alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1192.

#### PUGHSLEY *v.*THE STATE.

This case is controlled by *Brown*v. *State,*104 *Ga.*525 (30 S. E. 837) ; *Glover*v. *Slate,*ante, 455 (61 S. E. 862), and *Mason*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*534 (58 S. E. 139).

Accusation of unlawful sale of liquor, from city court of Swainsboro — Judge Mitchell. April 20, 1908.

Argued June 9,

Decided July 8, 1908.

*Saffold & Larsen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Henry R. Daniel, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The defendant was charged, under §431 of the Penal Code, with selling liquor without a license in Emanuel county. The sale took place in Swainsboro on December 31, 1907. In 1876 an act was passed fixing a license fee for sales of spirituous liquors in that county at $1,000. In 1877 (Acts 1877, p. 189) an act was passed making it unlawful to sell intoxicating liquors within three miles of the Masonic Academy in Swainsboro in that county. In 1882 (Acts 1882, p. 601) the local license act of 1876 was amended so as to include other intoxicating liquors within its provisions. In 1887 (Acts 1887, p. 849) this license act was again amended, so as to increase the fee to $10,000. In 1900 (Acts 1900, p. 345) the city council of Swainsboro were given certain powers relating to intoxicating liquors. In *Mason*v. *State,*1 *Ga. App.*534 (58 S. E. 139), we held (with much doubt, we confess) that this last-cited act effected no repeal of any portion of the act of 1877 prohibiting altogether the sales of intoxicating liquors within three miles of the Masonic Academy in Swainsboro. The act of 1877 withdrew from the operation of the local license law of 1876 all the territory within three miles of the Masonic Academy. The. subsequent amendments to the license law ex *495pressed no intention of extending its territorial operation or of repealing the act of 1877. The case therefore falls within the decisions of the Supreme Court in *Brown*v. *State,*104 *Ga. 525*(30 S. E. 837), *Bailey*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*79 (39 S. E. 918), *Collins*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*70 (39 S. E. 916), and *Patton*v. *State,*80 *Ga.*714 (6 S. E. 273), and of this court in *Glover*v. *State,*ante, 455 (61 S. E. 862), holding that one can not be properly indicted and convicted for selling without a license in territory in which the sale is wholly prohibited. *Judgment reversed.*
Exhibit 23
                                                                ----------
                       Consent of Independent Accountants

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  registration
statements of Commonwealth Industries,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File
No's. 333-19383, 33-91364 and 33-90292) of our report dated February 6, 1998, on
our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements  and financial  statement
schedule of Commonwealth  Industries,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and for the years ended Decemebr 31, 1997,  1996 and 1995,  which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                                      COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Louisville, Kentucky
March 21, 1998
# C_2012032EN.01002202.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL)

(Case T-504/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VÖLKL - Earlier international word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal in part of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Competence of the Board of Appeal in the case of an appeal limited to part of the goods or services covered by the application for registration - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for variation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 32/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marker Völkl International GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Marker Völkl International GmbH and Völkl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Völkl GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Völkl GmbH & Co. KG;

| 4. | Orders Marker Völkl International GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Marker Völkl International GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

DONALD W. ANDREWS, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2013-5113

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 12-CV-0856, Chief Judge Emily C. Hewitt. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Donald W. Andrews, Jr. moves for sanctions against 

the United States. The United States opposes. Andrews 

also submits a supplemental brief, which the court construes as his reply brief. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 13-5113 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2013
ANDREWS v. US 2

(1) The motion for sanctions is denied.

(2) Andrews’ “supplemental” brief is accepted for filling as his reply brief.

(3) All other pending motions are denied. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s26

Case: 13-5113 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2013
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15982]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision To Classify Certain Elements of the SILEX 
Process as Privately Generated Restricted Data

AGENCY: Office of Nuclear and National Security Information, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Secretary of Energy's decision to 
classify as Restricted Data certain privately generated information 
concerning an innovative isotope separation process for enriching 
uranium. Under 10 CFR 1045.21(c), the Secretary of Energy is required 
to inform the public whenever the authority to classify privately 
generated information as Restricted Data is exercised.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An Australian company, Silex Systems, 
Limited, has been developing the Separation of Isotopes by Laser 
Excitation (SILEX) process to enrich uranium since 1992. In 1996, USEC, 
Inc., purchased the rights from Silex Systems, Limited, to evaluate and 
further develop this process. The privately generated information which 
the Secretary of Energy has classified as Restricted Data under the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, pertains to certain elements of 
the SILEX process.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 19, 2001.
Joseph S. Mahaley,
Acting Director, Office of Security and Emergency Operations.
[FR Doc. 01-15982 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Gary J. WYMER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6203.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

137064 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr.

_____________ ____________________________ Stephen J. Markman, J ustices In re SKYLER LERO Y MCBRIDE, ALEXANDER GARAND MCBRIDE, and SAWYER DALE MCBRIDE, Minors.

_____________ ____________________________ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 137064 COA: 282243 Bay CC Family Division: 06-009381-NA SUSAN MCBRIDE, Respondent-Appellant, and

RONALD D. MCBRIDE, JR., Respondent.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 15, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0822 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 26, 2008

Clerk
II-00505

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Peter Trachtenberg <ptrachtenberg@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:13 PM

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.

