viewed by an informed user, is not completely lost in the appearance of the complex product, but rather displays a certain autonomy and consistency of form such that it is possible to identify an aesthetic overall impression which is independent of the overall form?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

---