alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1061.

#### Richter *v.*The State.

Accusation of selling mortgaged, property, from city court of Moultrie — Judge McKenzie. February *27,*1908.

Submitted March 31,

Decided April 22, 1908.

*T. W. Mattox,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. F. Way, solicitor, J. A. Wilkes,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. Where the testimony of an absent witness would not be admissible or material, it is manifestly not an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance because of his absence.

2. An accusation charging the fraudulent sale of mortgaged property, is sufficient which alleges, that A executed a mortgage to B, covering, with other property, “one black horse mule about ten years old named Doe,” and that A, without the consent of B and with intent to defraud B, did dispose of the said mule, to the loss and damage of B in the sum of $160. It is not necessary to allege in the accusation, more specifically, “how or in what manner” A disposed of the mule, or to whom he sold it, or “how or in what way” a loss of $160 was sustained by B.

3. Where the accused was charged with disposing of a mule which he had mortgaged, with intent to defraud the mortgagee, a statement in a letter proved to have been written by him after his arrest, that he had “traded the mule,” was pertinent to the issue, and the letter was properly admitted in evidence.

4. Where the prosecutor testified that he had been “injured in the sum of $160 by the fraudulent sale of one black horse mule about ten years old,” value was sufficiently proved.

5. No error of law appears, and the verdict is amply supported by the evidence. p *Judgment affirmed.*
ENDREW F., a Minor, By and Through His Parents and Next Friends, JOSEPH F. and Jennifer F., petitioners, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1.

No. 15-827.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 28, 2016.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Michael BUTLER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6804.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ELELAKE JAMES JEFFERSON, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 131 MAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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 Telynx, Inc. a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Beth Ochoa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, 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 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 Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Telynx, Inc., and will be retained by Telynx, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Beth N. Ochoa
--------------------------
Beth Ochoa
Chief Financial Officer
August 29, 2006
Juan ESQUIVEL-QUINTANA, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-54.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 28, 2016.

*369Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      501
<ALLOWANCES>                                       256
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   292
<PP&E>                                             109
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,684
<SALES>                                            760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   760
<CGS>                                              244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,064
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (62)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (170)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,780)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.09)
        


</TABLE>
CHEMTECH ROYALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P., By DOW EUROPE, S.A., as Tax Matters Partner, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-347.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXPRESSIONS HAIR DESIGN, et al., petitioners, v. Eric T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of New York, et al.

No. 15-1391.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 28, 2016.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
# C_2010209EN.01001001.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier

(Case C-237/09) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(A)(1)(d) - Exemptions for activities in the public interest - Supply of human organs, blood and milk - Activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories - Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ - Distinguishing criteria)

2010/C 209/13

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian State

Applicant:

Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 13(A)(1)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions for activities in the public interest — Supply of human organs, blood and milk — Possibility of treating the activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories as a supply.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(A)(1)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, exempting ‘supplies of human organs, blood and milk’ from value added tax, must be interpreted as not applying to the activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        131


        <NAME>      Fidelity Latin America Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

465,983


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

665,389


<RECEIVABLES>

8,321


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

673,710


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

1,650


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

3,816


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

5,466


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

566,578


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

38,697


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

52,116


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

4,715


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(102,748)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

199,699


<NET-ASSETS>

668,244


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

11,339


<INTEREST-INCOME>

852


<OTHER-INCOME>

(910)


<EXPENSES-NET>

5,020


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

6,261


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

18,770


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

59,359


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

84,390


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

10,041


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

4,655


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

18,652


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

578


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(140,298)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

8,496


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

(121,521)


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

2,824


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

5,051


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

760,526


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

15.510


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .140


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

1.810


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .200


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

0


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

17.270


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

136


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
# C_2011080EN.01001702.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/17

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 28 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-525/09) (1)

1

2011/C 80/33

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.

