alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joan Terrazano *v.*Bernice Sporna et al.

Submitted November 28, 1967

decided January 30, 1968

Submitted December 5, 1967

decided January 30, 1968

Submitted December 5, 1967

decided January 30, 1968

*Charles G. Albom,*in support of the motion.

*Nathan Goldberg,*in opposition.

*Charles G. Albom,*in support of the motion.

*Charles G. Albom,*in support of the motion.

The motion by the defendants for a review of the rectification of the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.

The motion by the defendants for an extension of time to file an additional transcript of evidence in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.

The motion by the defendants for an extension of time to file a supplemental appeal brief in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted and the time for filing is extended to March 11, 1968.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.2700 Pressure regulator. ( a ) *Identification.* A pressure regulator is a device, often called a pressure-reducing valve, that is intended for medical purposes and that is used to convert a medical gas pressure from a high variable pressure to a lower, more constant working pressure. This device includes mechanical oxygen regulators.
( 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 § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1119, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]
March 6, 1939

M-243.

#### Thelma B. Owens, Administratrix of the Estate of H. R. Bourne, deceased, $917.33.

COTTON LINTER CASES

In the following cases involving claims for damages for breach of World War contracts for cotton linters, judgments against the Government were rendered as indicated, pursuant to the stipulation filed in the case of *Rose City Cotton Mill*v. *United*States, Congressional No. 17341, and all other pending cotton linter cases as per list attached to said stipulation.
Exhibit 10.10




                                                                  Purchase Order

                         Valley Water Technologies, Inc.
                                  P.O. Box 912
                                 Selah, WA 98942
                                                                            PO#:
                                                                  Date: 04/07/03
                                                                  Page:        1
________________________________________________________________________________
Vendor:      HydroFlo, Inc.                            Lamb Weston, Inc.
             3721 Junction Blvd.                       Tri-City, WA
             Raleigh, NC 27603

________________________________________________________________________________

BUYER            TERMS             SHIP VIA FOB         FREIGHT          REFERENCE

  SH            Net 25 Days                             Prepaid
________________________________________________________________________________
ITEM #           DESCRIPTION                    UNITS       COST        EXTENSION

HydroFlo PLUS   250-20 PLUS System w/MTC-20       2       $69,700.00   $69,700.00
250-20          Saturator

                Units for Use At Lamb Weston Facility
                Tri-City,  Washington




                                                                        TOTAL

                                                                     $ 69,700.00
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4300 Cardiopulmonary bypass gas control unit. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary bypass gas control unit is a device used to control and measure the flow of gas into the oxygenator. The device is calibrated for a specific gas.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
#### Hamilton *v.*Hamilton.

No. 8713.

March 16, 1932.

Hill, J.

1. The trial judge abused Ms discretion in granting temporary alimony, to which exception is- taken.

2. There was no abuse of discretion in allowing the mother to retain temporary custody of the child.

*Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*625
      *Ripley & Bcdley,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. H. Hamrick,*contra.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of J.K. and A.P., children. ) ___________________________________) ) GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM and ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1614 ) 2D18-1616 ) ) CONSOLIDATED T.K. and S.P., ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed August 24, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Geoffrey H. Gentile, Judge. Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Tallahassee, and Laura J. Lee, Appellate Counsel, Sanford, for Appellant Guardian ad Litem Program. Meredith K. Hall, Appellate Counsel, Children Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellant Department of Children and Families. Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, Second District, and Joseph Thye Sexton, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil- 2 -

Regional Counsel, Bartow, for Appellee T.K. Toni A. Butler of Alderuccio & Butler, LLC, Naples, for Appellee S.P.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGOCOMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, asGeneral Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB MasterServicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGELENDER SERVICES LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian andWILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-LC22 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Exhibit
10.28


 


 


December 3, 2002


 


 


Mr. Armando M. Codina


Chairman


Codina Group, Inc.


355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 900


Coral Gables, FL 33134


 


Dear Armando:


 


This will confirm the following agreement relating to
the deferral of, and payment of, your directors’ fees in 2003:


 


1.                                       All
directors’ fees and retainers (“Fees”) 
payable to you in connection with your service on the boards of
directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period  January
1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, will be deferred and paid to you in
accordance with this letter agreement.


