alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα L 272/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0669 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | L 272 |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Νομοθεσία | 63ό έτος19 Αυγούστου 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0669

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

L 272

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Νομοθεσία

63ό έτος19 Αυγούστου 2020

---

| Περιεχόμενα | | Διορθωτικά | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Διορθωτικό στην οριστική έκδοση (ΕΕ, Ευρατόμ) 2020/1078, του διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 4 της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το οικονομικό έτος 2020 ( EE L 254 της 4.8.2020 ) | 1 |

Περιεχόμενα

Διορθωτικά

Σελίδα

*

Διορθωτικό στην οριστική έκδοση (ΕΕ, Ευρατόμ) 2020/1078, του διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 4 της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το οικονομικό έτος 2020 ( EE L 254 της 4.8.2020 )

( EE L 254 της 4.8.2020 )

1

| EL | Οι πράξεις των οποίων οι τίτλοι έχουν τυπωθεί με λευκά στοιχεία αποτελούν πράξεις τρεχούσης διαχειρίσεως που έχουν θεσπισθεί στο πλαίσιο της γεωργικής πολιτικής και είναι γενικά περιορισμένης χρονικής ισχύος.
  Οι τίτλοι όλων των υπολοίπων πράξεων έχουν τυπωθεί με μαύρα στοιχεία και επισημαίνονται με αστερίσκο. |
| --- | --- |

EL

Οι πράξεις των οποίων οι τίτλοι έχουν τυπωθεί με λευκά στοιχεία αποτελούν πράξεις τρεχούσης διαχειρίσεως που έχουν θεσπισθεί στο πλαίσιο της γεωργικής πολιτικής και είναι γενικά περιορισμένης χρονικής ισχύος.

Οι τίτλοι όλων των υπολοίπων πράξεων έχουν τυπωθεί με μαύρα στοιχεία και επισημαίνονται με αστερίσκο.

---

Διορθωτικά

| 19.8.2020 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | L 272/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2020

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

L 272/1

---

Διορθωτικό στην οριστική έκδοση (ΕΕ, Ευρατόμ) 2020/1078, του διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 4 της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για το οικονομικό έτος 2020

(
  Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης L 254 της 4ης Αυγούστου 2020
  )

Στη σελίδα 36, σειρά «Σύνολο» στη στήλη «Προϋπολογισμός 2020 – Πληρωμές»:

αντί:

«
  167 248 223 575
  »

διάβαζε:

«
  150 948 403 832
  ».

Στη σελίδα 36, σειρά «Σύνολο» στη στήλη «Νέο ποσό - Πληρωμές»:

αντί:

αντί

«
  167 520 721 783
  »

διαβαζε:

διαβαζε

«
  151 220 902 040
  ».

---
617 P.2d 38

#### In the Matter of the ESTATE of John A. KREBS, Deceased. David L. KREBS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Amelia V. KREBS, Personal Representative of the Estate of John A. Krebs, Deceased, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 3596.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 18, 1980.

*531Johnson, Dowdall & Payne by Joseph H. Payne, Tucson, for petitioner/appellant.

Murphy & Hazlett by Howard T. Roberts, Jr., Tucson, for respondent/appellee.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the failure to give notice of the entry of an order pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 14-3204 permits the person entitled to the notice to attack the validity of the order.

Appellant is the son of the decedent. He filed a demand of notice pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 14-3204 which states:

> “Any person desiring notice of any order or filing pertaining to a decedent’s estate in which he has a financial or property interest may file a demand for notice with the court at any time after the death of the decedent stating the name of the decedent, the nature of his interest in the estate and the deman-dant’s address or that of his attorney. The clerk shall mail a copy of the demand to the personal representative if one has been appointed. After filing of a demand, no order or filing to which the demand relates shall be made or accepted without notice as prescribed by Sec. 14-1401 to the demandant or his attorney. *The validity of an order which is issued or filing which is accepted without compli-anee with this order shall not be affected by the error,*but the petitioner receiving the order or the person making the filing may be liable for any damage caused by the absence of notice. . . .” (Emphasis added)

Although appellant received notice of the hearing of the petition for approval of the final account and decree of settlement and distribution, he was not notified of the entry of the final order approving the account and decreeing distribution. Thirteen months later he filed a petition to set aside this final order on the ground of lack of notice and sought to attack the valuation of certain property set forth in the final order. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the final order in that the failure to give notice constitutes a fraud. We do not agree.

