alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Kagan, appellee, v. Salemonis Andreoni and Eugene Andreoni, trading as Andreoni Brothers, appellants.

Gen. No. 31,058.

Action for negligent injury to property. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William J. Lindsay, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1926.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 5, 1926.

Murphy O. Tate, for appellants; Leo M. Tarpey, of counsel.

Ruekberg *&*Burr, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35

                                  BIOGEN, INC.
                     Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan


                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 4/1/96 RESTATEMENT

     The Biogen, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("Plan"), as
heretofore amended, is hereby further amended as follows:

Section 3.4 is inserted and shall state:

     "An individual is not considered a Participant for purposes of this Plan if
     the individual is classified as a consultant or contractor under the
     Company's or the Company's affiliate's regular personnel classifications
     and practices, or he is a party to an agreement to provide services to the
     Company or the Company's affiliate without participating in the Plan,
     notwithstanding that such individual may be treated as a common law
     employee for payroll tax or other legal purposes."


Date:  September 27, 1999                   BIOGEN, INC.


                                            By: /s/ Frank A. Burke, Jr.
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                Frank A. Burke, Jr.
                                                Vice President - Human Resources
#### 452.247-71 Marking Deliverables.

As prescribed in 447.305-10(a), insert a clause substantially as follows:

# Marking Deliverables (FEB 1988)

(a) The contract number shall be placed on or adjacent to all exterior mailing or shipping labels of deliverable items called for by the contract.

(b) Mark deliverables, except reports, for: ______.*

(End of clause)

- *Contracting Officer shall insert the appropriate information.*
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Observance: 2016 National Foster Care Month      

# Observance: 2016 National Foster Care Month

**Dates:** May 1-31, 2016May is National Foster Care Month, a month set aside to acknowledge foster parents, family members, volunteers, mentors, policymakers, child welfare professionals, and other members of the community who help children and youth in foster care find permanent homes and connections. This year’s initiative focuses on family reunification with the theme "Honoring, Uniting, and Celebrating Families." The new 2016 National Foster Care Month Microsite offers resources to spread the word and plan observance activities. **Learn more.**
**Exhibit 32.2****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**I, JoAnn N. McMinn, of Juniata Valley Financial Corp., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December31, 2007 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and isnot being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.     /s/ JoAnn N. McMinn Chief Financial Officer   Date: 03/14/2008
**Exhibit 31.2****Certifications**I, Catherine R. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Centex Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)] andinternal control over financial reporting [as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)] for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date:November 2, 2007/s/ CATHERINE R. SMITH
**2018 NAM Program Discretionary Grant Competition**

**GPRA Performance Measures**

The Department has developed the following GPRA performance measures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the NAM program:

· **Measure 1**:  The number and percentage of English learners (ELs) served by the project who score proficient or above on the State reading assessment.

· **Measure 2**:  The number and percentage of ELs served by the project who have attained proficiency in English as measured by the State-approved English language proficiency assessment. 

· **Measure 3**:  The number and percentage of students participating in the Native language program who are making progress in learning a Native language, as determined by each grantee, including through measures such as performance tasks, portfolios, and pre- and post-tests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM 10-Q - QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                        65
<INVENTORY>                                      7,897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,282
<PP&E>                                          26,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,684
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,193
<SALES>                                         19,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,975
<CGS>                                           15,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    861
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       851
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
#### 432.206 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

The responsibility for administration of the liquidation provisions of a contract may not be transferred from the contracting officer.
#### In the Matter of Sadie Mandy, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated March 1, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency to discontinue a grant of aid to dependent children to the petitioner because of her husband’s presence in her house. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to reinstate in full petitioner’s public assistance grant, and to pay back so much of the grant as has been withheld from her. The State commissioner affirmed the determination of petitioner’s grant of aid to dependent children after finding that credible evidence supported the local agency’s determination that her husband was residing with her. In addition, the State commissioner found that petitioner had concealed facts about her husband’s employment. The State commissioner’s determination was based on the following evidence: a judgment against the husband listing his *1003address as that of petitioner; the fact that the husband listed petitioner’s residence on his welfare pension fund; and a postal inquiry. The evidence used to support this determination does not even approach the substantial evidence needed to sustain it (see *Matter of Fore v Toia,*60 AD2d 913). Even if petitioner willfully withheld information of her husband’s employment or residence, her misconduct cannot deprive her minor children of assistance without a showing of a present lack of need and her husband’s willingness to contribute to their welfare (see *Matter of Farrone v Toia,*61 AD2d 983; *Matter of Palermo v Toia,*56 AD2d 889; *Matter of Westby v Berger,*54 AD2d 911; *Holmes v Wyman,*40 AD2d 50). Hopkins, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### JACKSON v. FULLER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 27, 1906.)

Tboveb and Convebsion—Right of Action.

Where plaintiff and defendant had agreed that defendant was to- have possession of a wagon till a sum paid by him for plaintiff was repaid, defendant was not guilty of conversion of the wagon in refusing to deliver It before he was repaid.

*976Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Action of conversion by Scipio Jackson against William H. Fuller. From a judgment in favor of “plaintiff for possession of the wagon, subject to the lien of $45 due the defendant by the plaintiff,” plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH, and GREEN-BAUM JJ.

L. & I. J. Joseph, for appellant.

James J. MacEvilly, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The justice in effect found, as we must assume from the judgment rendered, that the parties agreed that the defendant was to have the possession and use of the wagon until he was repaid the sum of $45, which he had advanced, at the request of plaintiff, to take up three promissory notes made by the latter to a third person, and that the plaintiff did not tender repayment of such sum, as claimed by him. Under these circumstances, the defendant, by virtue of such lien, was entitled to retain the possession of the wagon until the amount due was paid, and hence was not guilty of a conversion by refusing to deliver the same to the plaintiff. From this it is clear that there should have been judgment for the defendant, and we would so modify the judgment, without costs, if we have the power to do so in such a case as this. The plaintiff’s counsel upon the argument was given the opportunity of obtaining a return of the wagon in controversy upon payment of the amount of the loan, and thus to end the litigation; but he refused to accept such offer, and insisted upon a reversal of judgment.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, but, under the circumstances, without costs.
# C_2020381EN.01000301.xml

| 12.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2020/C 381/03)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Luxembourg

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Luxembourg

Subject of commemoration: The birth of Prince Charles

Description of the design: The design depicts at the centre the representation of Prince Charles as well as the effigies of his parents, Their Royal Highnesses the Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume and the Hereditary Grand Duchess Stephanie. Below these effigies, the text ‘S.A.R. de Prënz Charles’ (His Royal Highness the Prince Charles) is followed by the date of birth ‘10 May 2020’. At the left, the word ‘LËTZEBUERG’ as the designation of the issuing country is depicted vertically. The monogram (letter ‘H’ with a crown) is a representation of the Grand Duke Henri.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 500 000

Date of issue: December 2020

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
James E. Krieger 

2744 Moraine Valley Road 

Wauconda, Illinois 60084 

jlcrieger@worldwide aviation.solutions 

jkrieger@highaboveaerials-com 

Via Electronic Submission and Cer-tiified U.S. Mail 

DOcket 4perations 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

West Building, Ground Floor 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

December 10, 2015 

Re: Application for Exemption from Specified Aviation Regulations Under 

Section 333 of the FAA 1Vlodernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Applicant: Worldwide Aviation Solutions LLG , dba High Above 

Aerial Imaging 

Attn: James Krieger 

2 744 Moraine Valley Road 

Wauconda, Illinois 60084 

Phone: 847-565-0215 

Email: jkrieger@worldwideaviation. solutions 

Dear Madam or Sir, 

Please accept this letter as a supplement to the exemption request submitted by 

Worldwide Aviation Solutions LLG (the"Applicant"). The Applicant's exemption request 

is currently pending under pocket Number FAA-2015-6896-0001. 

Worldwide Aviation Solutions LLG hereby requests that the exemption so granted be 

amended to include: 

1) A DJI Inspire 1 Pro X5 small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS). Relevant facts and 

reasoning are: 

The DJI Inspire 1 Pro X5 is part of DJI Innovation's family of mission-proven multi-rotor 

sUAS. This sUAS uses essentially the same flight control and RC transmitter category 

and is built with similar components to the aircraft specified in the original exemption 

request. The DJI Inspire 1 Pro X5 is slightly larger than the DJI Phantom 2 Vision but 

weighs far less than the 55 pound maximum. This sUAS employs the DJI Inspire 1 
airframe and an updated Zenmuse X5 camera. Complete specifications for this sUAS are 

contained in Appendix 1. 

The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the original exemption request apply 

without modification to this application to include the DrJI Inspire Pro X5 in it. 

2) After receiving a proper FAA exemption, Worldwide Aviation Solutions LLC intends 

to do business as (dba) High Above Aerial Imaging. Please amend our request 

accordingly. 

Thank you for your consideration of these important requests. Please advise us of any 

additional information that may be required. 

~ cerel 

es ger 

£''GVodwide riation Solutions LLC 
Appendix I
167 So. 178

#### SIMPSON v. FIRST NAT. LIFE INS. CO.

No. 33488.

Nov. 4, 1935.

Dec. 2, 1935.

On Rehearing March 2, 1936.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1936.

Normann & McMahon and Harold M. Rouchell, of New Orleans, for First Nat. Life Ins. Co.

Jewell A. Sperling, of New Orleans, for Ada Simpson.

BRUNOT, Justice.

For the reasons assigned in Albertine Decoy v. First National Life Insurance Co., 184 La. 632, 167 So. 172, this day handed down, it is ordered that this case be redocketed in order that the manifest error pointed out in the reasons assigned for redocketing the Decoy Case may be corrected before the final submission hereof.

O’NIELL, C. J., dissents.

On Rehearing.

ODOM, Justice.

The application for -writs in this case presents precisely the same questions of law as those presented in the application for writs in the case of Albertine Decoy v. First National Life Insurance Co., 184 La. 632, 167 So. 172, this day decided on rehearing. The insurance policy involved in this case is identical with that in the .Decoy Case, except as to names, dates, and amounts.

It is not necessary to state in this case our conclusions as to the questions of law involved in cases of this kind, because we have already stated them in the Decoy Case. In this case, as in the Decoy Case, there were certain facts involved all relating to the question whether the reserve properly apportioned to this policy was sufficient to carry it beyond the date on which deceased died. In this case, as in the Decoy Case, it appears that the pol*651icy was *kept in*force by *the*payment of the required weekly premiums for more than three years and that the policy lapsed because of the failure of the insured to pay four weekly premiums. It was contended by plaintiff in this case, as in the Decoy Case, that the reserve which should have been apportioned to the policy was sufficient to keep it alive for a period of time beyond the date of the death of the insured. Whether that reserve was sufficient is a question of fact which we cannot determine, because the testimony is not before us.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Decoy Case, this day handed down, it is ordered that the writs issued herein be recalled and vacated, and relator’s application is dismissed at its costs. Relator's right to apply for a rehearing is reserved.

O’NIELL, C. J., dissents.