alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014448EN.01001201.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 October 2014 — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

(Case C-460/14)

(2014/C 448/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johannes Evert Antonius Massar

Applicant:

Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Must the term ‘inquiry’ in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC (1) of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance be interpreted as covering the procedure before the UWV [Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (Employee Insurance Agency)], in which the employer requests a dismissal permit in order to bring to an end the employment contract with the employee (who is covered by legal expenses insurance)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must the term ‘inquiry’ in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC (1) of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance be interpreted as covering the procedure before the UWV [Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (Employee Insurance Agency)], in which the employer requests a dismissal permit in order to bring to an end the employment contract with the employee (who is covered by legal expenses insurance)?

1

| 2) | If the answer to Question 1 depends on the characteristics of the specific procedure, in combination, if necessary, with the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of which characteristics, facts and circumstances must the national court then determine whether that procedure is to be regarded as constituting an inquiry within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the answer to Question 1 depends on the characteristics of the specific procedure, in combination, if necessary, with the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of which characteristics, facts and circumstances must the national court then determine whether that procedure is to be regarded as constituting an inquiry within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Directive?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.

1

---
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
  





 
 Victoria D. Harker 
 7950
Jones Branch Drive 
 McLean VA 22107 
 Dear Victoria: 

In consideration of your continued employment with TEGNA Inc. (the “Company”) through February 28, 2018 (the “Retention Period”), the
Company hereby agrees to the following: 
  

	 	1.	Continued participation in the Executive Severance Plan, dated as of December 8, 2015, or a plan that provides you substantially equivalent benefits (the “Executive Severance Plan”), which, subject to the
terms of such Plan, generally provides you certain severance benefits in the event the Company involuntarily terminates your employment without Cause (as defined under the Executive Severance Plan). 


 

	 	2.	After the Retention Period, upon at least 120 days’ prior written notice, your voluntary termination of employment will be treated as a “qualifying termination” under the Executive Severance Plan,
provided that (i) the termination date will not occur before March 1, 2018, (ii) your benefits under the Executive Severance Plan for a voluntary termination will continue to be subject to the terms of such Plan, including, without
limitation, your execution of a timely release, compliance with applicable withholding requirements and such Plan’s coordination provision with benefits under the Company’s Transitional Compensation Plan, and (iii) you will not be
eligible for benefits under the Executive Severance Plan under circumstances that would permit the Company to terminate your employment for Cause. 


Very truly yours, 
 TEGNA INC. 

 

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Todd A. Mayman

	Name:	 	Todd A. Mayman
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Legal and Administrative Officer

  

							
	Agreed to and Accepted by:	  		  	
				
	By:	  	 /s/ Victoria D. Harker
	  	Dated:	  	May 4, 2017
		  	Victoria D. Harker
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,548, AP-76,549, AP-76,550 & AP-76,551

EX PARTE JOHN E. OSHIA, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 1115355-A, 1115356-A, 1115357-A, and 1115358-A IN THE 263rd

DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of four

separate aggravated sexual assault of a child offenses and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment

in each cause. He did not appeal his convictions. 

Applicant contends that his sentences are illegal. The record reflects the Applicant was

originally assessed two five yearsentences and two ten yearsentences in these cases. The imposition
2

of the sentences was then suspended, and the Applicant placed on community supervision for ten

years. The State subsequently filed motions to revoke the Applicant’s release to community

supervision, and the trial court sentenced the Applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment in each cause.

The Applicant is entitled to relief. As correctly noted by the trial court, when a defendant

has his community supervision revoked, a court may dispose of the case as if there had been no

community supervision, or upon proper determination, may sentence a defendant to a shorter term

of confinement. TEX CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 42.12 § 23(a). 

Relief is granted. The sentences in Cause Nos. 1115355-A, 1115356-A, 1115357-A, and

1115358-A in the 263rd Judicial District Court of Harris County are set aside, and Applicant is

remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Harris County to answer the charges as set out in the State’s

motions to revoke community supervision.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: May 11, 2011

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       ARMANINO FOODS OF DISTINCTION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. for the period ending
June 30, 2004:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc.





