alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 28 91

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dewayne Vese y ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Mi dwe st Jan it or ia l Se rv ic es , Inc

. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 25 , 20 16 Fi le d: Octo be r 28 , 20 16 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, andGRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Dewayne Ves ey ap pe a l s t h e d i st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s pr o se Tit le VII 1 co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t hi s fo rm er em pl oyer. The di s t r i c t c o u rt ba se d th e di sm is sa l on
The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa .Ves ey ’s fai lu re to br in g hi s act io n wit hi n 90 da y s aft er rece iv in g a rig ht -to -s ue le tt er.

On ap pe al , Vese y

su gg es ts th ateq ui ta bl e to ll in g s ho ul d h av e ap pl ie d. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we c o n c l u de th at th e di sm is sa l was pr op er, an d th at eq ui ta bl e to ll in g was no t warra nt ed

. Se e 42 U

. S

. C

. § 20 00 e-5 (f)(1 ) (9 0- da y req ui rem en t); Rich te r v. Adv an ce Aut o Par ts , In c. , 68 6 F.3 d 84 7, 85 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in Tit le VII act io n, i f ag en cy di sm is se s ch arg e an d no ti fie s co m pl ai na nt of rig ht to su e, th en co m

pl ai n a n t ha s 90 da y s to br in g ci vi l act io n in fed eral co ur t); se e al so Bal dw in Cty . W

el co me Ct r. v. Bro wn , 46 6 U.S. 1 47 , 14 8 & n.1 (19 84 ) (p er cu ria m ) (cl ai m an t was pr es um ed to ha ve rece iv ed no ti ce 3 da y s aft er it s is su an ce); Hal lg re n v. U.S. Dep ’t of Ene rg

y , 3 31 F.3 d 58 8, 59 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (d is cu ss i n g g r o un ds fo r eq ui ta bl e to ll in g)

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Jerry MCAFFEE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Secretary/Julie L. Jones, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Respondents.

No. 1D17-4490

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 16, 2018

Jerry McAffee, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee; Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

*1201The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Rowe, Osterhaus, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
# C_2021490EN.01001002.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság — Hungary) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on LU

(Case C-136/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Enforcement of financial penalties - Principle of mutual recognition - Article 5(1) - Offences giving rise to the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions without verification of the double criminality of the act - Article 5(3) - Offences in respect of which the Member State has the option of making the recognition and enforcement of penalty decisions subject to the double criminality of the act - Verification by the executing Member State of the legal characterisation given to the offence by the issuing Member State in the certificate accompanying the penalty decision)

(2021/C 490/08)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: LU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the authority of the executing State, apart from where one of the grounds for non-recognition or non-execution expressly provided for in that framework decision apply, may not, in principle, refuse to recognise and execute a decision imposing a final financial penalty where the authority of the issuing State has classified the offence in question, in the certificate provided for in Article 4 of that framework decision, as falling within one of the categories of offences in respect of which Article 5(1) of that framework decision does not provide for verification of the double criminality of the act.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
Exhibit 12

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I,
Frode Larsen, certify that:

|                                     |  |                       
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|/s/FRODE LARSEN                      |  |                       
|                                     |  | Date:    June 28, 2004
|Frode Larsen
Chief Executive Officer |  |                       

---



Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I,
Vasant Mistry, certify that:

|                                      |  |                       
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|/s/VASANT MISTRY                      |  |                       
|                                      |  | Date:    June 28, 2004
|Vasant Mistry
Chief Financial Officer |  |                       

---



QuickLinks
Henry WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4631

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2610-012]
 On December 30, 2022, Northern States Power Company filed a relicense application for the 1.5-megawatt Saxon Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2610. The project is located on the Montreal River in Gogebic County, Michigan and Iron County, Wisconsin. In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 10, 2024, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.[1] The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or 
                    *OPP@ferc.gov.* The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateCommission issues EA
December 23, 2025.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Nicholas Ettema by telephone at (312) 596-4447 or by email at 
                    *nicholas.ettema@ferc.gov.* Dated: December 23, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations, the unique identification number for documents relating to this environmental review is EAXX-019-20-000-1734709041. 40 CFR 1501.5(c)(4) (2024). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2024-31433 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2021072EN.01001701.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2020 — Industriegewerkschaft Metall (IG Metall) and ver.di — Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

(Case C-677/20)

(2021/C 72/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants, appellants and appellants on a point of law: Industriegewerkschaft Metall (IG Metall), ver.di — Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft

Parties involved: SAP SE, SE-Betriebsrat der SAP SE, Konzernbetriebsrat der SAP SE, Deutscher Bankangestellten-Verband e. V., Christliche Gewerkschaft Metall (CGM), Verband angestellter Akademiker und leitender Angestellter der chemischen Industrie e. V.

Question referred

Is Paragraph 21(6) of the Gesetz über die Beteiligung der Arbeitnehmer in einer Europäischen Gesellschaft (German Law on involvement of employees in a European company), which determines that, in the case where an SE [Societas Europaea; European Company] with its registered office in Germany is established by means of transformation, a separate selection procedure for persons nominated by trade unions for a certain number of supervisory board members representing the employees must be guaranteed, compatible with Article 4(4) of Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (1)?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 294, p. 22.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In
connection with the amended Quarterly Report ofInternational Luxury Products, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”), I, David Lazar, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as applicable, 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: September 9, 2020 | By: | /s/ David Lazar                                                                                       
|------------------------ | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     | David Lazar                                                                                           
|                         |     | Chief Executive Officer                                                                               
|                         |     | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer and
        Principal Accounting Officer)
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 1 of 10 PageID 66
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 2 of 10 PageID 67
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 3 of 10 PageID 68
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 4 of 10 PageID 69
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 5 of 10 PageID 70
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 6 of 10 PageID 71
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 7 of 10 PageID 72
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 8 of 10 PageID 73
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 9 of 10 PageID 74
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 10 Filed 04/22/03 Page 10 of 10 PageID 75
Sylvio PARENT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019

Sylvio Parent, pro se, Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED .

