alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 590.10 Authority.

The Administrator shall perform, for and under the supervision of the Secretary, such duties as the Secretary may require in the enforcement or administration of the provisions of the Act, and this part. The Administrator may waive for a limited period any particular provisions of the regulations to permit experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, and processing techniques may be tested to facilitate definite improvements and at the same time to maintain full compliance with the spirit and intent of the regulations. The Food Safety and Inspection Service and its officers and employees will not be liable in damages through acts of commission or omission in the administration of this part.

[42 FR 2971, Jan. 14, 1977. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 85 FR 68674, Oct. 29, 2020]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 61 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 61

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture in 
                    the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1999

  Mr. Combest (for himself and Mr. Stenholm) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture in 
                    the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture (hereafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $8,564,493 for the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $4,175,983 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2000; and
            (2) not more than $4,388,510 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2001.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Bongart, Appellant.

Judgment of the Children’s Court affirmed. No opinion. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
### §1141l. Assignment of an extension of protection

An extension of protection may be assigned, together with the goodwill associated with the mark, only to a person who is a national of, is domiciled in, or has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment either in a country that is a Contracting Party or in a country that is a member of an intergovernmental organization that is a Contracting Party.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title XII, §72, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13402, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1920.)
#### Value Manufactured Homes, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Park Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 720]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered December 9, 2005. The order, among other things, granted defendants’ motion to strike the second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and imposed monetary sanctions on plaintiffs.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.23


Payments to Directors
     Non-employee directors of the Company are compensated on the following basis:
         (1) Cash Compensation—(a) Directors are paid $90,000 of their annual retainer in cash in quarterly installments unless a timely election is made under the non-employee director sub-plan of the 2011 Plan to receive an equivalent amount of market value stock options, restricted stock or RSUs or to defer the cash to an interest-bearing account under the terms of that sub-plan of the 2011 Plan; (b)  The Lead Director receives an additional $40,000 annual retainer in cash, payable in quarterly installments; (c) Annual Board committee chair retainers, payable in quarterly installments in cash, are $35,000 for the Audit Committee Chair  and $12,500 for each of the Chairs of the Compensation Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee; and (d) All members of the Audit Committee (excluding the Audit Committee Chair) receive an additional annual Audit Committee Member Retainer of $12,500, payable in quarterly installments; and
         (2) Equity Compensation—Directors are paid $120,000 of their annual retainer in equity, either in the form of market value stock options, restricted stock or RSUs, based on the director’s timely election, with the equity issued on the first NYSE trading day of January of each calendar year valued at the NYSE market closing price of Company common stock on that date. If no timely election is made, the non-employee director receives his or her annual equity compensation in the form of $120,000 of market value stock options awarded on the first NYSE trading day of each year. 
     Directors do not receive meeting fees or fees for the execution of written consents in lieu of Board meetings or in lieu of Board committee meetings. They receive reimbursement for their travel and lodging expenses if they do not live in the area where a meeting is held.
     Pursuant to the non-employee director sub-plan of the 2011 Plan, newly elected non-employee directors receive upon the date of their initial election to the Board $100,000 of restricted stock, valued at the market closing price of Company common stock on that date.
     Non-employee directors may currently elect to defer all or a designated portion of their cash-based annual director compensation into an interest-bearing account pursuant to a timely election made under the non-employee director sub-plan of the 2011 Plan. These accounts bear interest at non-preferential rates set from time to time by the Compensation Committee. The amounts in such accounts are paid to the director in a lump sum or equal monthly installments for up to 120 months as elected by the director with payments commencing on the earliest of (a) December 31 of the fifth year after the year for which the deferral was made, (b) the first business day of the fourth month after the director’s death or (c) the director’s termination as a non-employee director of the Company or any of its subsidiaries for a reason other than death. 
     Directors who are employees of the Company or its subsidiaries receive no compensation for Board service.
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund, Inc.


In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of T. Rowe
Price Small-Cap Value Fund, Inc. (hereafter referred to as
the "Fund") for the
period ended December 31, 2001, we considered its internal
control, including
control activities for safeguarding securities, in order
to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial
statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-
SAR, not to
provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing
and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by
management are required to assess the expected benefits
and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an
audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external
purposes that are fairly
presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.  Those
controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition,
use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control,
errors or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation
of internal control to
future periods is subject to the risk that controls may
become inadequate
because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness
of their design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not
necessarily disclose all matters
in internal control that might be material weaknesses
under standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.  A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of one or
more of the internal control components does not reduce to
a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud
in amounts that would
be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and
not be detected within a timely period by employees in the
normal course of
performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no
matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities,
that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above as of December
31, 2001.

This report is intended solely for the information and use
of management and
the Board of Directors of T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value
Fund, Inc. and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to
be and should not
be used by anyone other than these specified parties.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
January 18, 2002
# C_2010179EN.01005803.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/58

---

Action brought on 7 May 2010 —  VE (*1) v Commission

(Case F-28/10)

(2010/C 179/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VE (*1) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision terminating the payment of the expatriation allowance previously granted to the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the authority authorised to conclude contracts (AACC) on 18 June 2009, by which the payment of the expatriation allowance which had been previously granted to the applicant, under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, was terminated, and the decision adopted by the AACC on 28 January 2010 by which the complaint brought by the applicant on 2 October 2009 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the authority authorised to conclude contracts (AACC) on 18 June 2009, by which the payment of the expatriation allowance which had been previously granted to the applicant, under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, was terminated, and the decision adopted by the AACC on 28 January 2010 by which the complaint brought by the applicant on 2 October 2009 was rejected;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 7356]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Charlotte Salomon: Life? Or Theatre?” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Contemporary Jewish Museum, San Francisco, CA, from on or about March 31, 2011, until on or about July 31, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: March 2, 2011.

Ann Stock,

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2011-5254 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT 

USDA Seeks Applications for Solid Waste Management and Technical 

Assistance and Training Grants 

(December 1, 2016) – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Rural Development Lisa 

Mensah is inviting applications for Solid Waste Management (SWM) and Technical Assistance and Training 

(TAT) grants. The grants help rural areas reduce or eliminate water pollution, and improve planning and 

management of solid waste sites in rural areas. 

TAT grants can be used to identify and evaluate solutions for water and wastewater problems. The grants may 

be used for technical assistance to help applicants apply for water and waste grants, and improve the operation 

and maintenance of water and waste disposal facilities. Recipients of the SWM and TAT grants provide 

technical assistance and/or training to rural water or wastewater systems and/or solid waste management sites. 

Eligible applicants for the SWM program are state and local government entities, private non-profit 

organizations, federally and state recognized tribes, and academic institutions. Eligible applicants for the TAT 

program are private, non-profit organizations that serve rural areas. All applications must be received or 

postmarked before midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on Dec. 31, 2016. USDA will determine the amount 

available for funding when Congress approves the fiscal year 2017 budget. 

For additional details on the program and how to apply, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/solidwaste-management-grants. Applications may be submitted through Grants.Gov.
#### § 311.15 Brucellosis.

Carcasses affected with localized lesions of brucellosis may be passed for human food after the affected parts are removed and condemned.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Educational ResourcesElementary Secondary EducationMathematics ActivitiesMathematics InstructionProbabilityStatisticsWorld Wide Web

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2011 – MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM**

**(Case C‐536/10 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26-27)

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08 | MPDV Mikrolab | v | OHIM | , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Distinctive character of the mark. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor is ordered to pay the costs. |
#### George A. Lewis, Appellant, v. New York and Queens County Railway Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., not voting.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/10/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

MARCUS W. ENGLISH, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 95-5069

) (D.C. No. 93-C-1142-E)

STANLEY GLANZ, sued as: Stanley Glantz, ) (N.D. Okla.)

Tulsa County Sheriff; MARGARET STRIPLING, )

sued as: Mrs. ? Stripling, Head Doctor of Tulsa )

County Jail, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

__________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________

Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

__________________________

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that

oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. English is a pro se litigant. He sued the sheriff and a doctor under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The

trial court granted defendants summary judgment after concluding Mr. English’s claims were barred

by the statute of limitations. We exercise jurisdiction and affirm the judgment of the district court.
2

Mr. English commenced this suit by filing his amended complaint June 27, 1994. Mr.

English, insofar as is applicable to this appeal, contended he was confined in the Tulsa County Jail

where inmates assaulted him on December 16, 1991. He contended the doctor gave him inadequate

medical treatment following the assault. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with

supporting evidentiary materials.

The trial court applied Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations which applies to “an action

for injury to the rights of another” and concluded this statute barred the claims. See Okla. Stat. tit.

12, § 95(3).

Mr. English appeals this decision asserting a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights

has some other unspecified limitation period. Mr. English, without the benefit of supporting law,

argues a violation of a constitutional right has no limitation period. He argues the trial court failed

to grasp the concept that his suit was for a violation of his constitutional rights and was not a “civil

complaint as a personal injury to the rights of another.”

Mr. English fails to comprehend the law. The Supreme Court of the United States has held

that because there is no federal statute of limitations for a civil rights action (it is beyond dispute that

an action based on 42 U.S.C. §1983 is a civil rights action), the time in which such an action must

be filed is determined by the applicable state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985).
3

Mr. English has failed to persuade this court of any error by the trial court. The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge