alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013009EN.01002001.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt — Sweden) — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

(Case C-461/11) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Total or partial debt relief procedure - Debtor who is a natural person - National legislation making the grant of debt relief subject to a residence condition)

2013/C 9/31

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Stockholms tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

Applicant:

Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Stockholms tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Compatibility with Article 45 TFEU of national legislation making the grant of debt relief proceedings in respect of natural persons subject to a condition of residence in national territory — Debtor who is a national of Member State A, resident in Member State B, having made an application for debt relief in Member State A, the place of origin of his debts — Links with the place the application was made

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of debt relief subject to a condition of residence in the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
KPMG LLP
4200 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN  55402



                        Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors of Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
and the Contract Owners of Allianz Life Variable Account B:

We consent to the use of our report,  dated  February  4, 2000 on the  financial
statements of Allianz Life Variable  Account B and our report dated  February 7,
2000, on the consolidated financial statements of Allianz Life Insurance Company
of North America and  subsidiaries  included  herein and to the reference to our
Firm under the heading "EXPERTS".

Our report dated February 7, 2000 on the  consolidated  financial  statements of
Allianz Life  Insurance  Company of North America and  subsidiaries  refers to a
change in the  method  of  calculating  deferred  acquisition  costs and  future
benefit reserves for two-tiered annuities.



                                      KPMG LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 21, 2000
# C_2006294EN.01002703.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive

(Case C-390/06)

(2006/C 294/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Nuova Agricast srl

Claimant:

Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive

Defendant:

Question referred

‘The question concerns the validity of the EU Commission's decision of 12 July 2000, notified to the Italian Government by letter referenced SG(2000)D/105754 of 2 August 2000, solely with reference to the transitional provision which provides for exceptional derogation from the principle of “necessary aid” — on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question — only for applications “made on the occasion of the last invitation to apply for support measures, organised on the basis of the preceding scheme and approved by the Commission until 31 December 1999, which were considered eligible for aid but were not cleared because insufficient financial resources were allocated to that invitation”, with the consequent unjustified passing-over — in breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was based pursuant to Article 253 EC — of applications made in connection with earlier invitations, which had not been supported because of a lack of funds and which were waiting to be included automatically in the next invitation or to be revised and resubmitted in the first “appropriate” invitation established under the new scheme’.

---
#### Anna C. Brush, Appellant, v. Mercogliano Brothers, Inc., Respondent.

Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
§ 34.109 Qualifications of peer reviewers. The general reviewer qualification criteria to be used in the selection of peer reviewers are: ( a ) Generalized knowledge of juvenile justice or related fields; and
( b ) Specialized knowledge in areas or disciplines addressed by the applications to be reviewed under a particular program.
( c ) Must not have a conflict of interest (see OJP M7100.1C, par. 94).
Additional details concerning peer reviewer qualifications are provided in the OJJDP “Peer Review Guideline”.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*David Leon King, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 11372;

Fourth District

November 5, 1971.

Morton Zwick, Executive Director of Defender Project, of Chicago, (John F. McNichols and Bruce L. Herr, of Defender Project, of Springfield, of counsel,) for appellant.

Lawrence E. Johnson, State’s Attorney, of Urbana, (James R. Burgess, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant was convicted of deviate sexual assault. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 11—3.) Sentence of 5 to 14 years was imposed. He appeals.

*758The events at issue occurred in the Champaign City Jail. The defendant was charged under municipal ordinances with (1) fighting and (2) indecent conduct. Defendant pleaded guilty to fighting on December 2, 1968. Thereafter evidence was heard on the charge of indecent conduct and the case taken under advisement. The record shows that on December 19, 1969, the city attorney in open court moved to strike the cause for the reason “that defendant is serving a penitentiary sentence for the indecent conduct in this cause.” The motion was allowed and the cause was stricken.

The defendant was indicted for deviate sexual assault in January, 1969. Prior to trial, in April, 1969, his motion to bar prosecution on the grounds of double jeopardy was denied.