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
1923.

#### Daniel Sons & Palmer Company *v.*Dickey.

Complaint, from city court of Milieu — Judge Jones. April 15, 1909.

Submitted July 15, —

Decided July 31, 1909.

*Thomas S. Hill, William Woodrum,*for plaintiff.

*Dixon & Larsen,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

The plaintiff had an account against one Burke. The defendant, desiring to make a certain trade with Burke, asked the plaintiff to credit Burke’s account with $27 and to charge that amount to him. The plaintiff accordingly credited Burke’s account with $27, released him from further liability to that extent, and charged the amount to the defendant. In the action which was brought to recover the $27 from the defendant, he set up the statute of frauds. *Held,*that the contract was an original undertaking, and not within the purview of the statute of frauds; and that it was not a nudum pactum, as the detriment suffered by the plaintiff in releasing Burke was a sufficient consideration. *Ferst*v. *Bank of Waycross,*111 *Ga.*229 (36 S. E. 773); *Pylant*v. Webb, 2 *Ga. App.*171 (58 S. E. 329); *Evans*v. *Griffin,*1 *Ga. App.*327 (57 S. E. 921); *Beard*v. *Hammock,*3 *Ga. App.*118 (59 S. E. 335).

*Judgment reversed.*
EX PARTE George BONNER

CR-16-0560

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
## 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

## By Year

Education        April 22, 2004        Introduction to Geologic Mapping

Technical Announcement        April 12, 2016        USGS Continues to Write History

Education        October 26, 2018        Principal Aquifers
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 Infusion Brands International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Action of 2002, that to the best of her 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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: August 20, 2012 | By: | /s/ Mary B. Mather                                         
|---------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Mary B. Mather                                             
|                       |     | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
|                       |     | Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 27, 2019 p0320

Order 

Clerk

March 27, 2019

158333

158335

TOMRA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158333

COA: 336871

Court of Claims: 16-000118-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

TOMRA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158335

COA: 337663

Court of Claims: 14-000091-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the July 17, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are GRANTED. The time 

allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this 

matter may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Motions for 

permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae regarding these cases 

should be filed in Tomra of North America, Inc v Department of Treasury (Docket No. 

158333) only.
1843.

#### American Insurance Company *v.*Bailey & Musgrove.

Powell, J.

1. It is not proper to assign error upon the overruling of a demurrer to a petition, as a ground of a motion for a new trial.

2. Where one of the parties to an action is notified by his opponent to produce documents to be used in evidence, and’ the notice requires the production at a designated term, but at that term the case is continued* a response to the notice may be required at the subsequent term.

3. Motions to continue on the ground of surprise, on account of amendments filed, are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. There was no abuse of discretion in the present ease. *Ga., Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co.*v. *Sasser,*4 *Ga. App.*276 (61 S. E. 505).

*425Action on insurance policy, from city court of Miller county— TV. I. Geer, judge pro hac vice. March 11, 1909.

Argued June 28,

Decided July 6, 1909.

*P. D. Rich, Burton Smith, Lawton Nalley,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Pottle, B. W. Grow,*contra.

4. Grounds of a motion for a new trial, complaining of the court’s refusal to exclude testimony, are properly overruled, if the objection is to the testimony in bulk, and any part of it is admissible.

5. Attorney’s fees may be recovered in an action on an insurance policy if the company’s refusal to pay was in bad faith. *Missouri Ins. Co.*v. *Lovelace,*1 *Ga. App.*466 (58 S. E. 93) ; *Harp*v. *Fireman’s Ins. Co.,*130 *Ga.*726 (61 S. E. 704).

6. Error can not be successfully assigned upon the court’s, failure to submit to the jury instructions as to defenses not made by the pleadings; and the same is true as to defenses which, though pleaded, are so wholly unsupported by the testimony as to demand a finding against them. The court fully and fairly submitted to the jury all defenses made by the pleadings and supported by any testimony.

7. There was no error in charging the jury, in an action on an insurance policy, as follows: “Damages and attorney’s fees can not be recovered, unless you find, from the evidence, that the insurance company has acted in bad faith. ‘Bad faith’ means a frivolous or unfounded refusal in law or in fact to comply with the requisites of the policy, to pay according to the terms of the policy and the conditions imposed by the statutes.” *Cotton States Life Ins. Co.*v. *Edwards,*74 *Ga.*221; *Missouri Ins. Co.*v. *Lovelace,*supra; *Trader’s Ins. Co.*v. *Mann,*118 *Ga.*381, 385 (45 S. E. 426).

8. The evidence amply supported the verdict, and the trial was free- from material error. *Judgment affirmed.*
Jacinte L. PERIARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1655

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 13, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**CONFESSION OF ERROR**

Per Curiam.

*973Appellant, Jacinte Periard, appeals the revocation of her probation and subsequent sentencing. Appellant contends the trial court erred: (1) because proof of her violations was based entirely on hearsay; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove willfulness; and (3) the trial court lacked case jurisdiction to proceed with a violation hearing. The State confesses error on all three issues and does not oppose reversal of the order revoking probation and the sentence imposed thereafter. After reviewing the record, we agree that the trial court erred as to all three issues. We reverse the order revoking probation and the sentence imposed thereafter, and remand the case for the trial court to vacate those orders and to dismiss the violation proceeding.

*Reversed and remanded with instructions.*

Conner, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.