alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017006EN.01001001.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Gerard Dowling and Others v Minister for Finance

(Case C-41/15) (1)

1

((Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 - European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism - Implementing Decision 2011/77/EU - European Union financial assistance to Ireland - Recapitalisation of national banks - Company law - Second Directive 77/91/EEC - Articles 8, 25 and 29 - Recapitalisation of a bank by means of judicial direction order - Increase in share capital without general meeting decision and without the shares issued being offered on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders - Issue of new shares at a price lower than their nominal value))

(2017/C 006/11)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited

Applicants:

Defendant: Minister for Finance

Defendant:

Intervening parties: Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc, formerly Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc, Permanent TSB plc, formerly Irish Life and Permanent plc

Intervening parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and Articles 25 and 29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of [the second paragraph of Article 54 TFEU], in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, must be interpreted as not precluding a measure, such as the Direction Order at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in a situation where there is a serious disturbance of the economy and the financial system of a Member State threatening the financial stability of the European Union, the effect of that measure being to increase the share capital of a public limited liability company, without the agreement of the general meeting of that company, new shares being issued at a price lower than their nominal value and the existing shareholders being denied any pre-emptive subscription right.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015

1

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Standard technical specifications,General Electric BWR/6 plants.
 
Vol. 1| Vol. 2
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.N 88:10/1434/REV.4/V.1-2
Item Number:1051-H-48 (online)
CGP System Number:001017402
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 29, 2017********
Auditors' Report to Lamar Signal Shareholders



Exhibit 10.14 
 
 
AUDITORS’ REPORT TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS 
 
OF 
 
LAMAR SIGNAL PROCESSING LTD. 
 
 
We
have audited the accompanying balance sheets of LAMAR SIGNAL PROCESSING LTD. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ deficiency and cash flows for the years
then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. 
 
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards in Israel and in the United States, including those prescribed under the Auditors’ Regulations (Auditor’s Mode of Performance), 1973. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 
 
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position
of the Company as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the results of its operations, changes in shareholders’ deficiency and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in Israel.

 
Without qualifying our opinion we draw attention to Note 1C
regarding the Company’s dependence on financing from external sources for its operations. 
 
 
LUBOSHITZ KASIERER 
An affiliate member of Ernst & Young International 
 
Haifa, Israel 
April 2, 2003
#### § 1.182-1 Expenditures by farmers for clearing land; in general.

Under section 182, a taxpayer engaged in the business of farming may elect, in the manner provided in § 1.182-6, to deduct certain expenditures paid or incurred by him in any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1962, in the clearing of land. The expenditures to which the election applies are all expenditures paid or incurred during the taxable year in clearing land for the purpose of making the “land suitable for use in farming” (as defined in § 1.182-4) which are not otherwise deductible (exclusive of expenditures for or in connection with depreciable items referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of § 1.182-3), but only if such expenditures are made in furtherance of the taxpayer's business of farming. The term *expenditures* to which the election applies also includes a reasonable allowance for depreciation (not otherwise allowable) on equipment used in the clearing of land provided such equipment, if used in the carrying on of a trade or business, would be subject to the allowance for depreciation under section 167. (See paragraph (c) of § 1.182-3.) (See section 175 and the regulations thereunder for deductibility of certain expenditures for treatment or moving of earth by a farmer where the land already qualifies as land used in farming as defined in § 1.175-4.) The amount deductible for any taxable year is limited to the lesser of $5,000 or 25 percent of the taxable income derived from farming (as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of § 1.182-5) during the taxable year. Expenditures paid or incurred in a taxable year in excess of the amount deductible under section 182 for such taxable year shall be treated as capital expenditures and shall constitute an adjustment to the basis of the land under section 1016(a).

[T.D. 6794, 30 FR 790, Jan. 26, 1965]
§ 1.1474-7 Confidentiality of information. ( a ) *Confidentiality of information.* Pursuant to section 1474(c)(1), the provisions of § 31.3406(f)-1(a) of this chapter shall apply (substituting “sections 1471 through 1474” for “section 3406”) to information obtained or used in connection with the requirements of chapter 4.
( b ) *Exception for disclosure of participating FFIs.* Pursuant to section 1474(c)(2), the identity of a participating FFI or deemed-compliant FFI shall not be treated as return information for purposes of section 6103.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies January 28, 2013.
[T.D. 9610, 78 FR 5994, Jan. 28, 2013]
#### Fiedler, etc., v. Rebicek

*Romwald Kenowski,*for plaintiff.

