alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Appellee v. ANNIE K. NEWMAN, Appellant

Criminal No. 32-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

February 6, 1965

*163Before SHRIVER, *Judge,*District Court of Guam; KINNARE, *Associate Justice,*High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and PEREZ, *Chief Judge,*Island Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

OPINION

Annie K. Newman, the appellant herein, entered a plea of not guilty in the Island Court of Guam to the charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of Section 23405(a), Ch. 4, Title 24 of the Government Code of Guam. Her plea of not guilty was conditioned upon her contention that the offense was committed upon a military reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. For many years some question existed as to the extent, if any, of the jurisdiction of the government of Guam over criminal offenses committed on military reservations in Guam. Any doubt was removed by the passage of Pub. L. 88-183, Nov. 20, 1963, 77 Stat. 339, 48 U.S.C.A. § 1704. This provides :

> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, as the case may be, shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over parties found, acts performed, and offenses committed on property owned, reserved, or controlled by the United States in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa shall be a bar to any prosecution under the criminal laws of the United States for the same act or acts, and a judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits *164under the laws of the United States shall be a bar to any prosecution under the laws of Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa for the same act or acts.

> (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the President may from time to time exclude from the concurrent jurisdiction of the government of Guam persons found, acts performed, and offenses committed on the property of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary of Defense to such extent and in such circumstances as he finds required in the interest of the national defense.

It is not contended here that the President has excluded the reservation from the concurrent jurisdiction of the government of Guam. We are not concerned here with federal-state relationships as Guam is an unincorporated territory over which the United States Congress exercises legislative jurisdiction. We affirm the finding of guilt.
§ 1302.2 Application of this part. This part applies to any program for which financial assistance is provided by TVA. The types of Federal financial assistance to which this part applies are listed in appendix A of this part. Financial assistance, as used in this part, includes the grant or loan of money; the donation of real or personal property; the sale, lease, or license of real or personal property for a consideration which is nominal or reduced for the purpose of assisting the recipient; the waiver of charges which would normally be made, in order to assist the recipient; the entry into a contract where a purpose is to give financial assistance to the contracting party; and similar transactions. This part does not apply to: ( a ) Any financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts,
( b ) Money paid, property transferred, or other assistance extended before the effective date of this part,
( c ) Any assistance to any individual who is the ultimate beneficiary, or
( d ) Any employment practice, under any such program, of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization, unless such practice exists in a program where a primary objective of the TVA financial assistance is to provide employment; or where such practice subjects persons to discrimination in the provision of services and benefits on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from TVA.
The fact that a type of Federal financial assistance is not listed in appendix A shall not mean, if Title VI of the Act is otherwise applicable, that a program is not covered. Other types of Federal financial assistance may be added to this list by notice published in the Federal Register. [30 FR 311, Jan. 9, 1965. Redesignated at 44 FR 30682, May 29, 1979, and amended at 49 FR 20481, May 15, 1984; 68 FR 51355, Aug. 26, 2003]
EXHIBIT INDEX


   A.  Copies of the exhibits listed below are submitted with this
       Annual Report on Form 10-K, immediately following this index.

       10.38  Form of Performance Stock Memorandum dated February 27,
              2001, regarding conditional opportunity to acquire
              Company stock granted to seven executive officers,
              respectively.

       10.55  Global Marine Inc. 2001 Management Incentive Award Plan.

        21.1  List of Subsidiaries.

        23.1  Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Independent
              Accountants.

        99.1  Commitment and Authorization for the Exercise of Global
              Marine Inc. Stock Options and Sale of Stock, by Robert E.
              Rose, the Registrant's Chairman, President and CEO,
              executed February 6, 2001, for the purpose of
              establishing a plan to sell stock of the Registrant in
              accordance with Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange
              Act of 1934.

   B.   All other exhibits listed in Item 14(a)(3) are incorporated by
        reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as stated in Item
        14(a)(3).  Descriptions of these exhibits are incorporated
        herein by this reference to Item 14(a)(3) of this Report.
Exhibit 10.5







Directors' Compensation







All non-employee directors of The Old Point National Bank of Phoebus (the Bank) and Old Point Trust & Financial Services, N.A. (the Trust Company) receive $500 and $300, respectively, for each board meeting they attend. The non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive $150 for each committee meeting they attend except for the Bank's Investment Committee meetings, for which members receive $100 for attendance, and the Bank's Director Loan Committee and Audit Committee meetings, for which members receive $200 for attendance.







