alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. CARLOS G. CAMACHO; KURT S. MOYLAN; FRANK F. BLAS; JOSE Q. TAITANO; MELVYN S. ILAGAN; JOHN D. GILLIAM; MARIA C. DUENAS and JOE T. SAN AGUSTIN; GREGORIO SANCHEZ and JOSE B. SARMIENTO and AUGUSTO M. GOGUE, Defendants

Criminal Nos. 41F-75, 47F-75, 46F-75, 44F-75, 37F-75, 42F-75, 40F-75, 39F-75, 45F-75, 38F-75, 43F-75

Superior Court of Guam

June 6, 1975

ABB ATE, *Judge*

DECISION

The Court has reconsidered its order with respect to the motion for certification to the Supreme Court of Guam, pursuant to Section 16(a) (1), Independent Special Prosecutor’s Act of 1974, Public Law 12-173.

In reviewing its order, the Court considered the following matters: In *Agana Bay Development Company (Hong Kong) Ltd., v. Supreme Court of Guam, Dillingham Corporation of the Pacific, Real Party in Interest,*Civil Case No. 74-177 (hereinafter cited as *Agana Bay),*the *281District Court of Guam apparently rendered, at least temporarily, the Supreme Court of Guam a nullity. The term apparently is necessitated inasmuch as the doctrine of dicta would seem to have some bearing on this, or for that matter, any court’s interpretation of that decision. That doctrine requires for the rule of stare decisis to apply that a decision be limited to the precise issue before it. *People v. Gregg,*85 Cal. Rptr. 273, 5 C.A.3d 502 (1970). It is this Court’s opinion that the precise issue before the District Court in *Agcma Bay*was whether the Supreme Court of Guam was legally constituted to act on appellate matters brought before it. It is therefore not certain that this narrow a reading of that decision would result in the conclusion that the Supreme Court of Guam is an entity without the power to act on matters certified to it from the Superior Court of Guam.

The decision in *Agana Bay*is presently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and a decision is anticipated imminently, which should be most dispositive of the status of the Supreme Court of Guam.

A refusal to certify to the Supreme Court during this unusual and hopefully temporary hiatus, would irretrievably prevent the Supreme Court from ever hearing this matter. A court which the Guam Legislature made most unequivocally clear it wished to be the forum in which this dispute was resolved.

For the above reasons, this Court hereby affirms its order of May 20, 1975, to certify the above entitled action to the Supreme Court of Guam.
### §719j. Export limitations

Any exports of Alaska natural gas shall be subject to the requirements of the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.] and section 103 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, except that in addition to the requirements of such Acts, before any Alaska natural gas in excess of 1,000 Mcf per day may be exported to any nation other than Canada or Mexico, the President must make and publish an express finding that such exports will not diminish the total quantity or quality nor increase the total price of energy available to the United States.

(Pub. L. 94–586, §12, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2914.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Natural Gas Act, referred to in text, is act June 21, 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, which is classified generally to chapter 15B (§717 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 717w of this title and Tables.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 871, which is classified principally to chapter 77 (§6201 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. Section 103 of the Act was classified to section 6212 of Title 42, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title I, §101(a), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2987. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6201 of Title 42 and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Enforcement functions authorized by, and supplemental enforcement authority created by this chapter with respect to pre-construction, construction, and initial operation of transportation system for Canadian and Alaskan natural gas transferred to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, until first anniversary of date of initial operation of Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1979, §§102(h)(1), 203(a), 44 F.R. 33663, 33666, 93 Stat. 1373, 1376, effective July 1, 1979, set out under section 719e of this title. Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System abolished and functions and authority vested in Inspector transferred to Secretary of Energy by section 3012(b) of Pub. L. 102–486, set out as an Abolition of Office of Federal Inspector note under section 719e of this title. Functions and authority vested in Secretary of Energy subsequently transferred to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects by section 720d(f) of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
### **CHAPTER 13A—FISHING INDUSTRY**

Sec.
521.
Fishing industry; associations authorized; "aquatic products" defined; marketing agencies; requirements.
522.
Monopolies or restraints of trade; service of complaint by Secretary of Commerce; hearing; order to cease and desist; jurisdiction of district court.
# C_2010288EN.01002501.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH

(Case C-420/10)

()

(2010/C 288/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Söll GmbH

Defendant: Tetra GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | For a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC (1), must that product itself destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on the harmful organism directly by chemical or biological means, or is it sufficient that the product have an indirect effect on that harmful organism? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC (1), must that product itself destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on the harmful organism directly by chemical or biological means, or is it sufficient that the product have an indirect effect on that harmful organism?

| 2. | If, for a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, the Court of Justice deems that an indirect chemical or biological effect on the harmful organism is sufficient, what is required of the product’s indirect effect on the harmful organism in order to be able to classify such a product as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, or is an indirect effect of any nature sufficient to establish a product’s biocidal quality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If, for a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, the Court of Justice deems that an indirect chemical or biological effect on the harmful organism is sufficient, what is required of the product’s indirect effect on the harmful organism in order to be able to classify such a product as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, or is an indirect effect of any nature sufficient to establish a product’s biocidal quality?

