alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 607.20 Who must register and submit a blood product list. ( a ) Owners or operators of all establishments, not exempt under section 510(g) of the act or subpart D of this part, that engage in the manufacture of blood products shall register and submit a list of every blood product in commercial distribution (except that registration and listing information may be submitted by the parent, subsidiary, and/or affiliate company for all establishments when operations are conducted at more than one establishment and there exists joint ownership and control among all the establishments). Blood products manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed in any State as defined in section 201(a)(1) of the act must be listed whether or not the output of such blood product establishment or any particular blood product so listed enters interstate commerce.
( b ) Preparatory to engaging in the manufacture of blood products, owners or operators of establishments who are submitting a biologics license application to manufacture blood products are required to register before the biologics license application is approved.
( c ) Except in the case of licensed device manufacturers, no registration fee is required. Establishment registration and blood product listing do not constitute an admission or agreement or determination that a blood product is a “drug” within the meaning of section 201(g) of the act.
[40 FR 52788, Nov. 12, 1975, as amended at 64 FR 56452, Oct. 20, 1999; 66 FR 59158, Nov. 27, 2001; 81 FR 60222, Aug. 31, 2016]
§ 582.1613 Potassium bicarbonate. ( a ) *Product.* Potassium bicarbonate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
##### 



Exhibit (32)(a)

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Republic Bancorp Inc.
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2003
    
    /s/ Dana M. CluckeyName: Dana M. CluckeyTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and (ii) will not be deemed filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section.

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Republic Bancorp Inc.
and will be retained by Republic Bancorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Weiss v. Coyer Motor Co.

*361
      *Henry M. Biglan,*for plaintiff.

*Bialkowski, Bialkowski & Bialkowski,*for defendant.

December 13, 1950.

Robinson, J.,

In this case after complaint, answer and new matter and reply both sides moved for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff sued to recover $100 paid to defendant as a deposit accompanying an order for a Plymouth automobile.

On September 3, 1949, plaintiff executed the following order on a printed order form furnished by defendant : “I hereby order you to equip and deliver to me at Scranton, Pa., on or about — as soon as possible — the following described motor vehicle which I agree to accept at the price and according to the terms set forth below and on the reverse side hereof.”

The paper contained a typewritten notation as follows : “car wanted in April, 1950.” A printed “acceptance” was executed by “N. Coyer” for defendant.

The reverse side of the printed order form contained a paragraph stating: “It is agreed that the seller will not be held liable for any delay or failure to make delivery through any cause whatsoever.”

Nowhere in the writing did defendant promise or undertake to make delivery of an automobile to plaintiff. The express provisions of the writing excused defendant from making delivery for “any cause whatsoever.” There was then no immediate contract. At best it can be considered but an offer on the part of plaintiff to buy an automobile from defendant company on delivery. That offer could only be accepted by a promise on the part of defendant to sell and deliver the subject matter of plaintiff’s order or by an actual tender of delivery. Until that was done no binding agreement existed.

Plaintiff could at any time before acceptance of the offer revoke the same and demand the return of the deposit money.

*362The forfeiture clause of the writing is not effective, not only because of the lack of a present agreement, but also because the deposit could not be forfeited “as liquidated damages” under the terms thereof except upon plaintiff’s “failure to accept delivery of the motor vehicle”.

As no delivery was tendered there could be no forfeiture and as defendant made no commitments by way of acceptance of plaintiff’s offer there was no contract. Plaintiff is entitled to the deposit money, with interest from the demand “sometime during February, 1950”.

Now, December 13, 1950, judgment is entered for plaintiff and against defendant for $100, with interest from February 28, 1950.
Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-72249) of Programmer's Paradise, Inc., pertaining
to the  Programmer's  Paradise,  Inc. 1986 Stock Option Plan,  the  Programmer's
Paradise,  Inc.  1995  Stock  Plan  and the  Programmer's  Paradise,  Inc.  1995
Non-Employee  Director  Plan, of our report dated January 27, 2006,  relating to
the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule of
Programmer's  Paradise,  Inc., which appears in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Programmer's Paradise, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.



Edison, New Jersey
March 14, 2006


                                 /s/  Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.
§ 507.67 Compliance with, or appeal of, an order to withdraw a qualified facility exemption. ( a ) If you receive an order under § 507.65 to withdraw a qualified facility exemption, you must either: ( 1 ) Comply with applicable requirements of this part within 120 calendar days of the date of receipt of the order, or within a reasonable timeframe, agreed to by FDA, based on a written justification, submitted to FDA, for a timeframe that exceeds 120 calendar days from the date of receipt of the order; or
( 2 ) Appeal the order within 15 calendar days of the date of receipt of the order in accordance with the requirements of § 507.69.
( b ) Submission of an appeal, including submission of a request for an informal hearing, will not operate to delay or stay any administrative action, including enforcement action by FDA, unless the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, as a matter of discretion, determines that delay or a stay is in the public interest.
( c ) If you appeal the order, and FDA confirms the order: ( 1 ) You must comply with applicable requirements of this part within 120 calendar days of the date of receipt of the order, or within a reasonable timeframe, agreed to by FDA, based on a written justification, submitted to FDA, for a timeframe that exceeds 120 calendar days from the date of receipt of the order; and
( 2 ) You are no longer subject to the requirements in § 507.7.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         406,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,987,920
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,465,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,101,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,952,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,148,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,101,797
<SALES>                                      3,721,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,721,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,354,855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             626,019
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (288,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (288,971)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 524.1484i Neomycin and hydrocortisone ointment. ( a ) *Specifications.* The drug contains 5 milligrams of neomycin sulfate, equivalent to 3.5 milligrams of neomycin base, and 5 milligrams of hydrocortisone acetate in each gram of ointment.1
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Apply 3 or 4 times daily into the conjunctival sac. With improvement, frequency may be reduced to 2 or 3 times daily. For treatment of ear canker and other inflammatory conditions of the external ear canal, fill external ear canal 1 to 3 times daily.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of infections, allergic and traumatic keratitis, conjunctivitis, acute otitis externa and, to a lesser degree, chronic otitis externa.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[43 FR 40456, Sept. 12, 1978, as amended at 79 FR 10971, Feb. 27, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6998

LARRY DARNELL SPEARS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES E. BRIGGS, Ombudsman Services Unit,

Manager,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-96-427-AM)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 26, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Darnell Spears, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Spears v. Briggs, No. CA-96-427-AM (E.D. Va. Apr.

1, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DICTAPHONE CORPORATION AT DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 12 MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,801
<INVENTORY>                                     49,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,935
<PP&E>                                          77,884
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 461,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,538
<BONDS>                                        353,443
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           49,730
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,462)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   461,138
<SALES>                                        258,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               353,734
<CGS>                                          189,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,062
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,906)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,037)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,943)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,943)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Balance Sheet, Statement of operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes
thereto incorporated in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         348,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,986
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               438,015
<PP&E>                                         813,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                 225,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,048,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          672,887
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    167,314
<COMMON>                                        11,731
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   370,724
<SALES>                                        433,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               433,304
<CGS>                                           80,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               867,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (511,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (511,598)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (511,598)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TAVARIS COLLINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1274

[January 18, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Laura Sellers Johnson, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502010CF014335B.

Daniel J. Tibbitt, Esq., Miami, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Surber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## NUMBER S 13 - 2 2 - 00 562 - C V & 13 - 22 - 00 598 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION D/B/A CIRRUS AIRCRAFT
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . 

## ORDER Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Order Per Curiam Relator Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft has filed : (1) a Motion to Consolidate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus regarding our cause numbers 13
- 22
- 00 562
- CV and 13
- 22
- 00598
- CV; and ( 2 ) an Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief in cause number 13
- 22
- 00598
- CV. In the Motion to Consolida te Petitions for Writ of Mandamus, relator asserts that the petitions for writ of ma ndamus that it has filed in cause numbers 13
- 22
- 00562
- CV and 13
- 22
- 00598
- CV arise “from the same underlying litigation, involve the same operative facts, and raise nearly i dentical legal issues.” Relator thus requests2 that we consolidate these causes in the interest of judicial efficiency. In the Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief filed in cause number 13
- 22
- 00598
- CV , relator requests that this Court stay the trial court’ s December 9, 2022 Order granting [Real Party in Interest] Jorgenson’s Second Motion to Compel Responses to Second Set of Requests for Production during the pendency of the mandamus proceedings challenging that o rder

. The Court, having examined and fully considered these motions, concludes that they should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the Motion to Consolidate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus regarding our cause numbers 13
- 22
- 00562
- CV and 13
- 22
- 00598
- CV and
we will c onsider these original proceedings as a consolidated case. We grant relator’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief , and we order the trial court’s order of December 9 , 2022 , compelling relator to respond to discovery, to be stayed

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.10(b) (“ Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided. ”). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed on the 11 th day of January , 202 3

.
# C_2014303EN.01002201.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 June 2014 — Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co., Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL

(Case C-297/14)

2014/C 303/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rüdiger Hobohm

Applicant:

Defendants: Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co., Benedikt Aloysius Kampik, Mar Mediterraneo Werbe- und Vertriebsgesellschaft für Immobilien SL

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

| – | Can a consumer, pursuant to the second alternative in Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the second alternative in Article 16(1) of the regulation, bring proceedings in the courts for the place where he is domiciled against the other party to the contract, who pursues commercial or professional activities in another Member State of the European Union if, whilst the contract underlying the proceedings does not fall directly within the scope of such activities of the other party to the contract which are directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, the contract serves, however, to achieve the economic result that is sought by another contract — previously concluded between the parties and already performed — which falls within the scope of the aforementioned provisions? |
| --- | --- |

–

Can a consumer, pursuant to the second alternative in Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the second alternative in Article 16(1) of the regulation, bring proceedings in the courts for the place where he is domiciled against the other party to the contract, who pursues commercial or professional activities in another Member State of the European Union if, whilst the contract underlying the proceedings does not fall directly within the scope of such activities of the other party to the contract which are directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, the contract serves, however, to achieve the economic result that is sought by another contract — previously concluded between the parties and already performed — which falls within the scope of the aforementioned provisions?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2



[Company Letterhead]










April 28, 2017


Mr. Victor Herrero
Guess?, Inc.
1444 South Alameda Street
Los Angeles, California  90021


Re:    Amendment to Employment Agreement


Dear Victor:


Reference is made to that certain Executive Employment Agreement entered into by and between you and Guess?, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), dated July 7, 2015 (your “Employment Agreement”).  This letter amendment (this “Amendment”) sets forth the agreement by and between you and the Company as follows.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment that are not defined in this Amendment are used as defined in the Employment Agreement.
With respect to the equity awards contemplated by Section 6(c) of the Employment Agreement, effective with Fiscal Year 2018 the target grant date fair value of your annual Additional Equity Grant will be not less than 233% of your Base Salary in effect at the time of grant.
Your Employment Agreement (as modified by this Amendment) otherwise remains in full force and effect.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
You and the Company have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered on the day and year first above written.
	
			
	 
	Guess?., Inc.,
	 

	 
	a Delaware corporation
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Jason Miller
	 

	 
	By: Jason Miller
	 

	 
	Its: General Counsel and Secretary
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Victor Herrero
	 

	 
	Victor Herrero