In addition, non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive an annual retainer fee of $10,000 and $3,000, respectively.  In addition, the chairman of the Audit Committee and the chairman of the Trust Company Board and the Lead Director of the Bank Board receive an additional $2,000 annual retainer, and the chairman of the Directors Loan Committee receives an additional $1,000 retainer.







All directors of Old Point Financial Corporation (the Company) have been elected as directors of the Bank, but there is no assurance that this practice will continue. However, not all Company directors serve as directors of the Trust Company. There are no additional fees paid for being a Company director.







The Company also pays for all directors and their spouses to attend regular director seminars.







Non-employee directors were eligible to receive awards of non-qualified stock options under the Company's 1998 Stock Option Plan; however, the 1998 Stock Option Plan expired in 2008, and no further awards may be granted under the plan.
# C_2013026EN.01000701.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese

(Joined Cases C-182/11 and C-183/11) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Contracting authority exercising over a legally distinct successful tenderer control similar to that exercised over its own departments - No obligation to carry out a tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law (‘in-house’ award) - Successful tenderer controlled jointly by several local authorities - Conditions for the applicability of an in-house award)

2013/C 26/12

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Econord SpA

Applicant:

Defendants: Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Award without a call for tenders — Contract for the provision of urban hygiene services awarded by two public authorities, outside any formal procedure for the award of public procurement contracts, to a company in which the contracting authorities hold share capital — No effective control exercised by those authorities over the company providing the services

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Where, in their capacity as contracting authority, a number of public authorities jointly establish an entity with responsibility for carrying out their public service mission, or where a public authority subscribes to such an entity, the condition established by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the effect that, in order to be exempted from their obligation to initiate a public tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law, those authorities must jointly exercise over that entity control similar to the control they exercise over their own departments, is fulfilled where each of those authorities not only holds capital in that entity, but also plays a role in its managing bodies.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---
### §8344. Other authority

Unless otherwise provided by its terms, this subtitle does not divest any appropriate Federal banking agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or any other Federal or State agency, of any authority derived from any other provision of applicable law.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §771, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1801.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subtitle, referred to in text, is subtitle B (§§761–774) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1754, which enacted this subchapter and sections 78c–3 to 78c–5, 78j–2, 78m–1, and 78o–10 of this title, amended sections 77b, 77b–1, 77e, 77q, 78c, 78c–1, 78f, 78i, 78j, 78m, 78o, 78p, 78q–1, 78t, 78u–1, 78u–2, 78bb, 78dd, 78mm, 80a–2, and 80b–2 of this title, enacted provisions set out as a note under section 77b of this title, and amended provisions set out as a note under section 78c of this title. For complete classification of subtitle B to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
EXHIBIT 32.2

ORTHOVITA, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

I, Albert J. Pavucek, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:

(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/s/ Albert J. Pavucek, Jr.Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)


Date: March 16, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ STEPHEN M. DEXTERStephen M. DexterVice President and Corporate Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer)
### SUBCHAPTER CXXXIV—RED CLIFFS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
### SUBCHAPTER II—RESEARCH
### §719o. Civil rights; affirmative action of Federal officers and agencies; rules: promulgation and enforcement

All Federal officers and agencies shall take such affirmative action as is necessary to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from receiving, or participating in any activity conducted under, any certificates, permit, right-of-way, lease, or other authorization granted or issued pursuant to this chapter. The appropriate Federal officers and agencies shall promulgate such rules as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section and may enforce this section, and any rules promulgated under this section through agency and department provisions and rules which shall be similar to those established and in effect under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.].

(Pub. L. 94–586, §17, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2915.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is classified generally to subchapter V (§2000d et seq.) of chapter 21 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a 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.
#### Henry Shapiro et al., Copartners under the Name of Henry Shapiro & Company, et al., Appellants, *v.*Greenwich Savings Bank et al., Respondents.

First Department,

June 22, 1943.

*360*Harry M. Marks*of counsel *(Ben Cooperman*with him on the brief; *Marks & Marks,*attorneys), for appellants.

*Alfred W. Bergren*of counsel *(Frank E. Sprower*with him on the brief; *Middlebrook & Sincerbecmx,*attorneys), for respondent Greenwich Savings Bank.