*Ernest J. Gazda,*for defendant.

April 14, 1952.

EAGEN, J.,

Plaintiff sued defendant in assumpsit before an alderman to recover the sum of ■$186.43. Defendant appeared and submitted four separate claims in the nature of a counterclaim against plaintiff, varying in amounts from $20 to $200 and totaling $420. The alderman denied the counterclaim and entered judgment for the amount claimed by plaintiff. An appeal to this court followed, wherein the counterclaim is again asserted. We are concerned with preliminary objections thereto in the nature of a motion to strike off.

The Act of July 7, 1879, P. L. 194, 42 PS §241, confers jurisdiction upon aldermen and justices of the peace in civil actions wherein the sum demanded does not exceed the sum of $300. This jurisdictional limit applies to counterclaims as well as original suits and if the alderman has no jurisdiction, the court of common pleas has no jurisdiction on appeal: Faultless Range & Mfg. Co. v. Strollo, 40 Lack. Jur. 129; Deihm v. Snell, 119 Pa. 316.

As pointed out in Neel, Insurance Commissioner, v. Cann, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 426, the statute conferring jurisdiction upon the minor judiciary must be strictly construed and the test in determining the jurisdiction *108is the amount claimed and not the amount of the judgment entered.

The fact that the counterclaim is made up of four distinct claims, none of which exceeds the jurisdictional maximum, does not change the situation. The total amount claimed is the determining factor. While the Rules of Civil Procedure permit the consolidation of a number of similar causes of action in a single counterclaim, they do not and were not intended to enlarge the jurisdiction of the subject matter: Crichfield Oil & Gas Co. v. Grosky, 65 D. & C. 436. The rules were designed primarily and only to chart the practice and simplify procedure in civil actions.

' It may be that if defendant institutes an original action the court may in the interest of simplicity of proceedings have the power and inclination to consolidate for trial the two actions under rule 213.

Therefore, April 14, 1952, the preliminary objections are sustained and the counterclaim is stricken off without prejudice.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50774

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAGOBERTO MARROQUIN-BORRALLO,

also known as Efren Moran,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-00-CR-168-ALL

--------------------

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dagoberto Marroquin-Borrallo appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Marroquin-Borrallo complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior

deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. 

Marroquin-Borrallo argues that the sentencing provision violates

the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge
No. 01-50774

-2-

to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact

which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he

otherwise would have been exposed. Marroquin-Borrallo thus

contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should

not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed

in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Marroquin-Borrallo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Hartford Hospital *v.*City and Town of Hartford

*David Schwarts,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Richard M. Cosgrove,*corporation counsel, for the appellee (defendant).

Argued November 5

decided November 6, 1968

The plaintiff, pursuant to Practice Book § 696, having filed a motion to set aside the judgment against it and for a direction that the plea in abatement in the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County be overruled, it is ordered that the judgment be set aside and the plea in abatement overruled unless, on or before November 19, 1968, the defendant files its brief.
§ 601.28 Annual reports of postmarketing pediatric studies. Sponsors of licensed biological products shall submit the following information each year within 60 days of the anniversary date of approval of each product under the license to the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research or the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (see mailing addresses in § 600.2(a) or (b) of this chapter): ( a ) *Summary.* A brief summary stating whether labeling supplements for pediatric use have been submitted and whether new studies in the pediatric population to support appropriate labeling for the pediatric population have been initiated. Where possible, an estimate of patient exposure to the drug product, with special reference to the pediatric population (neonates, infants, children, and adolescents) shall be provided, including dosage form.
( b ) *Clinical data.* Analysis of available safety and efficacy data in the pediatric population and changes proposed in the labeling based on this information. An assessment of data needed to ensure appropriate labeling for the pediatric population shall be included.
( c ) *Status reports.* A statement on the current status of any postmarketing studies in the pediatric population performed by, or on behalf of, the applicant. The statement shall include whether postmarketing clinical studies in pediatric populations were required or agreed to, and, if so, the status of these studies shall be reported to FDA in annual progress reports of postmarketing studies under § 601.70 rather than under this section.
[65 FR 59718, Oct. 6, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 64618, Oct. 30, 2000; 70 FR 14984, Mar. 24, 2005; 80 FR 18092, Apr. 3, 2015]
39080.