---

(1)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1).

---
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.39c Relationship to other departmental units. ( a ) Primary responsibility for assuring the maintenance of the highest standards of professional responsibility by Department employees rests with the heads of the offices, divisions, bureaus, and boards of the Department.
( b ) The heads of the offices, divisions, bureaus, and boards shall assure that any judicial finding of misconduct or serious judicial criticism relating to the duties described in § 0.39(a)(1), or any nonfrivolous allegation of serious misconduct concerning an employee in their component and relating to those duties, is reported to the Counsel.
( c ) The heads of the offices, divisions, bureaus, and boards shall provide information and assistance requested by the Counsel in connection with any inquiries or investigations conducted by the Counsel or by the Counsel's staff. As set forth in part 45, all Department personnel, including the subject(s) of any inquiry or investigation, shall cooperate fully with any investigation conducted by the Counsel or his designee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

M.I.B.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 12 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Operating plan**** 
SuDocNumber:HE20.3052/3:
ItemNumber:0506-G-05(online)
CGPSystem Number:000600195
 
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
 
 **
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.33 Office for Access to Justice. The Office for Access to Justice shall be headed by a Director appointed by the Attorney General. The principal responsibilities of the Office shall be to plan, develop, and coordinate the implementation of access to justice policy initiatives of high priority to the Department and the executive branch, including in the areas of criminal indigent defense and civil legal aid. In addition, the Director shall: ( a ) Promote uniformity of Department of Justice and government-wide policies and litigation positions relating to equal access to justice;
( b ) Examine proposed legislation, proposed rules, and other policy proposals to ensure that access to justice principles are properly considered in the development of policy; and
( c ) Perform such other duties and functions as may be authorized by law or directed by the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Associate Attorney General.
[AG Order 3691-2016, 81 FR 43066, July 1, 2016]
§ 115.161 Staff and agency reporting duties. ( a ) The agency shall require all staff to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred in an agency lockup; retaliation against detainees or staff who reported such an incident; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation.
( b ) Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff shall not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than to the extent necessary, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment and investigation decisions.
( c ) If the alleged victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the agency shall report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.
( d ) The agency shall report all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, to the agency's designated investigators.
### §69e. Name guide for fur products

#### (a) Fur Products Name Guide

The Commission shall, with the assistance and cooperation of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, within six months after August 8, 1951, issue, after holding public hearings, a register setting forth the names of hair, fleece, and fur-bearing animals, which shall be known as the Fur Products Name Guide. The names used shall be the true English names for the animals in question, or in the absence of a true English name for an animal, the name by which such animal can be properly identified in the United States.

#### (b) Additions and deletions; public hearing

The Commission may, from time to time, with the assistance and cooperation of the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior, after holding public hearings, add to or delete from such register the name of any hair, fleece, or fur-bearing animal.

#### (c) Prevention of confusion or deception

If the name of an animal (as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide) connotes a geographical origin or significance other than the true country or place of origin of such animal, the Commission may require whenever such name is used in setting forth the information required by this subchapter, such qualifying statements as it may deem necessary to prevent confusion or deception.

(Aug. 8, 1951, ch. 298, §7, 65 Stat. 179.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Federal Trade Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 8 of 1950, §1, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1264, set out under section 41 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  Neighborhood  Investment,
Ltd.,  on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ending  June 30,  2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

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

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


Date: September 4, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
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.
# Cover-Page

Meeting-Baseline-&-Followup

TA-Baseline-&-Followup

Training-Baseline-&-Followup

# Meeting-Baseline-&-Followup

# TA-Baseline-&-Followup

# Training-Baseline-&-Followup
### §7607. Rulemaking by Federal Trade Commission

The Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe rules pursuant to section 57a of this title to carry out this chapter. Rules so prescribed shall be exempt from the requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.). Any such regulations shall be issued in accordance with section 553 of title 5. The first rules under this section shall take effect not later than 180 days after the effective date of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 108–164, §8, Dec. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 2026.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 93–637, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2183. Title I of the Act is classified generally to chapter 50 (§2301 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2301 of this title and Tables.

