alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Rome *v.*Rhodes *et al.*

June 22, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court.

June *21,*1909.

*W. J. Nunnally,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. B. Eubanks*and *McHenry*& *Porter,*contra.

Holden, J.

1. The owner of a lot and a two-story hrick storehouse thereon in an incorporated city sustained damages thereto resulting from the raising by the city of the grade of the streets and sidewalks, causing a depreciation in the value of the storehouse and making it necessary, for it to be available and of the same value it was prior to the change in grade, that the lower and upper floors, roof, and walls be raised. Subsequently a fire so damaged the building as to render it of but little, if any, value, except the walls. The owner received from an inurance company on account of such fire an amount nearly sufficient to rebuild such house, with its floors, roofs, and walls raised to such an extent as was necessary for the purposes above stated. *Held,*that neither such fire, nor the receipt by the owner of insurance money on account thereof, will relieve the city from liability for the full amount of damages which it occasioned. 1 Sutherland on Damages, § 158. p. 406; 7 Dec. Digest, “Damages,” § 64; 13 Cyc. 70-71; *Western*& *Atlantic R. Co.*v. *Meigs,*74 *Ga.*857. And see *Nashville Ry. Co.*v. *Miller,*120 *Ga.*453 (47 S. E. 959, 67 L. R. A. 87).

2. The court committed no error in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence to the effect that the plaintiffs agreed witli the insurance company that $1,945 was sufficient to rebuild the storehouse anew, as the verdict was for only $700, and was for a less amount than the evidence showed the damage to be.

3. It was not complained that any error of law was committed upon the trial of the ease. The evidence supported the verdict, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All Ihe Justices aonewr.*
### §70d. Records

#### (a) Maintenance and preservation by manufacturer

Every manufacturer of textile fiber products subject to this subchapter shall maintain proper records showing the fiber content as required by this subchapter of all such products made by him, and shall preserve such records for at least three years.

#### (b) Maintenance and preservation by person substituting stamp, tag, etc.

Any person substituting a stamp, tag, label, or other identification pursuant to section 70c(b) of this title shall keep such records as will show the information set forth on the stamp, tag, label, or other identification that he removed and the name or names of the person or persons from whom such textile fiber product was received, and shall preserve such records for at least three years.

#### (c) Neglect or refusal to maintain or preserve records

The neglect or refusal to maintain or preserve the records required by this section is unlawful, and any person neglecting or refusing to maintain such records shall be guilty of an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 85–897, §6, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1721.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§41 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
                      ----------------------------------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                      Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the 
                         Securities Exchange Act of1934


Date of Report ( Date of earliest event reported) : August 29, 1998


                           MESABA HOLDINGS, INC.
                           ---------------------
          (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

   Minnesota                 0-17895                     41-1616499 
----------------        -----------------             ----------------  
(State or other          (Commission File             (I.R.S. Employer
Jurisdiction of              Number)                   Identification
incorporation)                                              No.)

                           7501 26th Avenue South
                        Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
                        ----------------------------
                  (Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone no., including area code:   (612) 726-5151

                              Not Applicable
                              --------------
       (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

<PAGE>

ITEM 5. Other Events.

      On August 29, 1998 Mesaba Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned 
subsidiary, Mesaba Aviation, Inc. announced that it had temporarily ceased
operations as a result of the Northwest Airlines Pilots strike.

ITEM 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

      The following are exhibits to this current Report:

            99.1 Press release of the Company dated August 29, 1998

<PAGE>

SIGNATURE

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                Date: August 31, 1998

                                MESABA HOLDINGS, INC.



                                By:   /s/ John S. Fredericksen
                                      ------------------------------
                                      John S. Fredericksen
                                      Vice President and General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT INDEX
                                -------------

Exhibit 
Number       Description
--------     -------------   

99.1         Press release of the Company dated August 29, 1998.

<PAGE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**


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 Power3 Medical Products, Inc (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
      March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Marion J. McCormick, Chief Accounting Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      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 SecuritiesExchange
                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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      and
      is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      of
      the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
      general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:May 15, 2008
            By:
            /s/     Marion J. McCormickMarion J. McCormick
              Chief Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                  HARVEYS CASINO RESORTS CHANGE OF CONTROL PLAN

          WHEREAS, Harveys Casino Resorts (the "Company") has previously adopted
the Harveys Casino Resorts Change of Control Plan (the "Plan"); and

          WHEREAS, the Plan provides for the payment of certain benefits if the
employment of a Plan participant is terminated in connection with a "Change of
Control" (as defined in the Plan); and

          WHEREAS, certain participants in the Plan are also party to
employment agreements with the Company ("Employment Agreements") providing for
the payment of severance in the event their employment is terminated under
certain circumstances; and

          WHEREAS, it was at no time the Company's intent that a participant in
the Plan who is also party to an Employment Agreement would have the right to
receive severance payments under both the Plan and the Employment Agreement; and

          WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Plan provides that, subject to certain
limitations, the Company may amend the Plan at any time.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended and clarified, effective as of the
date hereof, to provide as follows:

          1.   NO RIGHTS TO DUAL SEVERANCE. Section 4 of the Plan is hereby
clarified to provide that a Plan participant who is party to an Employment
Agreement providing for the payment of severance compensation in the event of
the termination of such participant's employment shall not be entitled to
receive both the severance compensation provided under Section 4 of the Plan and
the severance compensation provided under the Employment Agreement, but shall
instead be entitled to receive only the GREATER of such amounts.

