alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(67 South. 934)

No. 21001.

#### STATE v. WEST.

(Feb. 23, 1915.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1915.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

Commerce &wkey;>31 — Interstate Commerce — Forbidding Importation op Citrus Plants.

An ordinance of the State Board of Agriculture and Immigration, which prohibits the importation into the state of all kinds of citrus plants and parts thereof, is invalid as an interference with interstate commerce.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Commerce, Cent. Dig. § 24; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;31.]

Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert S. Ellis, Judge.

R. A. West was indicted for violating an 'ordinance of the State Board of Agriculture and Immigration, and from a judgment quashing the indictment, the State appeals.

Affirmed, and accused ordered released without day.

R. G. Pleasant, Afty. Gen., and Wm. H. Mc-Clendon, Dist. Atty., of Ámite (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State. 'Clay Elliott, of Amite, for -appellee.

PROVO STY, J.

The state has appealed from a judgment quashing the indictment against the accused, which indictment is under an ordinance or regulation of the State Board of Agriculture and Immigration, reading, as follows;

> “In order to prevent the introduction of the dangerous citrus disease known as citrus canker; prevalent in the principal citrus growing states of the United States, but not found to be prevalent in Louisiana, the importation into this state of any and all kind's of citrus plants and parts of citrus plants from ¿11 the states of the United States, its territories and possessions and from all foreign countries, is hereby prohibited.”

The information against the accused is in strict conformity with this ordinance; that is to say, it does not charge that the citrus plants imported by the accused were diseased, but simply charges that they were imported.

When the state of Missouri sought to prohibit the driving or conveying of any Texas cattle into the state between certain dates, as a protection against Texas fever, the Supreme Court of the United States held the statute to be void as being an interference with interstate commerce. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. Ed. 527. For the same reason, the ordinance or' regulation, involved in this case is null.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, and the accused is ordered released without day.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Elkins, West Virginia. The committee is meeting as authorized under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-
343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
purpose is for the committee to consider new project proposals.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 29, 2011, and will begin at 1 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Monongahela National Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, WV 26241. Written 
comments should be sent to Kate Goodrich-Arling at the same address. 
Comments may also be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2249454d4d46504b414a43504e4b4c456244510c4447460c5751"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddb6bab2b2b9afb4beb5bcafb1b4b3ba9dbbaef3bbb8b9f3a8ae">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
via facsimile to 304-637-0582.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at Monongahela 
National Forest, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, WV 26241.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Goodrich-Arling, RAC coordinator, 
USDA, Monongahela National Forest, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, WV 
26241; (304) 636-1800; E-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#472c20282823352e242f26352b2e292007213469212223693234"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="244f434b4b40564d474c4556484d4a436442570a4241400a5157">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: (1) Review and approval or 
amendment of notes from previous meeting (2) Consider new project 
proposals; and (3) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related 
matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements 
with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Clyde N. Thompson,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-5768 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2012194EN.01000501.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-370/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Discriminatory taxation of the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings established in Norway or Iceland and not authorised under Directive 85/611/EEC)

2012/C 194/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Discriminatory taxation of the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings established in Norway or Iceland and not authorised under Directive 85/611/EC

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining rules according to which the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings, more than 40 % of the assets of which is invested in debt securities, and which are not authorised under Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), are not taxable where those undertakings are established in Belgium, whereas the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in such undertakings established in Norway or Iceland are taxable, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining rules according to which the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in collective investment undertakings, more than 40 % of the assets of which is invested in debt securities, and which are not authorised under Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), are not taxable where those undertakings are established in Belgium, whereas the capital gains obtained on the repurchase of shares in such undertakings established in Norway or Iceland are taxable, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Orphans and HIV/AIDS.
    Date: April 4, 2011.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Michele C. Hindi-Alexander, PhD, Scientific 
Review Officer, Division Of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy 
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 
NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
8382, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4dcdddad0ddd5d8d9f4d9d5ddd89adadddc9ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7bfbeb9b3beb6bbba97bab6bebbf9b9bebff9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-5790 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                       792
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,684
<PP&E>                                           4,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,482
<BONDS>                                            953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     37,120
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,899)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,759
<SALES>                                          1,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,931
<CGS>                                            1,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,094
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,847)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,735)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.41)


</TABLE>
# C_2011232EN.01004203.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/42

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — Schuerewegen v Parliament

(Case F-125/10) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Measure removing the applicant from his place of work - Withdrawal of his staff card - Withdrawal of his rights of access to the IT network - Prior complaint - Sent by electronic means - Administration actually aware of it - Out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2011/C 232/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniel Schuerewegen (Marienthal, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

Defendant: Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and E. Despotopoulou, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the appointing authority’s decision by which the applicant was removed from his place of work and his staff card withdrawn, and also of the measures taken as a result of that decision and a claim for damages

Operative part of the order

The Tribunal

| 1. | Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;.

| 2. | Orders Mr Schuerewegen to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Schuerewegen to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30 of 29/1/11, p. 68.

---
#### § 381.84 Airsacculitis.

Carcasses of poultry with evidence of extensive involvement of the air sacs with airsacculitis or those showing airsacculitis along with systemic changes shall be condemned. Less affected carcasses may be passed for food after complete removal and condemnation of all affected tissues including the exudate.

[40 FR 14297, Mar. 31, 1975]
#### § 385.1904 Copies of transcripts (Rule 1904).

The Commission will cause to be made a stenographic record of public hearings and such copies of the transcript thereof as it requires for its own purposes. Participants desiring copies of such transcript may obtain the same from the official reporter upon payment of the fees fixed therefor.
#### § 35.6 Submission for staff suggestions.

Any public utility may submit a rate schedule, tariff or service agreement or any part thereof or any material relating thereto for the purpose of receiving staff suggestions and comments thereon prior to filing with the Commission.

