alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39415.

#### CITY OF CARTERSVILLE v. LONG *et al.*

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. The petition to vacate and set aside the award of the assessors in this condemnation case alleges that the petitioner (condemnee) was notified of the proceeding and appointed an assessor but that he was never notified of the appointment of the third assessor nor of the time and place of the hearing before the assessors and was not afforded an opportunity to present to' the assessors evidence of the value of the property sought to be condemned, and that the proceeding thus violated the strict requirements of *Code Ch.*36-5. The petition clearly showed a departure in several respects in the proceeding from the requirements of the statute and it was not subject to general demurrer. “ ‘The taking or injuring of private property for the public benefit is the exercise of a high power, and all the conditions and limitations provided by law, under which it may be done, should be closely followed. Too much caution in this respect can not be observed to prevent abuse and oppression.’ *Frank v. City of Atlanta,*72 Ga. 428. ‘In proceedings under Statute authority whereby a man may be deprived of his property, the Statute must be strictly pursued. Compliance with all its prerequisites must be shown.’ *D’Antignac v. City Council of Augusta,*31 Ga. 700. See also *Suburban Investment Company v. City of Atlanta,*148 Ga. 593 (97 SE 542), and *Thomas v. City of Cairo,*206 Ga. 336 (57 SE2d 192).” *Cobb v. Housing Authority of the City of Athens,*210 Ga. 676, 677-8 (82 SE2d 848). cf. *Patterson v. State Hwy. Dept.,*201 Ga. 860 (41 SE2d 260). Applying the foregoing principles, the trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrers filed by the condemnor. See *State Highway Dept. v. McCurdy,*217 Ga. 731, 735 (124 SE2d 630).

*763Decided April 17, 1962.

*Henson, Greene & Greene, Wm. B. Greene,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hugh B. Pettit, Jr.,*contra.

2. The fact that the condemnee, upon being notified of the award of the assessors, filed an appeal therefrom did not constitute the pursuit of an inconsistent remedy so as to bar • him from concurrently therewith petitioning to have the award vacated and set aside on the ground that the statute had not been complied with. *Williams v. City of LaGrange,*213 Ga. 241 (98 SE2d 617).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*E'berhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2800 Medical magnetic tape recorder. ( a ) *Identification.* A medical magnetic tape recorder is a device used to record and play back signals from, for example, physiological amplifiers, signal conditioners, or computers.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# C_2015065EN.01004501.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/45

---

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — Eveready Battery Company v OHIM — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)

(Case T-824/14)

(2015/C 065/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imran Hussain and Others (Leeds, United Kingdom)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Power Edge’ — Application for registration No 9 108 705

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 38/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of EMRISE Corporation (the “Company”) for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify in theircapacities as Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer ofthe Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.             theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 12, 2007 | By:    | /s/  CARMINE T. OLIVA                                                        |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Carmine  T. Oliva                                                            |
|                      |   | Chief  Executive Officer (principal executive officer)                       |
|                      |   |                                                                         |
|                      |   |                                                                         |
| Dated:  November 12, 2007 | By:    | /s/ D.  JOHN DONOVAN                                                         |
|                      |   | D. John  Donovan                                                             |
|                      |   | Vice  President of Finance and Administration  (principal financial officer) |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

*** ***

 