Peter Trachtenberg

18 Broadway

Tivoli, NY 12583
# C_2009090EN.01001502.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2009 — Lucio Rubano v Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri

(Case C-60/09)

2009/C 90/23

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lucio Rubano

Applicant:

Defendants: Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union that there is a single pharmacy in municipalities with a population of fewer than 4 000 inhabitants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union that there is a single pharmacy in municipalities with a population of fewer than 4 000 inhabitants?

| 2. | Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of a second pharmacy in municipalities with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as (i) in order to be taken into account, the population in excess of that number must represent at least 50 per cent of the number triggering the pharmacy requirement, (ii) the new pharmacy must be at least 3 000 metres away from the existing pharmacy and (iii) there must be special needs on the part of the pharmacy service, related to the local terrain and road conditions, to be assessed both by the health units (local health offices) and by the local association of pharmacists or, in any event, by the authorities competent for matters concerning the organisation and supervision of the pharmacy service? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with Articles 152 and 153 of the Treaty on European Union to make the establishment of a second pharmacy in municipalities with a population of over 4 000 inhabitants subject to conditions such as (i) in order to be taken into account, the population in excess of that number must represent at least 50 per cent of the number triggering the pharmacy requirement, (ii) the new pharmacy must be at least 3 000 metres away from the existing pharmacy and (iii) there must be special needs on the part of the pharmacy service, related to the local terrain and road conditions, to be assessed both by the health units (local health offices) and by the local association of pharmacists or, in any event, by the authorities competent for matters concerning the organisation and supervision of the pharmacy service?

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avatech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, 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) 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 for the periods reflected therein.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Date: February 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh            
|                        |  | Donald R. Walsh                
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer        
|                        | 
|                        |  | /s/ Catherine Dodson           
|                        |  | Catherine Dodson               
|                        |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer
Bruno MANCARI, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 16-1392.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2009205EN.01002802.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Brussels lodged on 3 July 2009 — Fluxys SA v Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

(Case C-241/09)

2009/C 205/48

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel, Brussels

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fluxys SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Do Articles 1, 2 and 18 of Directive 2003/55/EC (1) and Article 3 of Regulation No 1775/2005/EC (2) preclude national legislation establishing a separate tariff regime for the transit activity, which derogates from the rules governing transportation, by creating a distinction, within the transportation activity, between ‘transmission’ and ‘transit’?

1

2

---

(1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 4.50


 


Supplement Agreement


 


In respect of the related
agreement arrangement of AirMedia Online Network Technology Co., Ltd.


 


This Agreement is entered by the following
parties on March 15, 2016 in Beijing.


 


Party A: AirMedia
Technology (Beijing), Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Guo Man


Xu Qing


Hong Tao


 


Party C: AirMedia
Online Network Technology Co., Ltd.


 


Whereas:


 


(1) Party A, Party B, Party C has respectively
entered into the Equity Pledge Agreement (the “Original Equity Pledge Agreement”) on June 5th, 2015;


 


(2) Party A, Party B and Party C have entered
into the Exclusive Call Option Agreement (the “Original Call Option Agreement”) on June 5th, 2015;


 


(3) Party A, Party B has respectively entered
into the Loan Agreement (the “Original Loan Agreement”) in 2015;


 


(4) The equity holding structure of Party
C changed in 2016, and the shareholding percentage of Party B in Party C after the change is as follows: 77.2% equity is held by
Guo Man, 14.5% equity is held by Xu Qing, 4.8% equity is held by Hong Tao.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, all Parties, through
friendly negotiations, hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	All parties agree that, for so long as party B continues to hold equity interest in party C, the
relevant provisions in the Original Equity Pledge Agreement, the Original Call Option Agreement and the Original Loan Agreement
applicable to the parties hereto shall be deemed to be continuously effective, provided that the equity which are pledged and granted
with exclusive call option by party B to party A under the Original Equity Pledge Agreement, the Original Call Option Agreement
and the Original Loan Agreement shall be varied respectively to provide: Guo Man holds 77.2% equity in party C, Xu Qing holds 14.5%
equity in party C, Hong Tao holds 4.8% equity in party C.



 






    	 	- 1 -	 



     


    




 


		2.	Party B and party C shall, upon request by party A, enter into new equity pledge agreement and
call option agreement with party A in order to reflect the actual shareholding percentage of party B, and Party B and party C shall
cooperate with party A to handle the industry and commence procedures required for the registration of the equity pledge.



 


(No
text below)


 




    	 	- 2 -	 



     


    

 


[Signature Page]


 


Party A: AirMedia Technology (Beijing),
Co., Ltd.


 


/s/ AirMedia Technology (Beijing), Co.,
Ltd


 


Party B:


 


	Guo Man	/s/ Guo Man	 
	 
	Xu Qing	/s/ Xu Qing	 
	 
	Hong Tao	/s/ Hong Tao	 


 


Party C: AirMedia Online Network Technology
Co., Ltd.


 


/s/ AirMedia Online Network Technology
Co., Ltd.


 




    	 	- 3 -
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Max Reed, II 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

,71MFAMINSIMMEWEINEBE N - Tmviat DA
Donald STURGIS, petitioner, v. CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN, OAKLAND COUNTY.

No. 17-7128.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of February 2001. 

*Name:*                         National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps.                    

*Date and Time:*                         February 1, 2001; 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.; February 2, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; February 3, 2001; 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; February 4, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.                     

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: (301) 468-1100.                    

The meeting is open to the public. 

*Agenda:*                         The Council will focus its agenda on strategic and operational plans for the current fiscal year.                     

For further information, call Ms. Eve Morrow, Division of National Health Service Corps, at (301) 594-4144. 

Agenda items and times are subject to change as priorities dictate. 

Dated: January 12, 2001.

Jane M. Harrison, 

Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 01-1610 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-15-P