[Order 271, 28 FR 10573, Oct. 2, 1963, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57531, Oct. 3, 2008]
§ 367.17 Comprehensive inter-period income tax allocation. ( a ) Where there are timing differences between the periods in which transactions affect taxable income and the periods in which they enter into the determination of pretax accounting income, the income tax effects of such transactions are to be recognized in the periods in which the differences between book accounting income and taxable income arise and in the periods in which the differences reverse using the deferred tax method. In general, comprehensive inter-period tax allocation should be followed whenever transactions enter into the determination of pretax accounting income for the period even though some transactions may affect the determination of taxes payable in a different period, as further qualified in this section.
( b ) Once comprehensive inter-period tax allocation has been initiated, either in whole or in part, it must be practiced on a consistent basis and must not be changed or discontinued without prior Commission approval.
( c ) Tax effects deferred currently will be recorded as deferred debits or deferred credits in accounts 190, Accumulated deferred income taxes (§ 367.1900), 282, Accumulated deferred income taxes—Other property (§ 367.2820), and 283, Accumulated deferred income taxes—Other (§ 367.2830), as appropriate. The resulting amounts recorded in these accounts must be disposed of as prescribed in this system of accounts or as otherwise authorized by the Commission.
#### § 319.302 Hash.

“Hash” shall contain not less than 35 percent of meat computed on the weight of the cooked and trimmed meat. The weight of the cooked meat used in this calculation shall not exceed 70 percent of the weight of the uncooked fresh meat. Mechanically Separated (Species) may be used in accordance with § 319.6.

[35 FR 15597, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 43 FR 26425, June 20, 1978; 47 FR 28257, June 29, 1982]
EXHIBIT 10.3





SECOND AMENDMENT


ALLIANCE LAUNDRY HOLDINGS LLC


NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN





WHEREAS, Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC (the Company) adopted the Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the Plan) on February 27, 2002; and





WHEREAS, the Company amended the Plan on June 21, 2002;





WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Plan;





NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is further amended effective as of the date set forth herein as follows:





| | 1. |  | The Plan shall be effective as of September 1, 2002.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------




| | 2. |  | Section 2.2(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety as follows:
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------




(iii) First Plan Year. Unless otherwise provided by the Committee, an Eligible Employee or Eligible Member who desires to defer all or part of his
Base Salary or Bonus for services rendered during the first Year of the Plan must complete and deliver an Election Agreement to the Committee no later than 15 days after the effective date of the Plan. Such Election Agreement shall be effective only
with regard to Base Salary and Bonuses earned following the filing of the Election Agreement with the Committee.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this instrument this 19th day of August, 2002.





ALLIANCE LAUNDRY HOLDINGS LLCBy:

/s/ Bruce P RoundsTitle:

V.P., CFO & Treasurer
TS-GGKW10 

Sanitized As TSCA CBI
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. PHILIP FUNES, Defendant

Criminal No. 112F-76

Superior Court of Guam

October 28, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

In denying Defendant’s 5 October, 1976, Motion to Dismiss for prosecution’s non-compliance with a discovery order, this Court cites the Decision in the companion case *People of the Territory of Guam v. Michael Imamura,*104F-76.

Submit order.
Exhibit 23.02


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form  S-8 (No.  33-98402,  No.  33-74830  and No.  333-13461)  of
Alliance  Semiconductor  Corporation  of  our  report  dated  January  22,  1998
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 1998.

/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE

Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.
June 22, 1998

                                      -63-
§ 35.30 General provisions. ( a ) *Applicability.* This subpart applies to any sales of electric power subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under Part II of the Federal Power Act from public utilities to the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) at the average system cost (ASC) of that utility's resources (electric power generation by the utility) pursuant to section 5(c) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 830-839h. The ASC is determined by BPA in accordance with 18 CFR part 301.
( b ) *Effectiveness of rates.* ( 1 ) During the period between the date of BPA's determination of ASC and the date of the final order issued by the Commission, the utility may charge the rate based on the ASC determined by BPA, subject to § 35.31(c) of this part.
( 2 ) Except as otherwise provided under this section, the ASC ordered by the Commission will be deemed in effect from the beginning of the relevant exchange period, as defined in § 301.1(b)(95) of this chapter. For any initial exchange period after the Commission approves a new ASC methodology, the ASC will be effective retroactively under this paragraph only if the utility files its new ASC within the time allowed under BPA procedures. Any utility that files a revised ASC with BPA in accordance with this paragraph must promptly file with the Commission a notice of timely filing of the new ASC.
( c ) *Filing requirements.* Within 15 business days of the date of issuance of the BPA report on a utility's ASC, the utility must file with the Commission the ASC determined by BPA, the BPA written report, the utility's ASC schedules, material necessary to comply with 18 CFR 35.13(c), and any other material requested by the Commission or its staff.
[Order 337, 48 FR 46976, Oct. 17, 1983, as amended by Order 400, 49 FR 39300, Oct. 5, 1984]
1

The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1011

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Jorge Alfredo Pina-Arellano, also *

known as Jorge Alberto Lopez, also * [UNPUBLISHED]

known as Jose Lopez-Gonzalez, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 24, 2002

 Filed: April 26, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Pina-Arellano appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Specifically, Pina contends he was entitled to a downward

departure because--as an alien subject to removal--he is subject to a longer and

harsher period of incarceration.
-2-

As he concedes, this court rejected his argument in United States v.

Cardosa-Rodriguez, 241 F.3d 613, 614 (8th Cir. 2001) (deportable aliens’ ineligibility

for Bureau of Prisons benefits does not provide basis for downward departure in

illegal-reentry cases), and only this court en banc may overrule that decision, see

Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.