----
§ 1.1374-5 Loss carryforwards. ( a ) *In general.* The loss carryforwards allowed as deductions against net recognized built-in gain under section 1374(b)(2) are allowed only to the extent their use is allowed under the rules applying to C corporations. Any other loss carryforwards, such as charitable contribution carryforwards under section 170(d)(2), are not allowed as deductions against net recognized built-in gain.
( b ) *Example.* The rules of this section are illustrated by the following example.
Example: Section 382 limitation. X is a C corporation that has an ownership change under section 382(g)(1) on January 1, 1994. On that date, X has a fair market value of $500,000, NOL carryforwards of $400,000, and a net unrealized built-in gain under section 382(h)(3)(A) of $0. Assume X's section 382 limitation under section 382(b)(1) is $40,000. X elects to become an S corporation on January 1, 1998. On that date, X has NOL carryforwards of $240,000 (having used $160,000 of its pre-change net operating losses in its 4 preceding taxable years) and a section 1374 net unrealized built-in gain of $250,000. In 1998, X has net recognized built-in gain of $100,000. X may use $40,000 of its NOL carryforwards as a deduction against its $100,000 net recognized built-in gain, because X's section 382 limitation is $40,000.
[T.D. 8579, 59 FR 66469, Dec. 27, 1994]
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.2680 *Streptococcus spp.* nucleic acid-based assay. ( a ) *Identification.* A *Streptococcus spp.* nucleic acid-based assay is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic device intended to simultaneously detect and identify various *Streptococcus spp.* nucleic acids extracted directly from clinical specimens. The device detects specific nucleic acid sequences for organism identification. The identification aids in the diagnosis of diseases caused by bacteria belonging to the genus *Streptococcus* and provides epidemiological information on these diseases. Pathogenic streptococci are associated with infections, such as sore throat, impetigo (an infection characterized by small pustules on the skin), urinary tract infections, rheumatic fever, and kidney disease.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed device description documentation, including the device components, ancillary reagents required but not provided, and a detailed explanation of the methodology including primer/probe sequence, design, and rationale for sequence selection.
( 2 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation from the following analytical and clinical performance studies: Analytical sensitivity (Limit of Detection), reactivity, inclusivity, precision, reproducibility, interference, cross reactivity, carry-over, and cross contamination.
( 3 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation from a clinical study. The study, performed on a study population consistent with the intended use population, must compare the device performance to results obtained from well-accepted reference methods.
( 4 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation for device software, including, but not limited to, software applications and hardware-based devices that incorporate software.
( 5 ) Premarket notification submissions must include database implementation methodology, construction parameters, and quality assurance protocols, as appropriate.
( 6 ) The device labeling must include limitations regarding the need for culture confirmation of negative specimens, as appropriate.
( 7 ) A detailed explanation of the interpretation of results and acceptance criteria must be included in the device's 21 CFR 809.10(b)(9) compliant labeling.
( 8 ) Premarket notification submissions must include details on an end user device training program that will be offered while marketing the device, as appropriate.
[82 FR 50074, Oct. 30, 2017]
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups






Exhibit 4.2

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Statements on Schedule 13D


The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Brian Reilly as the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to sign on the undersigned’s behalf any or all Statements on Schedule 13D, and any or all  amendments thereto, or any other documents whatsoever, relating to the common stock of Masisa S.A., and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact or agent, full power and authority to do and perform  each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the promises, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact or agent, or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.




Dated as of 4 April 2003.






  /s/ Stephan Schmidheiny

  ——————————————————

  Stephan Schmidheiny
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.5780 Light beam patient position indicator. ( a ) *Identification.* A light beam patient position indicator is a device that projects a beam of light (incoherent light or laser) to determine the alignment of the patient with a radiation beam. The beam of light is intended to be used during radiologic procedures to ensure proper positioning of the patient and to monitor alignment of the radiation beam with the patient's anatomy.
( 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 § 892.9.
[53 FR 1567, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 1125, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38819, July 25, 2001]
exv10w31



 






Exhibit 10.31




AMENDMENT NO. 4

TO CON-WAY INC.

2005 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR EXECUTIVES



The Con-way Inc. 2006 Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives (as heretofore amended from time to
time, the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:




1. Amendments. Section 3 of the Plan specifies when deferral elections must be made. Sections
3.3(b) and 3.3(c) are hereby amended as follows in order to make clear that, for Participants with
Plan Entry Dates other than January 1, deferral elections must be made prior to the Plan Entry Date
applicable to that Participant.



3.3(b) Annual Bonus Deferrals. The Participant may make a deferral election for Annual Bonus
earned in a given year by delivering to the Committee a completed and signed Election Form prior to
the Plan Entry Date applicable to that Participant for that year, provided the Plan Entry Date is
not later than July 1.



3.3(c) Value Management Award Deferrals. The Participant may make a Value Management Award deferral
election with respect to an award cycle beginning in a given year by delivering to the Committee a
completed and signed Election Form prior to the Plan Entry Date applicable to that Participant for
that year, provided the Plan Entry Date is not later than July 1.



2. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment No. 4 is June 25, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CON-WAY INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jennifer W. Pileggi
 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Jennifer W. Pileggi	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Senior Vice President,	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	General Counsel and Corporate Secretary	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Date: June 25, 2006
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5350 Exercise component. ( a ) *Identification.* An exercise component is a device that is used in conjunction with other forms of exercise and that is intended for medical purposes, such as to redevelope muscles or restore motion to joints or for use as an adjunct treatment for obesity. Examples include weights, dumbbells, straps, and adaptive hand mitts.
( 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 66 FR 38818, July 25, 2001]
# C_2015171EN.01003601.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — DO v ESMA

(Case F-32/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - ESMA staff - Member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of contract - Staff report - Delay in drawing up staff report - Inconsistency of general and specific assessments))

(2015/C 171/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DO (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: R. Vasileva, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary agent contract as a consequence of the negative appraisal report, for annulment of the above-mentioned appraisal report and for compensation for the loss suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that DO is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Securities and Markets Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that DO is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Securities and Markets Authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 45.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.5720 Rectal balloon for prostate immobilization. ( a ) *Identification.* A rectal balloon for prostate immobilization is a single use, inflatable, non-powered positioning device placed in the rectum to immobilize the prostate in patients undergoing radiation therapy. The device is intended to be used during all the phases of radiation therapy, including treatment planning, image verification, and radiotherapy delivery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The premarket notification submission must include methodology and results of the following non-clinical and clinical performance testing: ( i ) Biocompatibility testing of the final finished device;
( ii ) If provided sterile, sterilization validation;
( iii ) If not provided sterile, bioburden testing of the final finished device;
( iv ) Shelf life and expiration date validation; and
( v ) Performance testing including but not limited to: ( A ) Venting mechanism (if device has a vent mechanism);
( B ) Safety mechanism(s) to prevent advancement beyond its intended safe placement; and
( C ) Structural integrity testing (*e.g.,* tensile strength, balloon leakage and burst strength).
( 2 ) Labeling that includes: ( i ) Appropriate warnings and contraindications, including, but not limited to the following statements: ( A ) “Do not transport the patient with the rectal balloon inserted. The balloon should be removed prior to transport.”;
( B ) “Failure to perform the standard imaging position verification protocol may cause the device to not perform as intended.”;
( C ) “Reduce the rectal balloon fill volume if the patient experiences discomfort due to the rectal balloon inflation.”; and
( D ) “Do not apply excessive pressure/force on the shaft or tubing of the rectal balloon.”
( ii ) Adequate instructions for use on the proper insertion procedure, positioning, and inflation of the rectal balloon;
( iii ) Whether the device is sterile or non-sterile; and
( iv ) An expiration date.
[82 FR 61171, Dec. 27, 2017]
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-1900 

KIRK LASSEND, 

Petitioner, Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Respondent, Appellee. 

ERRATA SHEET

 The opinion of this Court, issued on August 2, 2018, is 

amended as follows: 

 On page 36, carryover footnote 16, replace "§ 2k2.1(b)(4)(A)" 

with "§ 2K2.1(b)(4)(A)".
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00440

- CR

Correy REYES

- BROWN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20

- 1498

- CR

- C Honorable William D. Old III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due December 7, 2022. Appellant’s first motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to February 6, 2023. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time to file the b rief has been filed.

We therefore ORDER appellant’s attorney to file his brief by February 23, 2023 , If neither the brief nor an extension of time to file the brief is filed by the date ordered, we will order the appeal abated and remand the cause to th e trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant or appointed counsel has abandoned the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of February, 2023

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk o f Court
Order filed, May 8, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00326-CV

____________

LG CHEM, LTD., Appellant

V.

MICHAEL TURNER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-44826

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 02, 2019. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Norma Duarte, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KIRLEW BROWN,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2028

LT Case No. 2015-DR-025610

KELLY MCEACHERN,

Appellee.

____________________________/

Decision filed March 28, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Brevard County,

Kathryn M. Speicher, Judge.

Kirlew Brown, Palm Bay, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., SOUD and MACIVER, JJ., concur.