alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 601.521 Requirements for conference and representation in conference.

Any person desiring a conference in the office of the regional regulatory administrator in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of his region or of the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in Washington, DC, relative to any matter arising in connection with his operations, will be accorded such a conference upon request. No formal requirements are prescribed for such conference. Where an industry member or other person is to be represented in conference, the representative must be recognized to practice as provided in paragraph (b) of § 601.502. When a representative presents himself on behalf of an industry member or other person for the initial meeting in the office of a regional regulatory administrator in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or of the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, he must submit evidence of recognition; or he should state in his first letter or other written communication with such office whether he is recognized to practice, and should enclose evidence of such recognition. In the case of a qualified attorney or a qualified certified public accountant, the filing of the applicable written declaration described in paragraphs (b)(1) (i) and (ii) of § 601.502 shall constitute evidence of recognition. In the case of an enrollee, the filing of a notification, stating that he is enrolled to practice and giving his enrollment number or the expiration date of his enrollment card, shall constitute evidence of recognition.

[34 FR 6432, Apr. 12, 1969, as amended at 45 FR 7259, Feb. 1, 1980]
#### § 55.6011-1 General requirement of return, statement, or list.

Every person liable for tax under Chapter 44 shall file an annual return with respect to the tax on the form prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service for such purpose and shall include therein the information required by the form and the instructions issued with respect thereto. For calendar years beginning after December 31, 1986, the return, which must be made on a calendar year basis, shall be filed by a real estate investment trust on Form 8612 and by a regulated investment company on Form 8613.

[T.D. 8180, 53 FR 6148, Mar. 1, 1988]
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6365-1 Definitions. ( a ) *State.* For purposes of subchapter E and the regulations thereunder, the term “State” shall include the District of Columbia, but shall not include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or any possession of the United States.
( b ) *Governor.* For purposes of subchapter E and the regulations thereunder, the term “Governor” shall include the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
[T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59375, Dec. 20, 1978]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Zuga, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 306]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered January 9, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the first degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s larcenous intent could be readily inferred from the evidence *(see People v Meadows,*199 NY 1, 7 [1910]). The evidence warranted the conclusion that defendant attempted to commit larceny by false pretenses, in that he knowingly made false claims as to the existence of unpublicized “capital enhancement programs” that guaranteed immediate, astronomical, risk-free investment returns.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The court properly permitted the prosecution to elicit defendant’s other fraudulent conduct, which was extremely probative of his credibility. To the extent that the prosecutor may have exceeded the scope of the court’s *Sandoval*ruling, we find any error to be harmless.

*316We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
39551.

#### WHEELING v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

On. December 5, 1961, the defendant was sentenced for possessing beer as follows: “Whereupon it is ordered by the court that the defendant be confined at work in the prison for women or elsewhere, as the law directs, for a period of nine months; . . . however, the defendant is hereby given leave to serve the said sentence outside of said public works camp, Georgia State Farm, and jail on probation upon payment of a fine of $200.00 cost of prosecution, within days from this date, provided that said defendant, during the term of this probation sentence, shall report to the probation officer of this county as may be directed by the court or said probation officer; shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without the permission of this *203court, and shall observe such other conditions as are herein specified, and as may from time to time be required by the court or probation officer, shall violate no penal law or municipal ordinance, shall drink no intoxicant, shall pay $50.00 of fine to probation officer now, $50.00 on or before January 1, 1962, and balance on or before February 1, 1962. Provisions of State form number 2 shall apply. . .” On March 5, 1962, after a rule nisi was issued directing that the defendant show cause why the probated sentence should not be revoked, the trial court revoked the probated sentence and ordered that the defendant serve the remainder of the term in the State prison for women. Error is assigned on this latter judgment. *Held:*

Decided June 21, 1962.

*D. L. Lomenick, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Cecil Palmour, Solicitor,*contra.

1. Under the decision in the case of *King v. State,*103 Ga. Ga. App. 272, 275 (119 SE2d 77), the sentence was not an alternative sentence which was discharged upon the payment of a fine. See also *Bryant v. State,*89 Ga. App. 891 (2) (81 SE2d 556).

2. The evidence adduced on the hearing was sufficient to authorize the judgment revoking the probation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
#### § 31.3212-1 Determination of compensation.