In oral argument, the prosecution concedes that the indecent conduct of the municipal charge was the same conduct as the indicted charge of deviate sexual assault.

*Benton v. Maryland,*395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707, held the fourteenth amendment made the double jeopardy provision of the fifth amendment applicable to the States. In *People v. Allison,*46 Ill.2d 147, 263 N.E.2d 80 our Supreme Court followed the rule of Benton and reversed a conviction under the Criminal Code following a conviction under a municipal ordinance for the same conduct.

 The prosecution argues that *Benton*was not announced as retroactive, nor did the Supreme Court so determine in *Waller v. Florida,*397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435. The issue has now been resolved and the rule of *Benton*has been made retroactive. *Price v. Georgia,*398 U.S. 323, 90 S.Ct. 1757, 26 L.Ed.2d 300.

 It has been argued that there has been no conviction of sentence imposed following the evidentiary hearing upon the municipal charges, and that defendant has not been placed twice in jeopardy illegally. Where a criminal charge is heard without a jury, jeopardy attached when the defendant is subjected to a charge and the court has begun to hear the evidence. *People v. Laws,*29 Ill.2d 221, 193 N.E.2d 806. In this record, such is the fact.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

SMITH, P. J., and CRAVEN, J., concur.
NO. 07-06 -028 0-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D OC TOBER17, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JER RY W AY NE BAN NI STER, Appel lan t v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LA W NO. 2 O F HE NDE RS ON COU NT Y; NO. 200 5-08 54CL 2; HON. NANCY PERRYM AN, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Concurring Opinion

_________

_________

_________

_____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. I c oncur i n the deci si on to re v erse and re mand the caus e for the fol low ing reason . The cour

t i n Har ri s v . St ate , 227 S.W .3d 8 3, 85 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) outl in ed w hat a defendant mus t s how

i n order to be g ra nted a Franks hea ring. T hatis a defend antmust 1) allege delibe rate falseh ood or reckless disregard for the trut h by the af f iant, specif ically poi nti ng out the p orti on of the aff ida v itcl aimed to be fals e, 2) ac company thes e al leg ati onsw it h an off er of proof stat ing the suppo rt ing reaso ns, and 3) show that w hen t he por

ti on of the af f idavi t a ll e ge d to be false is exci sed f rom th e af f idavit, the rem aining cont entis ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t i ss uance of the w ar ra nt. Id. In t he c ase at ba r, appel lan t poi nted out the p orti on of the aff ida v itthathe b eli ev ed w as false; he c ontende d tha t t he pi ctu re s a ttac hed t o the aff ian t’ s a ff ida v itw e re n ot of appel lan t’ s h ouse as sta ted i n the aff ida v it

. Appell ant t hen ac compani ed hi s a ll eg ati ons w it h an off er

of proof c onsi sti ng of pic tures of his ac tual home w hic h home a ppears t o be different from the one i n the aff ian t’ s pic tures. And, final ly , i n ex ci si ng the pic tures of the house a t w hic h appel lan t al leg edl y pos ses sed dr ug parapher nal ia from the aff ida v it , t he re maini ng co ntentof the a ff ida v iti s i nsuffici ent t o s uppor t t he i ss uance of

the w ar ra nt based on t he fact that there i s p ro babl e c ause that dr ug parapher nal ia w oul d be found at appel lan t’ s h ome. Therefor e, I conc lud e that appel lan t est abl is hed his ri g ht to an d the tr ial cour t s houl d hav e hel d a Frankshear ing

. Harris , 227 S.W .3d a t 85. Accordin gly , I rev erse the judgmen t and rema nd th e case for f urthe r proceed ings.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.
**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 of        1934**

**Progenics        Pharmaceuticals, Inc.**

| Delaware                                                                                            |   | **000-23143**                            |   | **13-3379479**                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (State                  or other jurisdictionof                  incorporation)                     |   | (CommissionFile                  Number) |   | (IRS                  EmployerIdentification                  No.) |
|                                                                                                |   |                                     |   |                                                               |
| 777                  Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York                                   |   | 10591                                    |
| (Address                  of principal executive offices)                                           |   | (Zip                  Code)              |
| Registrant's                  telephone number, including area code (914)                  789-2800 |

