alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered January 22 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01081 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01082 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01083 - CR RICHARD BALDERAS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial Distric t Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11 - 41658 - P , F11 - 41659 - P, F11 - 41660 - P



### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appro priate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court c annot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDE RED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE 
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-K FOR SUCH PERIOD
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              MAR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              59
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      119
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3
<INVENTORY>                                         82
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   281
<PP&E>                                             302
<DEPRECIATION>                                     170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              115
<BONDS>                                             85
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       534
<SALES>                                            527
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   527
<CGS>                                              347
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     70
<INCOME-TAX>                                        26
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 44
<DISCONTINUED>                                       1
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        45
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
Exhibit
13.2





Credicorp
Ltd.


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


(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)





Pursuant
to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
follows:





1.           I
am the Chief Financial Officer of Credicorp Ltd. (the “Company”).





2.           To
my knowledge:





(A)        The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009
accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:
June 17, 2010





By:
                /s/ ALVARO CORREAName:  Alvaro
      CorreaTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Paul Gothard,Chief Financial Officer of Medicsight, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2004 and 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|                     | By:    | /s/ PAUL  GOTHARD         |   |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|                |   | Paul Gothard              |
|                |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |
| March 30, 2005 |   |                      |

 

E-11

----
# C_2014303EN.01002801.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marc Hußock, Ute Hußock, Michelle Hußock, Florian Hußock v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-316/14)

2014/C 303/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Hußock, Ute Hußock, Michelle Hußock, Florian Hußock

Applicants:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? (1)

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cotton Ginning Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Cotton Ginning Research People & Locations







Anthony V Deerman

(Tony)
                        Cotton Ginning Research

                        




                        
                        Machinist
                        Phone: (662) 686-3108
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Order 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. OP 22-0515

INGE RUDBACH,

Petitioner,

v.

TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT, RAVALLI COUNTY, 

HONORABLE JENNIFER B. LINT, 

Presiding,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon Travis and Jodie Spencer’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 

to File Response Brief, and with good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Spencers shall have up to and including 

November 21, 2022, by which they may file their Response to Inge Rudbach’s 

Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control. 

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED AS INDICATED BELOW

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2022

10/19/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0515
Transcripts Are Not Imaged

See Original Document in

Files Department
#### WARD et al., Appellants, v. KENNEDY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Martin J. Ward and another against John W. Kennedy and another. D. C. Meyers, for appellants. A. C. Eustace, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment and order (51 Misc. Rep. 422, 101 N. Y. Supp. 524) affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
# Official Journal C 172/6 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 172 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 576 June 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 172

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 576 June 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 172/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 172/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2) | 19 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 172/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2014/C 172/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2)

19

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2014/C 172/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (1) | 21 |
| 2014/C 172/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 56 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2014/C 172/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (1)

21

2014/C 172/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

56

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DUPAGE HOUSING AUTHORITY, an Illinois
municipal corporation, and FOREST PRESERV
DISTRICT OF DUPAGE COUNTY,

Plaintiffs,

ve
No. 03 C 2621
VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, an Illinois munic
corporation, Judge Zagel

Defendant.

MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON COUNTS IV AND V

NOW COMES Defendant, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK (“the Village”), an Illinois municipal
corporation, by and through its attorneys, DeAno & Scarry, LLC, and for its Motion to Enter Judgment on
Counts IV and V in favor of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, states as follows:

1. On August 4, 2008, the Court commenced trial on Counts I, II, 'V and V of Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint.

2. Counts IV and V were submitted to the jury for its determination while Counts I and II were
to be ruled on by the Court.

3. On August 15, 2008, the jury found in favor of the Village on Counts IV and V and the
Court indicated that it would enter judgment on Counts IV and V at a later date.

4. The Village respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Village on

Counts IV and V.


WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Defendant, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, prays that this
Court enter Judgment on Counts IV and V in favor of the VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK and for such

further relief as the Court deems proper.

By:__s/ Howard P. Levine

Howard P. Levine

DeANO & SCARRY

2100 Manchester Road, Suite A-101
Wheaton, Illinois 60187

(630) 690-2800

Attorney No. 06180161

$:\Case Files\1 1602.DuPage Housing Authority\pldgs\] 1602.Enter Judgment.2008.08.22.doc
Case: 1:03-cv-01088 Document #: 11 Filed: 12/30/03 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:31

Case: 1:03-cv-01088 Document #: 11 Filed: 12/30/03 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:32

Case: 1:03-cv-01088 Document #: 11 Filed: 12/30/03 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:33

Case: 1:03-cv-01088 Document #: 11 Filed: 12/30/03 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:34
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alberto Boero, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.), rendered March 26, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By not making an objection at trial, the defendant failed to preserve for appeal the issue of the admissibility of testimony *815by one of the prosecution’s witnesses that the defendant had failed to indicate on his Customs declaration form that he was bringing emeralds into the country *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Boylan,*98 AD2d 779). Nor does the admission of this testimony warrant a reversal of the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice. The prejudicial effect of this testimony was insignificant, especially when considered in light of the further testimony by the witness that there was no Customs duty or tax on emeralds.

