alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51.25 Proof of destruction. The Veterinarian in Charge will accept any of the following documents as proof of destruction: ( a ) A postmortem report;
( b ) A meat inspection certification of slaughter;
( c ) A written statement by a State representative, APHIS representative, or accredited veterinarian attesting to the destruction of the animals;
( d ) A written, sworn statement by the owner or caretaker of the animal attesting to the destruction of the animals;
( e ) A permit (VS Form 1-27) consigning the animal from a farm or livestock market directly to a slaughter establishment; or
( f ) In unique situations where none of the documents listed above are available, other similarly reliable forms of proof of destruction.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0185)
#### § 104.19 [Reserved]
# C_2011252EN.01005301.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2011

Hecq v Commission

(Case F-56/10) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Social security - Meeting of 100 % of medical costs - Implied rejection decision - Premature complaint - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 252/114

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Defendant

Subject-matter of the case

Subject-matter of the case

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing full reimbursement of various medical costs.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Hecq is ordered to pay the whole of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Hecq is ordered to pay the whole of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246 of 11/09/10, p. 43.

1

---
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.19


FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


APRIL 5, 2015
WHEREAS, TESCO CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of the province of Alberta, Canada (the “Company”) and Christopher L. Boone (“Executive”) entered into the Employment Agreement effective on January 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved on December 11, 2014 an increase in Executive’s Base Annual Salary commencing March 1, 2015 to THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($350,000); and
WHEREAS, Executive and the Company (the “Parties”) have now agreed that, as a result of certain changes in market conditions, effective April 5, 2015 Executive’s Base Annual Salary shall be THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($332,500), reflecting a 5% reduction from Executive’s Base Annual Salary as approved on December 11, 2014 (the “Reduction”); and
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive agree that this Reduction is immaterial under Section 5(a) of the Agreement, and that this Reduction shall not constitute a Good Reason under the Agreement; 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, which the Parties acknowledge is good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to the amendment of the Agreement as follows (this “Amendment”): 
The first sentence of Section 5(a) shall be replaced with the following:
“Executive shall receive a Base Annual Salary annually of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED  U.S. dollars and no cents ($332,500) U.S.) payable in bi-weekly pay periods, subject to deduction of statutorily required amounts, including but not limited to, withholding for federal, state and local income taxes, and amounts payable by employees of Employer for employee benefits.” 
Executive, by executing this Amendment, agrees that the Reduction and amendment of Section 5(a) of the Agreement as provided in this Amendment are immaterial under Section 5(a) of the Agreement and shall not constitute Good Reason under the Agreement, and Executive waives any claims or rights he may have as a result of the Reduction and the amendment of Section 5(a); provided, however,  that Employee reserves the right to consider whether further diminution to the Base Annual Salary during the calendar year 2015 along with  this Reduction may constitute Good Reason under the Agreement without limiting the other requirements in the Agreement for Executive to terminate his employment for Good Reason, including the notice provisions in Section 6(e).











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement effective as of April 5, 2015.
EXECUTIVE
Christopher L. Boone


Signature:  /s/ Christopher L. Boone
    


Date:  04/01/2015




EMPLOYER:




Tesco Corporation






By:      /s/ Fernando R. Assing
                                Fernando R. Assing,
                              President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:  03/30/2015
Waiver Letter Between LTX Corp and Mark J. Gallenberger



 Exhibit 10.4 
 WAIVER LETTER 
 June 20, 2008 
 Mark J. Gallenberger 
 LTX Corporation 
 825 University Avenue 
 Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 
 Dear Mark: 
 Reference is made to (i) the Change-of-Control Employment Agreement dated October 2, 2000 between you and the Company (your
“Employment Agreement”) and (ii) the Agreement and Plan of Merger, of even date herewith (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among LTX Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (“LTX”), Zoo Merger Corporation
(“Merger Sub”), a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of LTX, and Credence Systems Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Credence”). Each capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meaning ascribed to such term in your Employment Agreement. 
 By signing in the space provided below, you confirm that, in connection with the
execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement, you hereby acknowledge and agree that neither the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated thereby (including, without limitation, the merger
of Merger Sub with and into Credence) shall constitute a Change of Control under Section 2 of your Employment Agreement. 
 Except as expressly modified
by the terms of this Waiver Letter, your Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms. 
 Very truly
yours, 
  

			
	LTX CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David G. Tacelli

	Name:	 	David G. Tacelli
	Title:	 	CEO and President

  

			
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
	
	 /s/ Mark J. Gallenberger
  

	Name:	 	Mark J. Gallenberger
	Date:	 	June 20, 2008
#### § 1308.17 Failure to render timely decision.

Any failure by Contracting Officer to issue a decision on a submitted claim within the period required or permitted by § 1308.13, will be deemed to be a decision by the Contracting Officer denying the claim and will authorize the commencement of an appeal on the claim under this part, or a suit on the claim as provided in section 10(a)(2) of the Act. If no appeal or suit pursuant to this section has been commenced at the time the Contracting Officer issues a decision, the right to sue or appeal and the time limits therefor shall be determined as otherwise provided in this part and the Act, and this section shall not authorize an appeal or suit from the decision.
§ 1307.13 Effect on other regulations; supervision and coordination. ( a ) *Effect on other regulations.* Nothing in this part shall be deemed to supersede or affect any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( 1 ) Regulations by TVA and other Federal agencies issued with respect to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or
( 2 ) any other regulations or instructions, insofar as they prohibit discrimination on the ground of handicap in any program or activity or situation to which this part is inapplicable, or which prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
( b ) *Supervison and coordination.* TVA may from time to time assign to officials of other Federal agencies, with the consent of such agencies, responsibilities in connection with the effectuation of the purposes of section 504 and this part (other than responsibility for final decision as provided in § 1307.12), including the achievement of effective coordination and maximum uniformity within the Executive Branch of the government in the application of section 504 and this part to similar programs or activities and in similar situations. Any action taken, determination made, or requirement imposed by an official of another federal agency acting pursuant to an assignment of responsibility under this part shall have the same effect as though such action had been taken by TVA.
[45 FR 22895, Apr. 26, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51356, Apr. 4, 2003]
#### § 1313.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
Exhibit






EXHIBIT  10.16




Summary of Pamela J. Ahrens 2016 Compensation




The Knoll, Inc. compensation committee approved an annual base salary of $295,000 for Pamela J. Ahrens, with a bonus target of one hundred percent (100%) of her base salary.  Ms. Ahrens is also entitled to participate in the benefit plans provided by Knoll that are generally available to Knoll employees.
§ 1317.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
§ 1308.52 Issuance. ( a ) A deposition subpoena shall not issue except upon the filing of a notice of deposition of the person to be subpoenaed, which notice should normally be filed at least 15 days in advance of the scheduled deposition.
( b ) A subpoena for the attendance of a witness at an evidentiary hearing shall not issue except upon the filing of a request for appearance at the hearing of the person to be subpoenaed, which request should normally be filed at least 30 days in advance of the scheduled hearing. The request should state: ( 1 ) The name and address of the witness;
( 2 ) The general scope of the witness' testimony;
( 3 ) The books, records, papers, and other tangible things sought to be produced; and
( 4 ) The general relevance of the matters sought to the case.
( c ) Upon receipt of a notice of deposition or request for appearance at a hearing, the Hearing Officer shall fill in the name of the witness and sign and issue a subpoena otherwise in blank to the party seeking it, together with a duplicate for proof of service. The party requesting the subpoena shall fill in both copies before service.
( d ) Letters rogatory may be issued by the Hearing Officer as provided in 28 U.S.C. 1781-1784.
# C_2010246EN.01002301.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Appointed Person by the Lord Chancellor (United Kingdom) made on 28 June 2010 — The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks

(Case C-307/10)

()

2010/C 246/39

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

The Appointed Person by the Lord Chancellor

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

Applicant:

Defendant: Registrar of Trade Marks

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is it:

| 1. | necessary for the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application to be identified with any and if so what particular degree of clarity and precision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

necessary for the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application to be identified with any and if so what particular degree of clarity and precision?

| 2. | permissible to use the general words of the Class Headings of the International Classification of Goods and Services established under the Nice Agreement of June 15, 1957 (as revised and amended from time to time) for the purpose of identifying the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application? |
| --- | --- |

2.

permissible to use the general words of the Class Headings of the International Classification of Goods and Services established under the Nice Agreement of June 15, 1957 (as revised and amended from time to time) for the purpose of identifying the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application?

| 3. | necessary or permissible for such use of the general words of the Class Headings of the said International Classification of Goods and Services to be interpreted in accordance with Communication No. 4/03 of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2003 (OJ OHIM 2003 p. 1647)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

necessary or permissible for such use of the general words of the Class Headings of the said International Classification of Goods and Services to be interpreted in accordance with Communication No. 4/03 of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2003 (OJ OHIM 2003 p. 1647)?

