alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 18, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY PAUL STEPHENS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-6017 v. (W.D. Oklahoma) JUSTIN JONES, Director, Respondent - Appellee. (D.C. No. 5:08-CV-01145-D)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , ANDERSON , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
Gregory Paul Stephens is a prisoner of the State of Oklahoma who filed an application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The district court denied relief, and Mr. Stephens filed an application for a certificate of appealability (COA) in this
court. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (requiring COA to appeal denial of application) In an order dated June 25, 2010, this court granted a COA to Mr. Stephens with respect to several claims raised in his application for a certificate. See Stephens-2- v. Jones , 385 F. App’x 798 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). These claims related to the attempted videotaping of his postarrest interrogation. According to the officer who conducted the interrogation, he destroyed the videotape after determining that it had not recorded the interrogation. Mr. Stephens contended that he was denied due process by the destruction of the videotape and that testimony concerning the interrogation should have been excluded from trial, that his trial counsel was ineffective in not seeking a jury instruction permitting an adverse inference from the destruction and in not raising the destruction issue as a due-process claim, and that his appellate counsel (who had also been trial counsel) was ineffective in not raising the destruction issue as a due-process claim. We appointed the federal public defender for the District of Colorado to file a supplemental opening brief on behalf of Mr. Stephens. The public defender submitted a thorough, and quite helpful, 39-page brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that Mr. Stephens has no nonfrivolous issues and requesting permission to withdraw as counsel. In essence, the public defender determined that Mr. Stephens could not show that he suffered any prejudice from destruction of the tape or the alleged deficient conduct of his attorney. In response to the public defender’s brief, Mr. Stephens has submitted a lengthy supplemental brief, much of which tracks the public defender’s brief.-3- Although he disputes the contention that he cannot show prejudice, we are not persuaded. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of these claims by Mr. Stephens. We GRANT the public defender’s request for permission to withdraw. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5905 Noncontinuous ventilator (IPPB). ( a ) *Identification.* A noncontinuous ventilator (intermittent positive pressure breathing-IPPB) is a device intended to deliver intermittently an aerosol to a patient's lungs or to assist a patient's breathing.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



[Company Letterhead]










April 28, 2017


Mr. Paul Marciano
Guess?, Inc.
1444 South Alameda Street
Los Angeles, California  90021


Re:    Amendment to Employment Agreement


Dear Paul:


Reference is made to that certain Executive Employment Agreement entered into by and between you and Guess?, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), dated January 26, 2016 (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.
Effective January 29, 2017, your Base Salary will be at an annual rate of $950,000.  Any amount payable as a result of the retroactive nature of such increase in your rate of Base Salary will be paid promptly after the date of this Amendment.  Effective with Fiscal Year 2018, your Target Bonus will be 263% of your Base Salary, with the potential payments based on performance ranging from 0% to 150% of the Target Bonus.
You agree that the compensation adjustments provided for above will not give rise to “Good Reason” under your Employment Agreement and will not constitute a breach by the Company of any provision of your Employment Agreement.  
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/ Paul Marciano
	 

	 
	Paul Marciano
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3400 Hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) metallic resurfacing prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) metallic resurfacing prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a portion of the hip joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a femoral resurfacing component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2014361EN.01002301.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/23

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

(Case T-608/14)

2014/C 361/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 121/2014-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 121/2014-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  697

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations

---
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5125 Nonpowered sitz bath. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonpowered sitz bath is a device intended for medical purposes that consists of a tub to be filled with water for use in external hydrotherapy to relieve pain or pruritis and to accelerate the healing of inflamed or traumatized tissues of the perianal and perineal areas.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 890.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 25052, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38818, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014061EN.01001802.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/18

---

Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Aguas de Valencia v Commission

(Case T-18/14)

2014/C 61/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aguas de Valencia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5440 Intravascular administration set. ( a ) *Identification.* An intravascular administration set is a device used to administer fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through a needle or catheter inserted into a vein. The device may include the needle or catheter, tubing, a flow regulator, a drip chamber, an infusion line filter, an I.V. set stopcock, fluid delivery tubing, connectors between parts of the set, a side tube with a cap to serve as an injection site, and a hollow spike to penetrate and connect the tubing to an I.V. bag or other infusion fluid container.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for pharmacy compounding systems within this classification is the FDA guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Pharmacy Compounding Systems; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Reviewers.” Pharmacy compounding systems classified within the intravascular administration set are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of this part and subject to the limitations in § 880.9.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 15798, Mar. 21, 2001]
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Jennifer M. Davis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect
of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-4 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

August 19, 2016
Section 906 Certification- CFO



 
Exhibit 10.2

 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 
 
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Matrix
Service Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Michael J. Hall, Chief Financial 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 based on my knowledge: 
 

	3.	 	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

	4.	 	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


 
This certification is deemed to accompany this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, but is not deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise. 
 
 

	
	 




	 Michael J. Hall

	 Vice President – Financial And Chief Financial
Officer

	 April 10, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7879 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7879

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include court-ordered 
receivership in the list of actions resulting in a change of ownership 
                  of institutions of higher education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2024

  Ms. Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include court-ordered 
receivership in the list of actions resulting in a change of ownership 
                  of institutions of higher education.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. ACTIONS RESULTING IN A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP.

    Section 498(i)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1099c(i)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(G) a court-ordered receivership.''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.4070 RNA Preanalytical Systems. ( a ) *Identification.* RNA Preanalytical Systems are devices intended to collect, store, and transport patient specimens, and stabilize intracellular RNA from the specimens, for subsequent isolation and purification of the intracellular RNA for RT-PCR used in in vitro molecular diagnostic testing.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: RNA Preanalytical Systems (RNA Collection, Stabilization and Purification System for RT-PCR Used in Molecular Diagnostic Testing).” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[70 FR 49863, Aug. 25, 2005]
Exhibit 99(b)


        Written Statement of the Vice President Law/Finance and Secretary
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350


     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the
undersigned Vice President Law/Finance and Secretary of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ Wayne E. Larsen
--------------------------------------
Wayne E. Larsen
April 28, 2003
# C_2014135EN.01005301.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/53

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11 Simpson v Council

(Case T-130/14 P)

2014/C 135/68

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11, Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Simpson; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 in Case F-142/11, Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Simpson;

, Erik Simpson

Council

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; and

| — | Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the conclusion of the Civil Service Tribunal, according to which the contested decision is unlawful on grounds of infringement of the obligation to state grounds, is based on erroneous premises due to the distortion of evidence and cannot therefore be upheld.

---
# C_2014151EN.01002101.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/21

---

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)

(Case T-92/14)

2014/C 151/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elaris SNC (Angers, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 003/2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 003/2007;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

Applicant for a Community plant variety right:

Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

Community plant variety right concerned:

Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

Decision of the Committee of the CPVO:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.

Pleas in law:

---