*Julius L. TJeidle*of counsel *(Neidle & Taylor,*attorneys), for respondents Dillon, Berghold, Walsh, McGratty, Berghold and Curry.

*Per Curiam.*

There was *prima facie*proof that plaintiff, Shapiro, had been asked to submit offers and, thus, of employment. There was like proof that plaintiff, Groskin, induced Dillon (the ultimate buyer) to negotiate for the purchase of the property. The defendant bank was notified of plaintiffs’ claim for commissions before the sale was consummated, and did not terminate the employment. It was error to dismiss the first cause of action, though the parties completed negotiations in plaintiffs’ absence, if the purchaser was procured through plaintiffs’ instrumentality. *(Lloyd*v. *Matthews,*51 N. Y. 124; *Sussdorff*v. *Schmidt,*55 N. Y. 319; *Sibbald*v. *Bethlehem Iron Co.,*83 N. Y. 378.) As plaintiffs had a cause of action for commissions, we find no basis for recovery on the remaining causes of" action.

The judgment should be reversed insofar as it dismissed the first cause of action against the Greenwich Savings Bank, and a new trial ordered as to the issues raised therein, with costs to plaintiffs-appellants to abide the event, the action severed, and the judgment as to defendants-respondents, John J. Dillon, William F. Berghold, Mary D. Walsh, Catherine D. McGratty, Julia D. Berghold and Virginia D. Curry affirmed, with costs.

Untermver, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., and Cohn, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment reversed insofar as it dismissed the first cause of action against the Greenwich Savings Bank, and a new trial ordered as to the" issues raised therein, with costs to plaintiffs-appellants to abide the event, the action severed, and the judgment as to defendants-respondents, John J. Dillon, William F. Berghold, Mary D. Walsh, Catherine D. McGratty, Julia D. Berghold and Virginia D. Curry affirmed, with costs to said respondents against the appellants.
#### § 367.4211 Account 421.1, Gain on disposition of property.

This account must be credited with the gain on the sale, conveyance, exchange, or transfer of service or other property to another. Income taxes on gains recorded in this account must be recorded in account 409.2, Income taxes, other income and deductions (§ 367.4092).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                        ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
                                  SERIES 1999-1


         The undersigned, Daniel H. Relf, Executive Vice President, National
Loan Servicing of Aames Capital Corporation (the "SERVICER"), in its capacity as
Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1,
1999 (the "POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT") between Aames Capital Corporation,
as Sponsor and Servicer, and Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A., as
Trustee, does hereby certify pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement that as of the date given below:

                  (a)      a review of the activities of the Servicer for the
                           fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 and of its
                           performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
                           has been made under my supervision, and

                  (b)      to the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
                           the Servicer has fulfilled all of its material
                           obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
                           throughout such year, except that an Event of Default
                           has occurred under Section 8.01(f) of the Pooling and
                           Servicing Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name as of this 22nd day
of September, 2000.



                                    /s/ Daniel H. Relf
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Daniel H. Relf
                                    Executive Vice President
                                    National Loan Servicing
Exhibit 99.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of National Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carol
Boozer, Vice President and Principal Financial Officer, of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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 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:    May 23, 2003                        /s/ Carol Boozer
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Carol Boozer
                                             Vice President and Principal
                                             Financial Officer
# C_2013046EN.01000402.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano — Italy) — 3D I srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Cremona

(Case C-207/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Articles 2, 4 and 9 - Transfer of assets - Taxation of the capital gains obtained by the transferring company at the time of the transfer of assets - Deferral of taxation - Requirement that a reserve fund for the suspended tax corresponding to the value of the capital gains obtained be carried over in the balance sheet of the transferring company)

2013/C 46/07

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: 3D I srl

Appellant:

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Cremona

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4 and 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Transfer of assets — National legislation providing for the taxation of the capital gains arising from a transfer of assets and for the capital gain to correspond to the difference between the initial cost of acquiring the assets in exchange for the shares or holdings transferred and their current market value — Exemption where the transferring company carries over in its own balance sheet a special reserve fund equivalent to the capital gains arising upon the transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 4 and 9 of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding, in a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, the consequence of a transfer of assets being the taxation of the transferring company on the capital gain arising from that transfer, unless the transferring company carries over in its own balance sheet an appropriate reserve fund equivalent to the capital gain arising upon that transfer.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---