alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
950.

#### Farkas *v.*Brown.

Russell, J.

1. In a case where there is direct conflict in the evidence as to the only material issue involved, it is not error to instruct the jury that a witness may be impeached by disproving the facts testified to by him. And though, in strict propriety, the court’s instructions upon the subject of impeachment should be limited to the method appropriate to the evidence adduced, still, in such a case, the mere enumeration, in the charge, of the other modes of impeachment provided by law does not require a new trial, where no reason appears why the complaining party could have been injured thereby. Especially is a new trial not demanded for the mere statement of the several modes of impeachment, when the instructions upon the subject of the credi'bility of the witnesses generally, and of the right of the jury to determine for themselves in whose favor is the preponderance of the evidence, are clear, pertinent, legal, and impartial.

2. The assignments of error complaining that the contentions of the defendant were given undue force and prominence are not sustained by the record. The contentions of the plaintiff were as fully and fairly presented as those of the defendant. The mention by the judge (in connection with his rehearsal of the plaintiff’s positive statement of his contention) of one of the reasons assigned by the plaintiff for knowing that he was correct, in his main statement, was not violative of §4334 of the Civil Code, as against the plaintiff; nor could it have tended to withdraw from the jury the positive statement of the plaintiff that he knew that the defendant had not made the payments which *131he claimed to have made. The reason only added corroborative force to the statement of the witness.

Affidavit of illegality, from city court of Sylvester — Judge Park. December 7, 1907.

Argued February 18,

Decided March 30, 1908.

*Mark Tison, J. H. Tipton,*for plaintiff.

*Claude Payton,*for defendant.

*3. A*trial judge should refer to the evidence only so far as is necessary to present the leading issues, and should omit reference to the minor details of the testimony. But where the error is favorable to the plaintiff in error, and when such error can affect injuriously only the opposite party, such plaintiff in error will not be heard to complain thereof. “One can not complain of that which has not hurt.”

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error ih refusing a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2009082EN.01002901.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/29

---

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Park v OHIM — Bae (PINE TREE)

(Case T-28/09)

(2009/C 82/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mo-Hwa Park (Hillscheid, Germany) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chong-Yun Bae (Berlin, Germany)

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

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1882/2007-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1882/2007-4; and

| — | order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation has been sought: the figurative mark ‘PINE TREE’ for goods in Class 28 (Community trade mark No 318 857)

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Chong-Yun Bae

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of revocation: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of revocation:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of revocation of the Community trade mark concerned

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the application for a declaration of revocation of the trade mark concerned

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: inadmissibility of the appeal and absence of use of the Community trade mark concerned capable of maintaining in force the right to use it, in accordance with Article 15 and the first sentence of Article 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Kevin SNODGRASS, Jr., petitioner, v. S.L. MESSER, et al.

No. 17-635.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II-00935

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Roxanne Martin <rloveisthekey2@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:54 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.

Roxanne Martin

18751 RUNNYMEDE ST.

RESEDA, CA 91335
10


EXHIBIT 10.1

Tiburon International Trading Corp.

Xinkaicun, group 5, Weizigouzhen, Jiutai

Changchun, Jilin province, China 130519

Tel: +852 8170 3801




Written description of the loan agreement 




Loan Agreement Between:




Yun Cai and Tiburon International Trading Corp.







Terms of the Loan Agreement:




1.

As of April 30, 2018, Mr. Cai has loaned $5,353 to the Company, and may provide additional Loans to Tiburon International Trading Corp. from time to time to allow the Company to pay for future expenses, offering costs, filing fees and professional fees.




2.

The Loans are non-interest bearing, have no due date and payable to Mr. Cai upon demand.




3.

Mr. Cai does not have any obligation to provide Loans to Tiburon International Trading Corp. and may do so only if he wishes.
# C_2010234EN.01003701.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/37

---

Order of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — PAGO International v OHIM — Tirol Milch (Pago)

(Case T-349/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 234/66

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PAGO International GmbH (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: C. Hauer and C. Schumacher, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Tirol Milch reg. Gen. mbH Innsbruck (Innsbruck, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2009 (Case R 864/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Tirol Milch reg. Gen. mbH Innsbruck and PAGPO International GmbH

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
# C_2010346EN.01006001.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/60

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — Birkhoff v Commission

(Case F-60/09) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Child prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood - Application for extension of payment of the allowance - Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Maximum income of the child as a condition for extending the payment of the allowance - Costs deductible from that income)

2010/C 346/119

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for an extension of the payment of the dependent child allowance under Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Birkhoff to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Birkhoff to pay the costs in their entirety.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 50.