/s/William J. Armanino
William J. Armanino
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Armanino Foods of Distinction,
Inc. and will be retained by Armanino Foods of Distinction, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3310 Hepatitis A virus (HAV) serological assays. ( a ) *Identification.* HAV serological assays are devices that consist of antigens and antisera for the detection of hepatitis A virus-specific IgM, IgG, or total antibodies (IgM and IgG), in human serum or plasma. These devices are used for testing specimens from individuals who have signs and symptoms consistent with acute hepatitis to determine if an individual has been previously infected with HAV, or as an aid to identify HAV-susceptible individuals. The detection of these antibodies aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of an acute or past infection by HAV in conjunction with other clinical laboratory findings. These devices are not intended for screening blood or solid or soft tissue donors.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Hepatitis A Virus Serological Assays.” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[71 FR 6679, Feb. 9, 2006]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7823 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require a warning 

label advising that the effects of mifepristone can be counteracted, to 

amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a hotline to provide 

information to women seeking to counteract the effects of mifepristone, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2024 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois (for herself, Mr. BABIN, Ms. HAGEMAN, Mr. 

ROSENDALE, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mr. BANKS, and Mr. WEBSTER of 

Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require a warning label advising that the effects of 

mifepristone can be counteracted, to amend the Public 

Health Service Act to establish a hotline to provide information to women seeking to counteract the effects of 

mifepristone, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Chance for 

5 Moms Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7823 IH

1 SEC. 2. MIFEPRISTONE WARNING LABEL AND HOTLINE. 

2 (a) WARNING LABEL.— 

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 502 of the Federal 

4 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(hh) If it is the drug mifepristone, and its labeling 

7 does not bear the following statement printed in con8 spicuous text: ‘WARNING: Medical evidence suggests that 

9 the abortifacient effects of mifepristone can be counter10 acted by natural progesterone, which can increase the 

11 chance of fetal survival. The American Society for Repro12 ductive Medicine has determined that natural progester13 one is safe in the first trimester of pregnancy. For more 

14 information, call [lll].’ (with the blank filled in to 

15 refer to the appropriate number for the hotline under sec16 tion 1009 of the Public Health Service Act).’’. 

17 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 502(hh) of the 

18 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by 

19 paragraph (1)) applies beginning on the date that is 

20 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

21 (b) HOTLINE.—Title X of the Public Health Service 

22 Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 

23 end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7823 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 1009. HOTLINE FOR REVERSAL OF EFFECTS OF 

2 MIFEPRISTONE. 

3 ‘‘The Secretary shall establish or maintain, directly 

4 or by grant or contract, a toll-free hotline to provide sup5 port for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for women seeking 

6 to reverse the effects of the drug mifepristone.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

p0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

141917

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141917 COA: 291208 Washtenaw CC: 08-000538-FC ANTONIO LAMONT WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 30, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

# DATE AND TIME:

The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on March 11, 2010, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

## Open Session

### A. Approval of Minutes

    - February 24, 2010

### B. New Business

    - Director Elections—Final Rule

### C. Reports

    - Office of Management Services Quarterly Report

Dated: February 25, 2010.

Roland E. Smith,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-4348 Filed 2-26-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
39057.

#### UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORPORATION v. PRITCHETT.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. An affidavit of illegality may not go behind the judgment or other proceeding upon which *423the fi. fa. is based. *Duvall v. Barron,*14 Ga. App. 304 (80 SE 701); *Childs v. State Bank of Chicago,*31 Ga. App. 533 (121 SE 254); *Courson v. Manufacturers Finance Acceptance Corp.,*41 Ga. App. 551 (153 SE 624). Illegality to executions is a purely statutory proceeding, and no equitable defenses which attempt to go behind the judgment may be allowed. Cf. *Bowen v. Groover,*77 Ga. 126.

Decided September 22, 1961.

*L. Hugh Kemp, Pittman, Kinney & Pope,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mitchell & Mitchell,*contra.

2. Accordingly, where in this case the affiant in his illegality to the levy of an execution issued on the foreclosure of a conditional-sale contract covering a 1960 Ford truck sought to contend that under the terms of the contract an insurance company, not a party to the case, was liable to the plaintiff in fi. fa. instead of the defendant, because the defendant had become disabled, which disability, it was contended, obligated the insurance company to assume the monthly payments due under the contract, such defense, if available at all, could have been raised by the timely filing of a traverse to the affidavit to foreclose. After the judgment of foreclosure, it was too late to raise such a defense by affidavit of illegality, and the trial court erred in overruling the plaintiff’s demurrers to the affidavit as amended. See *Allen v. Duval Motors Co.,*36 Ga. App. 336 (136 SE 479); *Hamilton v. Hamilton,*80 Ga. App. 750 (57 SE2d 301); *Tanner v. Wilson,*183 Ga. 53 (187 SE 625).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

** **

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

** **

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEbix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2004, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (as so amended, the “Report”), I, RobinRaina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| By:                     | /s/ Robin Raina |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------|--------|
|                    |
| Name:                   | Robin Raina     |   |
|                    |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| May 20, 2005            |
|                         |                 |        |  |  |

 

1

----
# C_2015381EN.01003201.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/32

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-585/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Own resources of the European Union - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/35)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, M. Wasmeier and M. Žebre, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the alleged decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the European Commission, contained in letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918 of 2 June 2014, in which, the latter found, first, that the Republic of Slovenia was financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the budget of the European Union relating to the issue of a sugar import licence in respect of the calendar year 2011 and, second, that that Member State should make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.

| 3. | The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Republic of Slovenia, the Commission, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Slovenia, the Commission, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41446 Conference Calendar

SIMPSON LANE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN TAYLOR, Correctional Officer II; IOANE SATELE, Correctional Officer III; RICKEY FLASOWSKI, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:95-CV-443

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Simpson Lane, Texas state prisoner # 541742, alleged in his civil rights complaint that appellee, Correctional Officer John Taylor, used excessive force against him. Lane now appeals the judgment based on the jury’s verdict in favor of Taylor. Lane contends that he is entitled to reversal as a result of several errors which allegedly occurred just prior to and during the trial. To determine whether Lane’s contentions have merit,No. 97-41446 -2- this court would need to examine the trial transcript, which has not been prepared. In denying Lane’s request for preparation of the transcript at government expense, the district court informed him that he should address any further motions to this court. However, Lane has not requested this court to order such preparation of the transcript. Accordingly, Lane’s appeal is DISMISSED. See Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID ALLEN BRICKER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 422 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
ft EA~ United States ... ~ Environmental Protection ,., Agency 

EPA-420-F-22-020 

May 2022 

Independent Commercial Importers 

The following is a list of Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) who currently hold a valid Certificate of 

Conformity from EPA. This certificate allows the ICI to import certain nonconforming vehicles into the 

U. S., THE MAKES OR MODELS THAT AN ICI CAN IMPORT ARE LIMITED. You should contact the 

ICI to determine if it is qualified to import your particular vehicle and if it currently has a valid Certificate of 

Conformity. 

G & K Automotive J.K. Technologies, LLC Wallace Environmental 

Conversion, Inc. 3500 Sweet Air Street Testing Laboratories 

2530 S. Birch Street Baltimore, MD 21211 2140 Wirtcrest Ln 

Santa Ana, CA 92707 Rep: Jonathan Weisheit Houston, TX 77055 

Rep: George Gemayel Phone (410) 366-6332 Rep: Les Weaver 

Phone (714) 545-9503 Fax: (410) 366-7655 Phone: (713) 956-7705 

Fax: (714) 545-7667 Email: convert2us@aol.com Fax: (713) 956-0104 

Email: george@gnkauto.com Email: sales@wallacelab.com 

EPA DOES NOT ENDORSE OR RECOMMEND ANY PARTICULAR ICI ON THIS LIST. Test 

documentation for an individual vehicle and other information concerning the quality of modifications will 

be carefully scrutinized to determine whether such vehicle meets all applicable EPA requirements under the 

imports regulations.