*see *

----

**Section        8**

**Item        8.01. Other Events**

**Item        9.01   Financial Statements and Exhibits.**

**Exhibit        No.**
**Description**

----

**SIGNATURES**
PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST

Hull and Propellers

All hull screws are securely fastened to the body of the UAS

All propellers are securely fastened to the motors

Transmitters and accompanying wires are securely fastened to the hull

Camera(s), gimbal(s), and acocmpanying wires are securely fastened to the hull

There are no loose parts, wires, screws, or extremities that can fall from the UAS

Operator Notes:

Safety Check

The operator performed a visual review of the area of operation

The operator is aware of aerial obstructions (i.e. poles, structures, utility wires, trees).

The operator is not within 3-miles of an airport

The operator clearly marked a takeoff/landing zone with 4 orange caution cones

The operator has clearly announced that the UAV is preparing for flight

The operator has ensured no persons or animals are near the caution zone

Weather permits the safe operation of the UAS (i.e. little to no wind, no precipitation, VFR Wx Cond.)

If working in pairs, the second operator has a pair of binoculars to maintain line of sight

Operator Notes:

Power to System

The battery being placed into the UAS has a full capacity charge.

The batteries inside the RC controller have a sufficient charge

There is a spare UAS battery with a full charge

There are spare batteries for the RC controller with a full charge

The UAS battery is securely fastened within the UAS hull

The UAS powers up completely indicating a normal audible chime of operability

All lights on the UAS are operating normally

Operator Notes:

RC/WIFI/FPV Connectivity

There is a steady connection between the RC controller and the UAS

There is a steady connection between the video transmitter and the FPV receiver

The UAS is responding accurately and efficiently to RC commands

Video equipment is responding accurately and efficiently to FPV commands

FPV OSD is operational

RC Controller is placed into the appropriate flight mode for takeoff

Operator Notes:

Satellite Connectivity

UAS is indicating full satellite/GPS connectivity

UAS has set the "home" location

Following take-off, UAS successfully completes a 10-second hover with minimal drift

After hover check, UAS responds to all directional movements and returns to hover upon release of CL.

Operator Notes:

UAS Operator's Signature: _________________________ UAS Observers Signature:________________________ 

Job/Invoice Number: _______________ Date of flight: _______________ Time: _______________

* All Aerovisible UAS Operators MUST perform this pre-flight checklist prior to every respective flight.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Zina Sutch 

#   Zina Sutch

Assistant Administrator

Office of Diversity, Inclusion & Civil Rights

            Download high-resolution image          

Dr. Zina Sutch serves as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Civil Rights. In this role, Dr. Sutch will serve as the principal agency advisor for transforming ODI&CR programs and providing strategic direction to the Administrator and other agency officials. She will be responsible for managing, directing, and coordinating a variety of high-level projects and policy issues to ensure maximum support of ODI&CR operations. As Assistant Administrator for ODI&CR, she will be responsible for carrying out the civil rights responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and applicable Executive Orders, including investigations, negotiations, and compliance activities. 

Dr. Sutch joins SBA from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), where she served as the Deputy Associate Director, Outreach, Diversity and Inclusion. In this position, she served as an advisor to government-wide leaders, Agency Heads, Diversity Officers, Human Resources Directors, and senior leaders providing policy, guidance, management, budget, and technical assistance on diversity and inclusion matters. She conducted analysis and research on cross-functional recruitment and retention, talent management, workforce planning, and employee inclusion and, ultimately, engagement efforts.

Prior to this position, she served as the Director of Diversity and Inclusion at OPM, where she developed government-wide policies and guidance to assist Federal agencies in building diverse workforces and inclusive and engaged organizational cultures that leverage diversity and provided expert advisory services to Federal agencies undergoing cultural transformation. In this role, Dr. Sutch developed, implemented, and coordinated the government-wide diversity and inclusion strategic plan in support of the Administration's policy.