While the prosecutor’s statement that he believed the evidence against the defendant to be "overwhelming” may have technically been improper, it did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. No prejudice could have been caused by this statement, given the prosecutor’s emphatic admonition to the jury that they were only to consider the evidence and that nothing he said was evidence. This admonition was effectively repeated by the defense counsel and the court. Therefore, the prosecutor’s statement is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 401).

The defendant did not preserve for appellate review the issue of the correctness of the court’s charge since he made no objection to it at trial *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rios,*100 AD2d 521). Moreover, the court’s charge was, in any event, fair and evenhanded. Thus, the interest of justice does not mandate a reversal on that ground either.

Finally, the mere fact that the defendant’s counsel did not request a pretrial suppression hearing, which would, in any case, have had little chance of being successful, did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Morris,*100 AD2d 630, *affd*64 NY2d 803). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
F OR P UB L I CAT I ON U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS FO R TH E N I N TH C I R C U I T J O S E P H C R I S T O P H E R Y O U N G , a ka J o s e ph C hr i s t o phe r Y o ung , P eti t i on er , v. E R IC H . H O L D E R Jr. , A tt orn ey G e n e r al , R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 70949 A ge nc yN o. A 035- 029- 889 O R D ER

KOZ I NS KI , C hi ef

Judg e: U po n the vo t e of am aj ori ty of non re cuse d act i ve j ud ges, i ti s order ed that thi s c as e be r eheard en banc pu rs uantt o C i rc ui tRul e 35-3. T he three -j ud ge panel o p in io ns h a ll n o t b e c ite da s p r e c e d e n t b yo rto an yc o u rt o f th e N in th C ir c u it. Judg e B ybee di d n otpart i cipat e i n the del iberat i on s or vot e i n thi s c as e. 

# FI LED JU L 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Dinardo, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 352]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ralph A. Fabrizio, J.), rendered July 19, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. The misdemeanor complaint, which in this case was required to meet the standards that apply to an information, sufficiently alleged constructive possession of drugs. Giving the complaint *“a*fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” *(People v Casey,*95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find “as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” *(People v Davis,*13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]) that it alleged that defendant was in a hotel room where the arresting officer found drugs on a night table and in a dresser drawer. This supports an inference that that defendant was in constructive possession of the drugs *(see People v Reisman,*29 NY2d 278, 285-286 [1971], *cert denied*405 US 1041 [1972]; *People v Hyde,*302 AD2d 101, 105 [2003], *lv denied*99 NY2d 655 [2003]), even without any allegation concerning defendant’s relationship to the hotel room. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Case: 1:03-cv-05044 Document #: 290 Filed: 11/01/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2632
Case: 1:03-cv-05044 Document #: 290 Filed: 11/01/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2633
#### Richards *et al. v.*Johnson.

Per Curiam.

1. There was no error in sustaining the demurrer to paragraphs iive and six of the amendment to the petition.

2. There was no error requiring a reversal in overruling the exceptions of law to the auditor’s report or in declining to approve the exceptions of fact.

*(a)*While the auditor admitted some irrelevant evidence over objection, some of it was entirely immaterial, and none of it was of such materiality as to require a reversal of the judgment overruling the exceptions of law.

3. There was no error in construing the contract involved in this litigation as one of purchase and sale. The provisions in regard to selling oil the property in parcels and paying the proceeds to the vendor until he *214should have been fully paid, and the other terms contained in the agreement, while modifying some of the usual incidents of the ordinary ex-ecutory contract of bargain and sale, did not destroy the fact that in its entirety the contract under consideration was one of purchase and sale.

February 20, 1915.

Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. November 15, 1913.

*Anderson & Rountree*and *R. W. Crenshaw,*for plaintiffs.

*Smith, Hammond & Smith,*for defendant.

4. Under the facts contained in the record, there was no abuse of discretion in awarding the costs, including the fee of the auditor, against the plaintiffs in error.

5. There was no error in entering judgment on the bond given by the plaintiffs in error for the purpose of obtaining the appointment of a receiver.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*