A.R.S. Sec. 14-3204 is clear and unequivocal. Appellant may have a claim for relief against the personal representative of the estate for damages but the final order is not affected.1

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and RICHMOND, J., concur.

1

. *In re Estate of Rose,*108 Ariz. 101, 493 P.2d 112 (1972) cited by appellant is inapposite since it involved notice of a hearing as opposed to notice of an order of filing. We also note that it was decided prior to the enactment of A.R.S. Sec. 14-3204.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

January 24, 2020

158852 & (84)

DETROIT ALLIANCE AGAINST THE RAIN

TAX, DETROIT IRON & METAL COMPANY,

AMERICAN IRON & METAL COMPANY,

McNICHOLS SCRAP IRON & METAL

COMPANY, MONIER KHALIL LIVING TRUST,

and BAGLEY PROPERTIES, LLC,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 158852

COA: 339176

CITY OF DETROIT, DETROIT WATER AND

SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT, and DETROIT

BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS,

Defendants

- App ellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file supplemental authority is

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2018 judgment of the

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

application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellants shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Bolt v City of

Lansing , 4 59 Mich 152, 164 (1998), is distinguishable from this case on the basis that

Detroit’s sewer system is a combined system rather than a separate storm and sanitary

sewer system. 1963 Const, art 9, § 31. In addition to the brief, the appellants shall

elect ronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to

the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1).

The appellees shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the

a ppellants’ brief. The appellees shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the

alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellants. A reply, if any,

must be filed by the appellants within 14 days of being served with the appe llees’ brief.

The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

January 24, 2020

s0121 2

Clerk Trappers Properties, et al ., is invited to file a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or

groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the

Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
[4910-13-P]

DEPARTMENT OF iRANSPORT AnON

Federal Aviation Administration

:(}~ClJR"n,cp~<

"OllTlNG SYMBl;lL

tllo-KI<

14 CFR Part39

INITIAlS'SiC

.)

a-J.,

DATE

RIN 2120-AA64

i-IS--ic

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0614; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-045-AD; Amendme lITlNGSY"A(ll,

39~f(2*~b,AD***~eLOI -/0-D7 lilo-i<EJ

IN.""!.S.' LQ

1(. ~

"ie/V! liD

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Mo '&jmNGSVMOOL ,

I l~,~e, P£JjERJ 170 and Model ERJ 190 Airplanes W.

DATE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

RO~'TINGS"MIIOI.

AN/", -1-

NlTlALS'<lG

ROUT,,,G ''-MeOL

!<OUT,NG S'·MBOL

* *

ACTION: Final rule. C ~

l>ATo

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness dir.ctive (AD) for the products lis 3Jlff. 1(0

I I I RO~::c;.'~~OOL

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing 31'l0rthiness information (MeAl) ~'Al.5'5i" /Ii

.. db I h· [h ·d .[' d ~ 10 ongmate y an a~la~lon aut onty 0 anot er coun~l to I entl y an c~~ect an uosa), A h~

condltton on an aViation product. The MeAl descnbes lle unsafe conditIon as: .0

/1/JM- '0 I

INIT',LS;?'n

It has been found the occurrence of outboard sia skew sensor failure in C U--

open or closed position. The combination of ah ~utboard slat skew sensor 1-(w;; t:l

failed closed, an outboard slat actuator stmctJral failure (mpture) and its

adjacent actuatbr torque limiter failing high (indws higher loads to the

panel struc1ure~ occurring in the same slat surfade, under nOlmal f1lght

loads, may lead [the] slat surface to detach frdmlthe wmg with the

posslbdlty of hitting and damagmg the honzohdl stabJilzer and elevator,

which may affect the atrplane controllability I

~ * * * *

rNrTIAL'I;]G

DAT~

We are issuing this AID to require actions to correct the nsafe condition on these