See § 31.3231(e)-1 for regulations applicable to compensation.
#### In the Matter of Corey Ford, Petitioner, v Joseph Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 821]

*875Kane, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As a result of two incidents during which, among other things, petitioner threw hot oil in the face of a correction officer and then stabbed him three times, petitioner was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit assault on staff, possession of weapons, disobeying a direct order and demonstration. After a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges except demonstration. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the evidence presented at the hearing, including the three detailed misbehavior reports, the testimony of the correction officers who witnessed the incidents and the photographs of the weapon seized from petitioner, provide substantial evidence of his guilt *(see Matter of Ratliff v Goord,*13 AD3d 772, 772-773 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 708 [2005]; *Matter of Shelton v Goord,*10 AD3d 794, 795 [2004]). The Hearing Officer did not improperly deprive petitioner of his right to call witnesses by failing to locate an unidentified witness inasmuch as the record reveals that, had such testimony been procured, it would have been redundant as the Hearing Officer allowed more than 20 requested witnesses to testify at the hearing *(see Matter of Hill v Selsky,*19 AD3d 64, 66 [2005]; *Matter of Vigliotti v Duncan,*10 AD3d 776, 777 [2004], *lv dismissed*4 NY3d 738 [2004]; *Matter of Mulcahy v Selsky,*295 AD2d 663, 663-664 [2002]). Furthermore, as petitioner was allowed to review the injured correction officer’s medical records and question the officer regarding his injuries, he was not prejudiced in preparing his defense by the Hearing Officer’s refusal to call the correction officer’s treating physician to testify regarding the correction officer’s injuries or by being denied access to photographs of those injuries *(see Matter of Reed v Selsky,*9 AD3d 710, 711 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 611 [2004]; *Matter of Perez v Goord,*6 AD3d 774, 775 [2004]).

Although lengthy, the penalty of eight years of confinement to *876the special housing unit was not so excessive as to shock our sense of fairness given the serious nature of petitioner’s assault on a correction officer *(see Matter of Proctor v Coombe,*234 AD2d 749, 751 [1996]). To the extent that they were preserved, petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit
10.32


Theravance,
Inc.


Cash
Bonus Program, amended effective as of February 28, 2007


Theravance’s Cash Bonus
Program is based on performance measured against specific goals and objectives.  The program is designed to provide incentives
for employees to meet and exceed individual, department and corporate goals as
well as encourage teamwork among the disciplines within the company and reward
those who significantly impact corporate results. All employees are eligible to
participate in the Cash Bonus Program.


Each year the
Compensation Committee assesses the Company’s performance measured against the
corporate goals.  Depending on the Committee’s
conclusion, a bonus pool is established and is allocated among the departments
pro rata. Bonus percentage guidelines are then developed by Senior Management.  In general, however, the maximum bonus
amounts as a percentage of base salary are as follows:




	
  Grades 1-6

  	
   

  	
  Determined Annually

  	
   

  
	
  Grades 7-9

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
  %

  
	
  Grade 10

  	
   

  	
  15

  	
  %

  
	
  Grades 11-12

  	
   

  	
  20

  	
  %

  
	
  Vice President

  	
   

  	
  25

  	
  %

  
	
  Senior Vice President

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
  %

  
	
  Executive Vice
  President

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
  %

  
	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
  %

  






 


Managers have the
discretion of allocating bonuses based on the highest percentage designated and
total available bonus pool.  Any exceptions
require CEO approval.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,473,887
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         156,276
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,160,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  5,316,627
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,435,955
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,456,768
<LOANS>                                     22,715,453
<ALLOWANCE>                                    203,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,493,236
<DEPOSITS>                                  30,630,558
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            471,231
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       377,786
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,013,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              35,493,236
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,772,779
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              381,040
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                73,613
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,227,432
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             777,084
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             777,953
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,449,479
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   54,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              15,131
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                928,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                887,124
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     887,124
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   613,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.28
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                422,520
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               196,669
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   56,465
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,850
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              203,054
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           119,246
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         83,808
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ABDI MOHAMMED UMAR , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr - 0056

- MSD

- FBS

- 5; 2:16

- cv 00392

- MSD )

Submitted : June 16, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Abdi Mohammed Umar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Abdi Mohammed Umar seeks to appeal the district c ourt’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 (201 8 ) motion based on Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by dem onstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner mus t demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that
the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Umar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 34985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14980]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office 
Building, 131 ``M'' Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. Disparate Treatment in 21st Century Hiring Decisions.

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 
30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through 
security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to 
publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal 
Register, the Commission also provides information about Commission 
meetings on its Web site, http://www.eeoc.gov, and provides a 
recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission 
sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign 
language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. 
Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the 
voice and TTY numbers listed above.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stephen Llewellyn, Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4070.

    Dated: June 13, 2011.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011-14980 Filed 6-13-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
# L_2019157EN.01000101.xml

| 14.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 157/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 157/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/972

of 7 June 2019

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Džiugas’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Lithuania's application to register the name ‘Džiugas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Lithuania's application to register the name ‘Džiugas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Džiugas’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Džiugas’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Džiugas’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. — Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2019.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 28, 23.1.2019, p. 3.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
# L_2019138EN.01008101.xml

| 24.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/81

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/843

of 23 May 2019

on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 36th partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.

| (2) | In the light of the tenders received for the 36th partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the tenders received for the 36th partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 36th partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 21 May 2019, the minimum selling price shall be 167,50 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 May 2019.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA

Director-General

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).

3

---