For effective date of this chapter, referred to in text, see section 12 of Pub. L. 108–164, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7601 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Dec. 6, 2003, see section 12 of Pub. L. 108–164, set out as a note under section 7601 of this title.
# C_2011211EN.01001103.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Peter Hehenberger v Republic of Austria

(Case C-188/11)

2011/C 211/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen (Vienna)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Hehenberger

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 (2) preclude the laying down of rules by the provider of support requiring repayment by the recipient, in the event that an on the-spot check (area measurement) is prevented, of all support already given in the context of an agri-environmental measure during the commitment period, even if it has been awarded and disbursed for a number of years?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

1

(2)  Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) (OJ 2004 L 231, p. 24).

2

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  FAQs For WOSBs/EDWOSBs 

# FAQs for WOSBs/EDWOSBs

## About this document and download

  Download  .pdf

**Owned by**

**Related Programs**    Related programs:  

##                 Related documents            

-        Support          WOSB and EDWOSB Certification Options
(66 South. 854)

No. 20754.

#### TOUCHE et al. v. BRANDNER.

(Dec. 14, 1914.)

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.

Injunction by Widow Otto Touche and others against Joseph Brandner. From judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal, and defendant moves to dismiss.

Ordered that appeal be transferred to Court of Appeals of the Parish of Orleans.

A. D. Danziger, of New Orleans, for appellants. A. M. Buehmann, of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, J.

This is an action to enjoin the defendant from constructing a wharf extending from the bank of Lake Ponchartrain out into the lake in front of the plaintiffs’ property. The plaintiffs allege that the construction would, if not enjoined, cause them damages in excess of $2,000, and would inflict irreparable injury. The petitioners do not say what the damages would consist of, nor do they pray for a judgment for dam* ages. The prayer of their petition is merely that the defendant be enjoined from proceeding with the erection of the wharf and buildings in front of the plaintiffs’ property, and that, on trial of the case, the writ of injunction be perpetuated.

The preliminary injunction issued on a bond for $400 and Was released on a bond for $100. After a trial on the merits, the writ was finally dissolved and the suit dismissed. The bond furnished by the plaintiffs for their appeal to this court was only $200. The record discloses that the cost of the constructions complained of was about $250, and that they could be demolished and removed at a cost of about $50.

The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the matter in dispute does not exceed $2,000 in amount.

Our conclusion is that the allegation in the plaintiffs’ petition, which has not been supported by proof, that the act complained of would, if not enjoined, cause damage to the plaintiffs in excess of $2,000 was very much overestimated, and that the matter in dispute is below the jurisdiction of this court. The appeal, however,, is otherwise properly brought up, and should not be dismissed.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered and decreed that this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal of the Parish of Orleans, and that the appellant pay the cost of the appeal to this court.
Exhibit






Exhibit 4.7
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REALPAGE, INC.
2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
(Amended and Restated Effective June 4, 2014)
This Third Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the RealPage, Inc. (the “Company”) 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated June 4, 2014 (as amended, the “Plan”), is adopted as of February 18, 2016 (the “Date of Amendment”) by the Board.  All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them by the Plan.
Effective as of the Date of Amendment, the Plan is amended as follows:
1.    Annual Award to Outside Directors.  Sections 12(c) and 12(d) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated to read in their entirety as follows: 
 (c)  Annual Award.  Each Outside Director will be automatically granted (an “Annual Award”) on April 1 of each year, beginning in 2016, a number of Shares of Restricted Stock determined by dividing (A) $160,000 by (B) the average of the Fair Market Value of a share on each of the 30 trading days immediately preceding (and excluding) the grant date, with the number of Shares rounded up to the nearest whole Share.  If the initial election or appointment of such Outside Director occurs on any date other than April 1st, such Outside Director will also be automatically granted a prorated portion of the Annual Award on the date of such election or appointment.  The prorated number of Shares of Restricted Stock shall be determined based on the number of complete months remaining between the date of election or appointment and the next April 1st. 
 (d)  Terms.  The terms of each Award granted pursuant to this Section will be as follows:  The Restricted Stock awarded under each Annual Award will be issued for no cash consideration and will be forfeited and automatically transferred to and reacquired by the Company at no cost upon the date the Director ceases to provide services as a member of the Board (the “Forfeiture Provision”).  The Forfeiture Provision will lapse as to twenty-five percent (25%) of the Restricted Stock awarded in such Annual Award on the first day of each calendar quarter for four (4) calendar quarters beginning on the first day of the calendar quarter immediately following the date of grant, provided that the Participant continues to serve as a Director through such dates. 
2.    Miscellaneous.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without reference to principles of conflict of laws.
RealPage, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Third Amendment to the Plan on the date indicated below.
REALPAGE, INC.
By:   /s/ Stephen Winn        
Stephen Winn
Chief Executive Officer
Chairman of the Board


Date:  February 18, 2016