#### HARFORD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. BARFIELD.

Franicum, Judge.

R. E. Barfield, defendant in error (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), brought a suit against Harford Mutual Insurance Company, plaintiff in error (hereinafter referred to as defendant), on a draft, a copy of which is attached to the petition. The petition alleges that the defend*267ant drew a draft payable to the order of the plaintiff and one Lewis M. Elkins and delivered the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges facts showing that he is the owner and holder of the draft; that it was endorsed in blank by Lewis M. Elkins; that he “deposited said draft in his bank account”, and that “payment of said draft was thereafter stopped without notice to plaintiff.” *Held:*

Decided February 6, 1962.

*George A. Edmund, Archie L. Gleason,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert E. Barfield,*contra.

1. *Code*§ 14-602 provides, in part: “The drawer by drawing the instrument admits the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse; and engages that on due presentment the instrument will be accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, . . .he will pay the amount thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it . . .” See also *Jett v. Atlanta Fed. Sav. &c. Assn.,*104 Ga. App. 688 (123 SE2d 27); *Associates Discoimt Corp. v. Brantley,*102 Ga. App. 751 (117 SE2d 916). The plaintiff is a payee'of the instrument and is a holder subject to any defense available to the drawer. *Pendley v. Credit Equipment Corp.,*92 Ga. App. 658 (89 SE2d 567). See *Code*§ 14-508. The petition sets forth sufficient facts to allege a cause of action under *Code*§ 14-501, which provides in part: “The holder of a negotiable instrument may sue thereon in his own name; . . .”

2. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show notice of dishonor of the draft to1 the drawer because the drawer and the drawee are the same legal entity, and the drawer countermanded payment. *Code*§ 14-826 (1, 5); *Jett v. Atlanta Fed. Sav. &c. Assn.,*104 Ga. App. 688, supra.

3. The court did not err in overruling defendant’s general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Paying for Social Security

              																	Chaikind, Stephen					,	Sanders, Hyman					 and 	United States. Congressional Budget Office. 						*Paying for Social Security : Funding Options for the Near Term*,										February 1981,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/875,			accessed on September 18, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 95 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 95

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 1993

       Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    To designate October 1993 as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness 
                                Month''.

Whereas breast cancer will strike an estimated 182,000 women and 1,000 men in 
        the United States in 1993;
Whereas the risk of developing breast cancer increases as a woman grows older;
Whereas breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, and 
        will kill an estimated 46,000 women and 300 men in 1993;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized breast cancer has risen from 78 
        percent in the 1940's to over 90 percent today;
Whereas most breast cancers are detected by the woman herself;
Whereas educating both the public and health care providers about the importance 
        of early detection will result in reducing breast cancer mortality;
Whereas appropriate use of screening mammography, in conjunction with clinical 
        examination and breast self-examination, can result in the detection of 
        many breast cancers early in their development and increase the survival 
        rate to nearly 100 percent;
Whereas data from controlled trials clearly demonstrate that deaths from breast 
        cancer are significantly reduced in women who have been screened by 
        mammography;
Whereas many women are reluctant to have screening mammograms for a variety of 
        reasons, such as the cost of testing, lack of information, or fear;
Whereas access to screening mammography is directly related to socioeconomic 
        status;
Whereas increased awareness about the importance of screening mammography will 
        result in the procedure being regularly requested by the patient and 
        recommended by the health care provider; and
Whereas it is projected that more women will use this lifesaving test as it 
        becomes increasingly available and affordable: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That October 1993 is 
designated as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month'' and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe the month with 
appropriate programs and activities.

            Passed the Senate July 23 (legislative day, June 30), 1993.

            Attest:

                                             WALTER J. STEWART,

                                                            Secretary.
```
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3960 Mandibular condyle prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A mandibular condyle prosthesis is a device that is intended to be implanted in the human jaw to replace the mandibular condyle and to articulate within a glenoid fossa.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before March 30, 1999, for any mandibular condyle prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before March 30, 1999, been found to be substantially equivalent to a mandibular condyle prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other mandibular condyle prosthesis shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[59 FR 65478, Dec. 20, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 71746, Dec. 30, 1998; 78 FR 79310, Dec. 30, 2013]