, I
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 154

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To congratulate the Republic of China on Taiwan

president.presidential election and the inauguration of itson the occasion of its first direct and democratic
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 154

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas March 23, 1996, was the first time in the history of the Republic of China on Taiwan that a presidential election was held through direct popular vote

by the people of Taiwan;

Whereas the election was held under great difficulties

caused by extensive military threats from the People’s Republic of China; and
2

•HCON 154 EH

Whereas the presidential inauguration will be held on

May 20, 1996, and should be honored: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) the Congress congratulates the people of

4 Taiwan on holding their first direct and democratic

5 presidential election;

6 (2) the United States continues its commitment

7 to move nations toward freedom and democracy; and

8 (3) the United States is committed to encourag9 ing and protecting its democratic friends on Taiwan,

10 within the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **1088** Docket Number **2012 -**  **SW -**  **005 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Robinson R44 S ervice Bulletin SB - 80, dated September 7, 2011



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p. m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 August 12, 2016

Order 

Clerk

August 12, 2016

152047(72)

BARUCH SLS, INC.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

SC: 152047

v COA: 319953

Tax Tribunal: 00-395010; 00-415093

TOWNSHIP OF TITTABAWASSEE,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of amicus curiae Chelsea Health & 

Wellness Foundation to file a response to the brief submitted by amici curiae Michigan 

Townships Association, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Association of 

Counties, the Michigan Association of School Boards, and the Public Corporation Law 

Section of the State Bar of Michigan is DENIED. The response submitted by Chelsea 

Health & Wellness Foundation on August, 5, 2016, is not accepted for filing.
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | Commercial Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor401 South Tryon StreetCharlotte, NC 282021-800-326-1334
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made
to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015, by and among GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION II,
as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION , as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate
Administrator and Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-GC34 (the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.07 of this Agreement,
I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the
Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its
performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based
on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.



|/s/ Leslie Hayton | 
|----------------- | 



Leslie Hayton

Managing Director

Wells
Fargo Bank



|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Together we’ll go far
|---------------------- | ---------------------
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8112 

AN ACT 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to further 

require certain additional provider screening under the 

Medicaid program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 8112 EH

1 SECTION 1. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIRE2 MENTS. 

3 Section 1902(kk)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1396a(kk)(1)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘The State’’ and inserting: 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The State’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PROVIDER SCREEN10 ING.—Beginning January 1, 2027, as part of 

11 the enrollment (or reenrollment or revalidation 

12 of enrollment) of a provider or supplier under 

13 this title, and not less frequently than monthly 

14 during the period that such provider or supplier 

15 is so enrolled, the State conducts a check of any 

16 database or similar system developed pursuant 

17 to section 6401(b)(2) of the Patient Protection 

18 and Affordable Care Act to determine whether 

19 the Secretary has terminated the participation 

20 of such provider or supplier under title XVIII, 

21 or whether any other State has terminated the 

22 participation of such provider or supplier under 

23 such other State’s State plan under this title 

24 (or waiver of the plan), or such other State’s 
3 

•HR 8112 EH

1 State child health plan under title XXI (or 

2 waiver of the plan).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8112 

AN ACT 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 

screening under the Medicaid program. further require certain additional provider
EX-10.21 SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATIO



 





Exhibit 10.21




TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC.

Board of Directors Compensation

Approved January 24, 2007




     Upon the recommendation of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, the Board of
Directors of Total System Services, Inc. approved modifications to the compensation to be paid to
directors effective February 1, 2007, as set forth below:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Cash Compensation	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Board Retainer
	 	$	40,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Committee Member Retainers
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee
	 	$	15,000	 
	Compensation Committee
	 	$	10,000	 
	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 	$	7,500	 
	Executive Committee
	 	$	10,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Committee Chair Retainers*
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee
	 	$	15,000	 
	Compensation Committee
	 	$	10,000	 
	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 	$	7,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Lead Director Retainer
	 	$	5,000	 








 




			
	*	 	Note: The committee chair will receive both an annual committee member retainer and an
annual committee chair retainer.