 


2.                                       Fees
will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Directors’
Stock Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A
(the “Plan”).


 


3.                                       On
or before January 31, 2013, all the Stock Equivalent Units will be converted to
cash and paid to you by multiplying the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of
December 31, 2012, by the arithmetic mean of the high and low of AMR stock
(“fair market value”) during December 2012.


 


4.                                       AMR’s
obligation to make payments pursuant to paragraph 3 hereof will not be released
or modified by reason of your death.  In
such event, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death will
be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month
immediately preceding your death, and the amount paid to Margarita Codina.


 

















 


5.                                       Paragraph 3
of the deferral letter dated January 22, 2001, is amended by deleting the
reference to “2010” and inserting “2011” and by deleting the references to
“2009” and inserting “2010”.


 


6. 
                                 Paragraph 3
of the deferral letter dated December 18, 2001, is amended by deleting the
reference to “2010” and inserting “2012” and by deleting references to “2009”
and inserting “2011”.


 


7.                                       Paragraph
3 of the deferral letter dated January 30, 1995, is amended deleting the
reference to “2003” and inserting “2006”.


 


If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please
indicate by signing one of the originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to
me.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Charles D. MarLett

  
	
   

  	
  Corporate Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Accepted and agreed:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Armando M. Codina

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Armando M. Codina

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  12/13/02

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  
				



 


2
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                      Acknowledgement of Ernst & Young LLP


The Board of Directors
Biopure Corporation

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:



    . Form S-8 (No. 333-48924)

    . Form S-8 (No. 333-96085)

    . Form S-3 (No. 333-66464) and

    . Form S-8 (No. 333-88426)


of our reports dated March 13, 2002, June 10, 2002 and September 10, 2002
relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of
Biopure Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarters ended
January 31, 2002, April 30, 2002 and July 31, 2002.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the
meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.



                                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
September 10, 2002
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of
MBIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph W. Brown, 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Joseph W. Brown    
|Joseph W. Brown        
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2009
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/05/2011 11:03 AM 

Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EGU MACT Rule 

Hi all, 

Consistent with the EO, attached are the handouts from this meeting. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

-----Original Appointment----- 

From: Echols, Mabel E. 

Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EGU MACT Rule 

When: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:00 AM-11:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern 

Time 

(US & Canada). 

Where: Eisenhower Room, White House Conference Center 

 

 

This meeting was requested by Hewitt Strange, Podesta Group.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDGAR MARTINEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 121 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

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

§ 888.5890 Noninvasive traction component. ( a ) *Identification.* A noninvasive traction component is a device, such as a head halter, pelvic belt, or a traction splint, that does not penetrate the skin and is intended to assist in connecting a patient to a traction apparatus so that a therapeutic pulling force may be applied to the patient's body.
( 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 § 888.9. 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.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 52954, Dec. 29, 1988; 66 FR 38815, July 25, 2001]
Fourth Certificate of Amendment



 
Exhibit
4.5 
 
FOURTH CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

 
TO THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION OF 
 
THE COOPER COMPANIES,
INC. 
 
The Cooper Companies, Inc. (the
“Corporation”) a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify that: 
 
1.    The name of the Corporation is The Cooper Companies, Inc. and the Certificate of
Incorporation was originally filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on March 4, 1980 under the name “CooperVision, Inc.” Said Certificate of Incorporation was restated on December 20, 1982. 
 
2.    Article IV(a) of the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 
 
“(a) Number of Shares. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the corporation shall have authority to issue is 71,000,000 consisting of (i) 70,000,000 shares of Common Stock
(“Common Stock”), each share having a par value of $.10, and (ii) 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock (“Preferred Stock”) each share having a par value of $.10.” 
 
3.    This Certificate of Amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted resolutions setting forth this amendment, declaring this amendment to be advisable and calling for
submission of this amendment to the stockholders of the Corporation for consideration at the Corporation’s annual meeting. The stockholders of the Corporation approved this amendment at the Corporation’s annual meeting, which was duly
called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 
 
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows] 







 
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation on this 25th day of March, 2003. 
 