1

---
Document Headings

                    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

          - [Docket No. EL01-89-000]

Take notice that on June 14, 2001, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (MSCG), tendered for filing a complaint pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act against the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) concerning the ongoing problem of phantom congestion. Given the ongoing harm that MSCG faces and the immediacy of the peak summer months, MSCG requests interim relief.

Copies of the filing were served upon CAISO and other interested parties.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before July 5, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before July 5, 2001. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15693 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-25701 and 333-60611) on Form S-8 and registration statement (No. 333-70045)
on Form S-3 of Digital Generation Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 15,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Digital Generations
Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
the years then ended, and the related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Digital Generation Systems, Inc.


                                    KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 29, 2001
Valerie MASON, petitioner, v. TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC., et al.

No. 16-5665.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
ex103.htm












PROMISSORY NOTE







USD $4,696,10                                                                                              Date:  April 29, 2016












TO:  Adam Elmquist







The undersigned, APP Incline Corporation  (the “Borrower”), HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to the order of Adam Elmquist no later than October 29, 2016 (the “Payment Date”), Four Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Six United States Dollars  and Ten Cents (USD $4,696.10) (the “Loan Amount”).  The Loan Amount shall accrue interest monthly at a rate of Ten (10%) percent per annum.  Interest shall be due and payable on the Payment Date.







If suit is brought on this Note, or if it is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, after any default in payment, the Borrower promises and agrees to pay all costs of collection, including lawyers’ fees, incurred thereby.







For value received, the Borrower waives presentment, demand, protest and notice of demand, protest and nonpayment and consents to any and all renewals and extensions of the time of payment hereof, binds himself to obligations under this Note as principals and not as sureties, and further agrees that at any time the terms of payment hereof may be modified or security released without affecting the liability of any part of this Note or any person liable or to become liable with respect to any indebtedness evidenced hereby.












                           

/s/Adam Elmquist


By:Adam Elmquist


APP Incline Corporation
Bryan HOCKENSMITH, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6539.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
# C_2011204EN.01000901.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-453/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses)

2011/C 204/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Beaupère-Manokha, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
David FERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. Lydia ROMERO, Warden.

No. 15-9844.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2013114EN.01000501.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA v European Commission

Case C-460/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Finding of irregularities in the refunds for beef and veal exported to Jordan - OLAF investigation - Communication of OLAF’s findings to the national authorities - Provision of guarantees - Claim for the reimbursement of the related costs - Causal link - Cross-appeal - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run)

2013/C 114/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone and C. D’Andria, avvocati)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and P. Rossi, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of 4 September 2009 in Case T-174/06 Inalca and Cremonini v Commission by which the by which the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Sixth Chamber) dismissed an action seeking to establish non-contractual liability by which compensation was sought for the damage purportedly suffered by the appellants following the communication to the Italian authorities of findings which cast doubts upon the appellants in the context of an investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) with a view to determining the lawfulness of a number of export refunds relating to beef and veal exported to Jordan.

Inalca and Cremonini

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDENDUM
                         Mind2Market - C. Ronald Powell


      THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), amends the employment agreement dated August
20, 2000 between Mind2Market (M2M) a Colorado corporation (the "Company")and C.
Ronald Powell ("Executive"), as follows.

      WHEREAS, the Company has not yet been adequately funded and the Executive
has not been able to work full-time, it is agreed to amend the compensation as
defined in Section 3a to be paid at a rate of Two Thousand dollars ($2,000.00)
per month effective with the date of the agreement. For this compensation the
Executive is only obligated to work part-time as needed.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be duly
executed by its executive officer duly authorized, and Executive has executed
this Agreement, all effective as of the date of the initial contract agreement
first above written.

Address:                                      MIND2MARKET, INC.

                                              By:     __________________________
___________________________                   Name:   __________________________
___________________________                   Title:  __________________________
                                              Date:   __________________________


Address:                                      EXECUTIVE
---------------------------
---------------------------                           --------------------------
                                              Date:   __________________________