	 	 	 	 	 
	Equity Compensation	 	 	 	 
	Annual restricted stock award (in the form of a grant from the
TSYS 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan, 3 year cliff vesting)
	 	500 shares






No equity awards to employee directors




	 	 	 	 	 
	Director Stock Purchase Plan	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual maximum company cash contribution per director
participant to company-sponsored open market stock purchase plan,
with company’s contribution equal to 50% of director participant’s
cash contribution, subject to annual maximum contribution limit by
director of $20,000
	 	$	10,000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7358

TIMOTHY CLARENCE ALLISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARCUS HUGHES; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-00-132-MU)

Submitted: January 10, 2001 Decided: January 31, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Clarence Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Clarence Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Allison v. Hughes, No. CA-00-132-MU

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### Williamson et ux. v. Shulman

*Freedman, Landy & Lorry,*for plaintiffs.

*R. A. Smith,*for defendant.

*361May 4, 1953.

Brown, Jr., P. J.,

A rule to show cause is not necessary on a petition for discovery under Pa. R. C. P. 4005, 4006, 4007, and 4009.

It is provided in Pa. R. C. P. 4012(c) that when a petition is filed under the rules relating to depositions and discovery, the “petitioner shall serve upon each party or his attorney of record a copy of the petition and of the proposed order and a notice stating that the petitioner will apply to the court, at a time not less than five (5) days thereafter, for the order prayed for, at which time the adverse party may appear and present his objections, except that no service need be made upon nor notice given to a defendant who was served by publication and has not appeared in the action.” Accordingly, instead of a rule to show cause being prayed for and granted, the petition and the proposed order when filed should be placed on the Motion List, and a copy of the petition and proposed order, together with notice of the time when application will be made to the court for the order prayed for, served on each party or his attorney of record not less than five days before the date of the Motion List on which the petition and proposed order appear.

Rule to show cause is refused.
#### Denton *v.*The State.

[No. 19,078.

Filed October 5, 1900.]

Criminal *Law.*— Indictment.—Indorsement *by Foreman of Grand Jury.*— An indictment which was not indorsed “a true bill” over the signature of the foreman of the grand jury who returned it into court is insufficient.

From the Orange Circuit Court.

*Reversed.*

*S. R. Lambdin,*for appellant.

*W. L. Taylor,*Attorney-General, *T. M. Honan, Rowland Evans, Merrill Moores*and *C. C. Hadley,*for State.

Jordan, J.

— Appellant was indicted by the grand jury of the Orange Circuit Court for violating §9 of an act of . the legislature approved March 6, 1897, entitled an act “regulating the taxing of dogs,” etc. Acts 1897, p. 178.

A motion to quash the indictment was overruled, and upon a trial by the court appellant was convicted of the charge, and fined in the sum of $1. From this judgment he appeals, and assigns as error the action of the trial court in denying his motion to quash the indictment. The constitutional validity of the statute upon which this prosecution is based is assailed.

The indictment is clearly bad, for the reason alone that it does not appear to have been indorsed as a true bill over the signature of the foreman of the grand jury who returned it into court. This the statute requires, and the record on appeal to this court must affirmatively disclose that fact. The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained for this reason. *State*v. *Buntin,*123 Ind. 124; Gillett’s Crim. Law (2nd ed.), §116, and cases there cited.

As this infirmity in the indictment requires a reversal of the judgment, we do not deem it necessary to decide the questions relative to the constitutional validity of the stat*308ute, as they are not essential to a disposition of the appeal.

The judgment' is reversed, and the cause remanded to the lower court.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2987921-JUN-201208:25 AM