          2.   COVENANTS TO COMPETE SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE UPON TERMINA TION OF
EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING A CHANGE OF CONTROL. The provisions of Section 9 are hereby
deleted and shall be of no force and effect in connection with the proposed
merger transaction between the Company and Harveys Acquisition Corporation, a
Nevada corporation.

<PAGE>

          3.   REMAINING PLAN PROVISIONS TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment No.1, the terms and conditions of
the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


Date:  February 2, 1999                HARVEYS CASINO RESORTS



                                       By:    /s/ CHARLES W. SCHARER
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Charles W. Scharer
                                           Title: President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED
AS OF THIS 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 1999


/s/ CHARLES W. SCHARER
--------------------------------
Charles W. Scharer


/s/ STEPHEN L. CAVALLARO
--------------------------------
Stephen L. Cavallaro


/s/ JOHN J. MCLAUGHLIN
--------------------------------
John J. McLaughlin

                                        2
# C_2013046EN.01000601.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-310/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Second Directive 67/228/EEC - Article 8(a) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Supply of goods - Basis of assessment - Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent - Purchases by third-party customers - Price reduction after the chargeable event - Direct effect)

2013/C 46/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Grattan plc

Appellant:

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 8(a) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16) — Basis of assessment — Supply of goods — Commission paid by a mail order company to its agent, acting as intermediary in the supply of goods to the final consumer — Commission taking the form either of a payment of money or of a credit against amounts owed to the company in respect of goods purchased by the agent for the agent’s own use — Retrospective reduction of the basis of assessment of supplies of goods made before 1 January 1978, by virtue of the direct effect of Article 8(a) of the directive and/or application of the principles of fiscal neutrality or equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(a) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not conferring upon a taxable person the right to treat the basis of assessment of a supply of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the time of that supply of goods, an agent received a credit from the supplier which the agent elected to take either as a payment of money or as a credit against amounts owed to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods that had already taken place.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
#### Adam P. Dienst, Appellant, v. The City of New York and the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. 'Ho opinion. •
#### § 367.4115 Account 411.5, Investment tax credit adjustments, other.

This account must include the amount of those investment tax credit adjustments not properly included in other accounts.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stanley D. Piekos,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of August Technology Corporation;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August 3,  2004 | By:                     | /s/ STANLEY D. PIEKOS |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                       | Stanley D. Piekos       |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of ENCAD, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-24965, No. 333-44923, No. 333-45327 and No. 333-59779 of ENCAD, Inc. on Form
S-8 of our report dated February 12, 1999, appearing in this Annual report on
Form 10-K of ENCAD, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


San Diego, California
March 30, 1999
# C_2011063EN.01002201.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 3 December 2010 — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL v Government of the Brussels-Capital Region

(Case C-567/10)

2011/C 63/39

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL

Applicants:

Defendant: Government of the Brussels-Capital Region

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that directive a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a plan such as that applicable to a ‘plan particulier d’affectation du sol’ (specific land-use plan), provided for in Articles 58 to 63 of the Code bruxellois de l’Aménagement du Territoire (Brussels Town and Country Planning Code)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that directive a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a plan such as that applicable to a ‘plan particulier d’affectation du sol’ (specific land-use plan), provided for in Articles 58 to 63 of the Code bruxellois de l’Aménagement du Territoire (Brussels Town and Country Planning Code)?

1

| 2. | Must the word ‘required’ in Article 2(a) of that directive be understood as excluding from the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ plans which are provided for by legislative provisions but the adoption of which is not compulsory, such as the specific land-use plans referred to in Article 40 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the word ‘required’ in Article 2(a) of that directive be understood as excluding from the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ plans which are provided for by legislative provisions but the adoption of which is not compulsory, such as the specific land-use plans referred to in Article 40 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30

1

---
### §8304. Authority to prohibit participation in swap activities

Except as provided in section 6 of title 7, if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission determines that the regulation of swaps or security-based swaps markets in a foreign country undermines the stability of the United States financial system, either Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, may prohibit an entity domiciled in the foreign country from participating in the United States in any swap or security-based swap activities.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §715, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1647.)
### SUBCHAPTER LIX–A—LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Technical Assistance Grants to Help Socially 

Disadvantaged Groups

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2020 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Bette Brand today announced that USDA is accepting applications for grants to help socially 

disadvantaged groups develop business and strategic plans in rural areas. 

USDA is making $3 million in grants available under the Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant program.

Eligible applicants include cooperatives, groups of cooperatives and cooperative development centers. The 

grants are intended to help disadvantaged groups develop the capacity to implement plans and undertake 

projects to improve economic and social conditions.

A socially disadvantaged group is one whose members have been subjected to racial, ethnic or gender prejudice 

because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.

Electronic applications must be submitted to grants.gov by midnight Eastern Time on August 10, 2020. 

Additional information is available on page 38111 of the June 25 Federal Register.

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB) to help improve life in 

rural America. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural 

communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, 

partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender
### Part A—Coordination of Programs
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 May 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChairman and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanExecutive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer