alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1176.

#### Glover *v.*The State.

Accusation, of unlawful sale of liquor, from city court of Nashville — Judge Peeples. May 4, 1908.

Submitted June 9,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*W. R. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

Russell, J.

1. The general prohibition law of 1907 (Acts of 1907, p. 81) repeals all existing laws allowing the sale .of intoxicating liquors in this State, the repeal taking effect from and after January 1, 1908. Consequently one who on January 7, 1908, may have sold intoxicating liquors can not be legally convicted under an accusation charging the statutory" offense of retailing without a license, in a county in which prior to January 1, 1908, whisky and other intoxicating liquors might legally have been sold upon obtaining a license. *Patton*v. *State,*80 *Ga.*714 (6 S. E. 273); *Parker*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*443 (55 S. E. 329). Such conviction or acquittal (inasmuch as the offense of retailing without license and that of selling in violation of the prohibition law are distinct) would not operate as a bar to a future prosecution for a violation of the general prohibition law.

2. While evidence obtained by illegal seizure and search of a defendant’s person which compels him to incriminate himself is inadmissible against him, this rule is applicable only to searches of a defendant’s *person*after an unlawful seizure thereof. The distinction between the search of one’s person, by which he is compelled to incriminate himself, and the search of one’s property or premises, whereby incriminating testimony against a defendant is obtained by another, is pointed out in *Hughes*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*29 (58 S. E. 390).

3. Evidence of guilt, which a defendant, either directly or indirectly, is compelled to disclose, by an illegal seizure and search of his person under an unlawful arrest, is not admissible against him, but if his premises or belongings are searched by another, although without a vestige of authority, the evidence thus disclosed may be used against him. The criterion is, who furnished or produced the evidence? *Duren v. Thomasville,*125 *Ga.*1 (53 S. E. 814) ; *Dozier*v. *State,*107 *Ga.*710 (33 S. E. 418). *Judgment reversed.*
# C_2009090EN.01000801.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/8

---

Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by ecoblue AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-281/07: ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-23/09 P)

2009/C 90/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: ecoblue AG (represented by: C. Osterrieth, T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 November 2008 in the Case T-281/07; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 November 2008 in the Case T-281/07;

| — | to annul the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 April 2007 (Case R 0844/2006-1) regarding the community trade mark application with the application No. 002871598 ‘Ecoblue’ |
| --- | --- |

—

to annul the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 April 2007 (Case R 0844/2006-1) regarding the community trade mark application with the application No. 002871598 ‘Ecoblue’

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance misapplied art. 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation since the conflicting trademarks do not display the minimum degree of similarity required in order to establish a likelihood of confusion.

It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in finding that the distinctiveness of the earlier trademark, which formed the basis of the opposition, constitutes an essential requirement of the likelihood of confusion. The CFI failed to consider that aspect of the dispute and merely compared the two opposing trademarks from a visual, phonetic and conceptual perspective, as if the earlier trademark was a mark which enjoyed an average degree of distinctiveness.

It is also submitted that the CFI did not correctly apply the rule that consumers normally attach more importance to the first part of words. Since both word elements, ‘Eco’ and ‘blue’, are equally descriptive, the consumer automatically puts more emphasis on the first word, ‘Eco’, thereby recognising the distinctiveness of both trademarks.

It is further submitted that the CFI erred in law in failing to treat the conceptual difference between the opposing marks as being of primary importance.

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

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        41


        <NAME>      Fidelity Global Bond Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

dec-31-1995


<PERIOD-END>

dec-31-1995


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

194,101


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

192,502


<RECEIVABLES>

5,162


<ASSETS-OTHER>

1


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

197,665


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

0


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

803


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

803


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

294,002


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

19,812


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

38,741


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

1,052


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(94,844)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(1,244)


<NET-ASSETS>

196,862


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

0


<INTEREST-INCOME>

18,697


<OTHER-INCOME>

(47)


<EXPENSES-NET>

2,939


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

15,711


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

(4,219)


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

1,927


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

13,419


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

13,320


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

1,563


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

15,810


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

36,076


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

1,337


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(185,941)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

0


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

(84,462)


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

8,618


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

1,786


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

1


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

2,939


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

254,016


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

9.880


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .746


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(.109)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .516


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

0


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

 .060


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

9.940


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

116


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
# C_2010134EN.01000802.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV v Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

(Case C-218/09) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Article 5(3) - Conditions for granting - Exception - Force majeure - Products which perished in transit)

2010/C 134/13

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

Applicants:

Defendants: Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau, Firme Derwa NV, Centraal Beheer Achmea NV, SGS Belgium NV, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) — Conditions for granting export refunds — Exception — Product which has perished in transit for reasons of force majeure.

force majeure

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 of 19 June 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that damage to a consignment of beef in the conditions described by the national court does not constitute force majeure within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.09.2009.