In addition to her experience, she has earned a Bachelor of Arts in Business and Economics from Clark University, a Master of Arts in Special Education from George Washington University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Special Education from the University of Maryland.   

 

## Blogs by   Zina Sutch

                  -  How to Create an Inclusive Hiring and Workplace Culture at Your Small BusinessBy Zina Sutch on October 6, 2020
This National Disability Employment Awareness Month, learn more about the benefits and steps of hiring individuals with disabilities at your small business.
Exhibit
      10.d.77





**2006
      Management Compensation Plan Description**





CEO
      and
      officer compensation includes three components: Base salary is intended to
      be
      set at approximately the 50 th percentile for base salary compensation at comparable companies. Short-term
      incentive compensation is intended to compensate officers for Company
      performance and is linked to defined Company performance metrics, such that
      if
      performance targets are achieved, officers’ direct compensation (base salary
      plus short-term incentive) would approximate the 40-50 th percentile of total direct compensation at comparable companies. Performance
      metrics for short-term incentive compensation include customer service (60%),
      based on meeting or exceeding seventeen specified customer service quality
      performance standards in the Company's service quality plan approved by the
      Vermont Public Service Board, and creating value for shareholders (40%), based
      on the Company’s annual consolidated return on equity. The Compensation
      Committee (with respect to the CEO) and the Board of Directors (with respect
      to
      other executive officers) retain discretion to reduce short-term incentive
      compensation in light of events or circumstances that would make it
      inappropriate to award short-term incentive compensation strictly in accordance
      with these performance metrics. Long-term incentive compensation is designed
      to
      provide long-term incentives for future Company performance and is intended
      to
      bring total officer compensation to approximately the 40 th percentile of total compensation paid to equivalent executives at comparable
      companies, if target performance criteria are met.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DUANE LEWIS ELEBY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50462

D.C. No. 

2:12-cr-00159-MMM-5

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 9, 2017** 

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,

***

District Judge.

 

FILED

JAN 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
page 2

1. To apply the penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), the government need

not “prove that the defendant knew the type or quantity of the controlled

substance.” See United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 2015);

United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir. 2002). It is sufficient that

Eleby admitted that the controlled substance he was carrying was, in fact,

approximately 4,922 grams of powder cocaine. Because his sentence of 90 months

falls within the statutory range under section 841(b)(1)(B)(ii), it doesn’t violate

either Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), or Alleyne v. United States,

133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013).

2. Relying on United States v. Encarnación-Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581 (1st Cir.

2015), Eleby argues that he pled guilty only to aiding and abetting. Although the

indictment in Encarnación-Ruiz, like the indictment in this case, charged the

defendants with “aiding and abetting each other,” neither party in that case

questioned that the defendant was liable only as an aider and abettor. Id. at 591–92. 

Moreover, the plea agreement in Encarnación-Ruiz showed that the defendant only

admitted to “aiding and abetting another co-defendant.” Id. at 592 (citing the plea

agreement). By contrast, Eleby’s indictment and plea agreement affirmatively
page 3

show that he was charged with and pled guilty to possession with intent to

distribute a controlled substance as both a principal and an aider and abettor.

3. Because we don’t examine Eleby’s sentence under the aiding and

abetting theory of liability, we don’t address whether Rosemond v. United States,

134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) changed the mens rea requirement for aiding and abetting a

§ 841(a)(1) offense. See Jefferson, 791 F.3d at 1017.

AFFIRMED.
KPMG LLP
4200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN  55402

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors of Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and
the Contract Owners of Allianz Life Variable Account B:

We consent to the use of our report dated April 15, 2008 on the financial
statements of Allianz Life Variable Account B and our report dated April 16,
2008 on the consolidated financial statements and supplemental schedules of
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and subsidiaries included herein
and to the reference to our Firm under the heading "EXPERTS" in the Statement of
Additional Information.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 24, 2008