	 THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC. 

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/    Carol R. Kaufman        


	 	 	 Carol R. Kaufman

	 Its:
	 	 Vice President
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 14, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133762 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

WAYLON E. GEE,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133762 

 COA: 269351 

WCAC: 03-000402 

ARTHUR B. MYR INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing: (1) whether the WCAC’s April 19, 2002 opinion and order denying 

plaintiff’s claim for attendant care services under MCL 418.315(1) was a final decision; 

(2) whether plaintiff’s second claim for attendant care services alleged a change in 

condition as a justification for an award of attendant care services; (3) whether the 

WCAC's April 12, 2005 opinion and order awarding attendant care services was based on 

a change in the plaintiff's condition; and (4) whether the WCAC’s April 12, 2005 opinion 

and order awarded attendant care services based on the plaintiff’s application or on the 

applications filed by the attendant care providers. The parties should not submit mere 

restatements of their application papers. 

t0911 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 14, 2007 

Clerk
427 A.2d 1227

#### Commonwealth v. Miller, L., Appellant.

Submitted September 13, 1979.

Harris S. Pasline, for appellant;

John Gallagher, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before PRICE, WIEAND and VAN der VOORT, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
§ 1.1462-1 Withheld tax as credit to recipient of income. ( a ) *Creditable tax.* The entire amount of the income from which the tax is required to be withheld (including amounts calculated under the gross-up formula in § 1.1441-3(f)(1)) shall be included in gross income in the return required to be made by the beneficial owner of the income, without deduction for the amount required to be or actually withheld, but the amount of tax actually withheld shall be allowed as a credit against the total income tax computed in the beneficial owner's return.
( b ) *Amounts paid to persons who are not the beneficial owner.* Amounts withheld at source under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code on payments to (or effectively connected taxable income allocable to) a fiduciary, partnership, or intermediary are deemed to have been paid by the taxpayer ultimately liable for the tax upon such income. Thus, for example, if a beneficiary of a trust is subject to the taxes imposed by section 1, 2, 3, or 11 upon any portion of the income received from a foreign trust, the part of any amount withheld at source which is properly allocable to the income so taxed to such beneficiary shall be credited against the amount of the income tax computed upon the beneficiary's return, and any excess shall be refunded. See § 1.1446-3 for examples applying this rule in the context of a partnership interest held by a foreign trust or estate. Further, if a partnership withholds an amount under chapter 3 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the allocable share of a partner that is a partnership (upper-tier partnership) or with respect to the allocable share of partners in an upper-tier partnership, such amount is deemed to have been withheld by the upper-tier partnership. See § 1.1446-5 for rules applicable to tiered partnership structures. References in this paragraph (b) to withholding under section 1446 shall apply to partnership taxable years beginning after May 18, 2005, or such earlier time as the regulations under §§ 1.1446-1 through 1.1446-5 apply by reason of an election under § 1.1446-7.
( c ) *Effective date.* Unless otherwise provided in this section, this section applies to payments made after December 31, 2000.
[T.D. 8734, 62 FR 53471, Oct. 14, 1997, as amended by T.D. 8804, 63 FR 72188, Dec. 31, 1998; T.D. 9200, 70 FR 28741, May 18, 2005]
# C_2016343EN.01000601.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Argos Supply Trading BV

(Case C-4/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Customs procedures with economic impact - Outward processing - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 148(c) - Issue of authorisation - Economic conditions - Absence of serious harm to the essential interests of Community processors - Concept of ‘Community processors’))

(2016/C 343/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: Argos Supply Trading BV

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 148(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a request for authorisation to use the outward processing procedure, in order to assess whether the economic conditions governing the use of that procedure are satisfied, it is necessary to take account not only of the essential interests of Community producers of products analogous to the finished product resulting from the envisaged processing operations, but also of those of Community producers of products analogous to the basic products or to the intermediate non-EU products intended to be incorporated in the Community goods temporarily exported during those operations.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---