1

---
Gezo EDWARDS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7161.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Edwin CASEROS, petitioner, v. David DAVEY, Warden.

No. 15-9427.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
NAUTIC MANAGEMENT VI, LP, et al. v. CORNERSTONE HEALTHCARE GROUP HOLDING, INC.

No. 16-522 (R46-004).

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 29, 2016.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.2 of the Rules of this Court.
II-00329

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maureen Kroll <magickroll@comcast.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:48 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Maureen Kroll

9 chester ave

fairfax, CA 94930
Steven Paul WILSON, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-5874.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
DeAndra STEPHENSON, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 15-9547.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from the balance sheet as
of May 31, 1997, and statement of operations for the year ended May 31, 1997,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029294
<NAME> ICON FITNESS CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,953
<INVENTORY>                                    121,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               366,028
<PP&E>                                          79,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 474,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,561
<BONDS>                                        489,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (160,157)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   474,804
<SALES>                                        836,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               836,162
<CGS>                                          583,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               217,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (35,720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,210)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,510)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Larry Mitchell SMOOT, petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 17-7189.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
H. Res. 237 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 12, 2009. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be and is 

hereby elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

(1) COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—Ms. Woolsey (to rank immediately after Mr. Gene Green of 

Texas). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
BODY BY COOK, INC., et al., petitioners, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, et al.

No. 17-892.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II-00880

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gene Cooper <genecooper@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:23 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Gene Cooper

5105 Banyan Road

FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28304
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                              (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Conversion Services International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), Scott Newman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), that:

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

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


/s/ Scott Newman
-----------------------------
Scott Newman
Chief Executive Officer
April 20, 2006
WENFO SONG, petitioner, v. Barack H. OBAMA, President of the United States.

No. 16-6202.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
cbim_ex102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.2
  
 Contract for Sale of Goods
  
 This Contract for Sale of Goods is made this 18 day of October, 2017 by and between Dong Guan Kagen Electrical and Mechnical Equipment Co., ltd, Dong Guan City, Guang Dong province of China. (“Seller”) and CASTLE BRIDGE IMPACT MEDIA INC, 3 Banyatelep, Visegrad 2025 Hungary (“Buyer”), for the purchase of the goods made by Seller. 
  
 1. Term. This Contract shall begin on October 18th, 2017, and end by October 30th, 2018, unless the parties agree otherwise. 
  
 2. Delivery. Buyer will give Seller 90 days’ advance notice regarding the quantity requested for delivery. Upon receipt of the request for delivery, Seller will arrange for delivery through a carrier chosen by Seller, the costs of which shall be F.O.B. 
  
 3. Appointment. Buyer hereby appoints Supplier, and Supplier accepts such appointment, to act as a non-exclusive supplier of the Products to buyer.
  
 4. Prices. The prices paid by buyer to seller for Products shall initially be as set forth in agreement between seller and buyer. Buyer shall have the right to purchase products at item prices. Prices are exclusive of all taxes, insurance, and shipping and handling charges, which are buyer’s sole responsibility.
  
 5. Acceptance. Buyer will have the right to inspect the goods upon receipt, Buyer must give notice to Seller of any claim for damages on account of condition, quality, or grade of the goods, and Buyer must specify the basis of the claim in detail. Failure of Buyer to comply with these conditions will constitute irrevocable acceptance of the goods by Buyer. All notices between the parties must be in writing and delivered by courier or by certified mail, return receipt requested. 
  
 6. Confidentiality. Each of the parties hereto agrees to hold confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets obtained from the other, and designated as such in writing by the disclosing party, in confidence and not to use or disclose such confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets to third parties without the consent of the other party, except that each of parties may disclose such information to their respective employees and agents who need to know such information for the purposes of operating their respective businesses. The parties agree that the provisions contained in this paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
  
 7. Warranty. Seller warrants that the goods sold hereunder are new and free from substantive defects in workmanship and materials. Seller's liability under the foregoing warranty is limited to replacement of goods or repair of defects or refund of the purchase price at Seller's sole option. No other warranty, express or implied, is made by Seller, and none shall be imputed or presumed. 
  
 8. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of China. Any disputes hereunder will be heard in the appropriate federal and state courts located in China.
  
 Buyer 
 /s/ Mester Frigyes 
  
 Seller
 /s/ ZRZNE
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

MiKayla Poteet, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00071

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F1522117 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered b y Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, MiKayla Poteet, has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 19, 201 9 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1734/2004

of 6 October 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 October 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 6 October 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----