1

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

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	51

	<NAME>	Fidelity International Growth & Income Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
oct-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
871,837
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
1,102,382
<RECEIVABLES>
27,632
<ASSETS-OTHER>
2,326
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
1,132,340
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
35,618
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
16,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
52,285
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
756,385
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
41,515
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
41,405
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
12,563
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
80,743
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
230,364
<NET-ASSETS>
1,080,055
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
14,319
<INTEREST-INCOME>
1,673
<OTHER-INCOME>
21
<EXPENSES-NET>
9,836
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
6,177
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
93,532
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
185,706
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
285,415
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
3,607
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
25,247
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
51,496
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
52,786
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
1,401
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
262,291
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
7,031
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
59,664
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
6,581
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
2
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
10,158
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
898,197
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
19.750
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .150
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
6.840
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
 .090
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
 .630
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
26.020
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
113





</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34136-34137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-100548-01]
RIN 1545-AY72

Withdrawal of Proposed Regulations Relating to Corporations 
Filing Consolidated Returns and Proposed Regulations Relating to 
Collapsible Corporations

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Withdrawal of notices of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws two notices of proposed rulemaking, 
one relating to corporations filing consolidated income tax returns and 
the other relating to collapsible corporations. The proposed 
regulations were published before the enactment of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986, do not reflect changes to the tax law made after their 
publication, and will not be finalized unless reproposed.

DATES: These proposed regulations are withdrawn June 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles M. Whedbee (202) 622-7550 (not 
a toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 31, 1984, the IRS issued proposed regulations (LR-97-79) 
relating to corporations filing consolidated returns (49 FR 30528). 
Portions of these proposed consolidated return regulations were 
withdrawn by subsequent notices of proposed rulemaking (CO-78-90 and 
REG-103805-99) published in the Federal Register on February 4, 1991 
(56 FR 4228) and September 26, 2000 (65 FR 57755).
    On August 31, 1984, the IRS issued proposed regulations (LR-107-84) 
relating to collapsible corporations (49 FR 34523).
    The IRS is withdrawing these proposed regulations because of 
intervening amendments to the Internal Revenue Code and because these 
regulations projects will not be undertaken in the foreseeable future 
(or if undertaken, the regulations will be reproposed).

Drafting Information

    The principal author of this withdrawal notice is Charles M. 
Whedbee of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). 
However,

[[Page 34137]]

other personnel from the IRS and Treasury participated in its 
development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement.

Withdrawal of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notices of 
proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on July 31, 1984 
(49 FR 30528) and August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34523) are withdrawn.

Robert E. Wenzel,
Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 01-16021 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
II-01169

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

sandra d miller <sdmille3 @travelers.corn>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 9:05 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

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 (PIN 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.

sandra d miller

3911 west wellesley ave

spokane, WA 99205
NORTH CAROLINA, et al., applicants, v. Sandra Little COVINGTON, et al.

No. 16A646.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 10, 2017.

Application for stay of the order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, case No. 1:15-CV-399, entered on November 29, 2016, presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted, pending the timely filing of a statement as to jurisdiction. Should such statement be timely filed, this order shall remain in effect pending this Court's action on the appeal. If the judgment should be affirmed, or the appeal dismissed, this stay shall expire automatically. In the event jurisdiction is noted or postponed, this order will remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications of Periodic Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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 Rand Worldwide, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 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: May 16, 2011 |  | /s/ Marc L. Dulude                          
|                   |  | Marc L. Dulude                              
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer                     
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                        
|                   |  | Lawrence Rychlak                            
|                   |  | President and Chief Financial Officer       
|                   |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2011347EN.01003201.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/32

---

Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 — Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission

(Case T-128/09) (1)

1

(State aid - Action for annulment - Applicants’ failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 347/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Meridiana SpA (Olbia, Italy) and Meridiana fly SpA, formerly Eurofly SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, lawyers) and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Fiumicino, Italy) (represented by G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 (State Aid No 510/2008 — Italy — Sale of assets of Alitalia)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Meridiana SpA and Meridiana fly SpA shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Meridiana SpA and Meridiana fly SpA shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA.

| 3. | The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
# C_2011282EN.01001803.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/18

---

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — van Arum v Parliament

(Case T-454/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Staff Cases - Officials - Reports - Staff report - Reporting exercise for 2005 - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 282/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. F. de Wachter, K. Zejdová et R. Ignătescu, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07 van Arum v Parliament ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

van Arum

Parliament

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Rinse van Arum is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Rinse van Arum is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

1

---
Exhibit
32.1
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 
 The
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the
      “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (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.
 
 
 Dated:
      March 30, 2005
    /s/
      B. Amrey Harden
      
      B. Amrey Harden
      Chief
      Executive Officer