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Seven v OHIM – Seven for all mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)**

**(Case T-176/10)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND – Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘seven’ – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50, 55)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008 2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Seven for all Mankind LLC. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008 2); |

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the proceedings before the General Court and those incurred by Seven SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders Seven for all Mankind LLC to bear its own costs. |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LOVANSA YOLANDA ROACH, a/k/a Blondie, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-196, CA-97-594-2) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lovansa Yolanda Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lovansa Yolanda Roach seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Roach , Nos. CR-90-196;CA-97-594-2 (M.D.N.C. July 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BASSAM YUSUF KHOURY; ALVIN 

RODRIGUEZ MOYA; PABLO CARRERA 

ZAVALA, on behalf of themselves as 

individuals and on behalf of others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

ELIZABETH GODFREY, Acting Field 

Office Director, ICE; LOWELL 

CLARK, Warden, NWDC; JAMES 

MCHENRY, Director of EOIR; 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Attorney General of the United States; 

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting 

Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security; UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA; RONALD D. VITIELLO, 

Acting Director, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE),

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14-35482

D.C. No.

2:13-cv-01367-

RAJ

ORDER
2 KHOURY V. GODFREY

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed May 1, 2019

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Jacqueline H. Nguyen,

and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Nielsen v. 

Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954 (2019), the memorandum disposition 

of this Court dated August 4, 2016, is VACATED and 

judgment is entered REVERSING the district court’s 

judgment. We remand this case to the district court for 

further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
### §643. Fair charge for use of Government-owned property

To the fullest extent the Administration deems practicable, it shall make a fair charge for the use of Government-owned property and make and let contracts on a basis that will result in a recovery of the direct costs incurred by the Administration.

(Pub. L. 85–536, §2[14], July 18, 1958, 72 Stat. 395.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior similar provisions were contained in section 220 of act July 30, 1953, ch. 282, title II, 67 Stat. 240, which was previously classified to section 649 of this title. The provisions of section 214 of act July 30, 1953, formerly classified to this section, were transferred to section 2[15] of Pub. L. 85–536, and are classified to section 644 of this title. See Codification note set out under section 631 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION 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 Proteo, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Birge Bargmann, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to her knowledge:





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





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








Date: May 13, 2010





/s/ Birge Bargmann


Birge Bargmann


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER








A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                              --------------------

     EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") entered into as of January 1, 2002,
by and between Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Company"), and
Bruce A. Peacock, an employee of the Company ("Peacock").

     WHEREAS, the Company wishes to continue to employ Peacock as its President
and Chief Executive Officer and as a member of its Board of Directors, and both
parties desire to extend the December 31, 1999 employment agreement (the
"Employment Agreement") upon the terms and conditions set forth therein subject
to the following:

     1.1 Employment Term. The Employment Term shall continue in effect through
         ---------------
December 31, 2002, subject to the change in control provisions set forth in
Section 1.1 of the Employment Agreement.

     1.4 Base Salary: Peacock's base salary shall be $285,00 subject to the
         -----------
other provisions of Article 1.4 of the Employment Agreement.

     Stock Options: Peacock received two stock option grants in January 2002
     -------------
subject to shareholder approval to add additional shares to the Company's stock
option plan. The Company's proxy statement for 2002 will include a proposal to
add additional shares to the stock option plan, and if such shares are not
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1942

MICHAEL C. WORSHAM , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DISCOUNT POWER, INC. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , Senior District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00008

- RDB )

Submitted : March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael Craig Worsham, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Adam Scotti, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1942 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 P ER CURIAM:
Michael C. Worsham appeal s from the district court’s order s entering judgment in favor of Discount Power, Inc. (“Discount Power”), in his action a lleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the M aryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann. , Com. Law §§ 14

- 3201 to 14

- 3202

. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Worsham’s motion to direct the district court to transmit evidence to this court, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Worsham v. Disc

. Power, Inc. , No. 1:20

- cv - 00008

- RDB ( D. Md. Dec. 1, 2021 ; Aug. 4, 2022 ) . We deny Worsham’s motion for oral argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1942 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2