alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Georgia

164 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 20, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 20, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Statement on Georgia’s Political Impasse	  April 18, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Georgia	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Key Outcomes at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 23, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 23, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Arrest of Opposition Members in Georgia	  Ned PriceFebruary 23, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Political Developments in Georgia	  Ned PriceFebruary 18, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Georgia	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Joint Statement  		COVID-19 and Religious Minorities Pandemic Statement	  August 20, 2020 
        -    Other Release  		Public Release of Foreign Security Forces Units Ineligible for Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act Assistance Pursuant to the State Leahy Law:  CY 2018 	  July 15, 2020 

previous page1…1011121314…17next page

Back to Top
#### Gregg LINDSAY, Appellant, v. The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign insurance carrier, licensed to operate in Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1902.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1979.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Joe Garrett, Miami, for appellant.

Adams & Ward and Amy Shield Levine, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The provision of the judgment determining the amount of equitable distribution is affirmed. The provision in the judgment denying attorneys’ fee to the plaintiff in the trial court is reversed, on authority of *Rodriguez v. Travelers Insurance Company,*367 So.2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Following remand, further proceedings should be had for fixing and allowing such attorneys’ fee.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part and remanded.
HomeLatvia

# Latvia

106 items

        -    Fact Sheet  		U.S. Security Cooperation with Latvia	  November 4, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing  		Online Briefing with Peter Harrell,  Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness, Ruth Berry,  Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Information and Communications Policy,  and Peter A. Winn,  Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer	  October 7, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on FIRST Program Cooperation at the 2022 NPT Review Conference	  August 25, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – August 11, 2022	  Vedant PatelAugust 11, 2022Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 28, 2022	  Ned PriceJuly 28, 2022Washington, DC 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Latvia	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Latvia	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Latvian Foreign Minister Rinkevics	  June 16, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Jessica Lewis Travels to France, Belgium, and Latvia	  June 11, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Latvia	  June 2, 2022 

previous page12345…11next page

Back to Top
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Ryan M. Hershberger                                                                                                   |
| Ryan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease Trust 2017-A |
# C_2005149EN.01002201.xml

| 21.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/22

---

NO-Oslo: operation of scheduled air services

Cancellation

(‘Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union’ No S 115 of 16.6.2005, open procedure, 113429-2005)

Official Journal of the European Union

(2005/C 149/11)

Ministry of Transport and Communications, PO Box 8010 Dep, 0030 Oslo, Norway; tel. (47) 22 24 83 53, fax: (47) 22 24 56 09.

This notice has been cancelled.

---
# C_2005155EN.01000302.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank (District Court) Amsterdam by order of that court of 4 April 2005 in J.J. Kersbergen-Lap and D. Dams-Schipper v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-154/05)

(2005/C 155/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rechtbank (District Court) Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 4 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between J.J. Kersbergen-Lap and D. Dams-Schipper and Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen on the following question:

‘Must a benefit under the Wajong, listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 (1), be deemed to be a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71 with the result that only the coordinating provision introduced by Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be applied to persons such as the plaintiffs in the main proceedings and the Wajong benefit cannot therefore be paid to a person residing outside the Netherlands?’

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self- employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 136, 19/05/1992 p. 1)

1

---
Document

Exhibit 10.12

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO


2019 INDUCEMENT STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 


OF 


IVERIC BIO, INC.


The 2019 Inducement Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of IVERIC bio, Inc. (the “Company”) is hereby amended as follows (all capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan):


1.         Section 4(a)(1) of the Plan be and hereby is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:


(1)       Authorized Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment under Section 9, Awards may be made under the Plan for up to 2,600,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share, of the Company (the “Common Stock”). Shares issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part of authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares.


2.         Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


* * *




Approved by the Board of Directors on February 24, 2021.
#### George F. Vietor et al., Respondents, *v.*George T. Nichol et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1898.)

1. Sales — Evidence of a right to return defective goods.

Proof that some of the goods sold were returned to and were accepted by vendors .renders it proper, in an action for the price, to submit to the jury the question whether there was not, as the vendees alleged, an agreement that they were to have the privilege of examining and from time to time returning, defective goods.

3. Appeal — Effect of excepting to a verdict.

Where the defendants do no act tending to waive their right to go to the jury, their exception to a verdict, directed in favor of plaintiffs, raises the point whether there were any question's for the jury.

Vietor v. Nichols, 20 Misc. Rep. 718, reversed.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of (the General Term of. the City Court of Hew York, affirming a judgment entered in plaintiffs’ favor upon a verdict directed by -the court at Trial Term. Action to recover balance of $1,473.87, claimed by plaintiffs to be due for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendants.

Campbell *&*Hance (Herbert H. Walker, of counsel), for appellants.

Blumenstiel *&*Hirsch (A. Blumenstiel, of counsel), for respondents.

*116Giegerich, J.

We think the case should have been submitted-to the jury on the question, whether there was any agreement between the parties by which the appellants were to have the privilege of examining and returning, defective goods, from timé to time, as the articles sold were taken from the plaintiffs’ warehouse. The actual return of goods and the acceptance of the same by the respondents from time to time tended to sustain the claim1 made by the appellants that there was such an agreement," and was a corroborative circumstance which the jury were entitled to take into consideration.

The respondents seek to uphold the judgment on the ground that the appellants did not request to go to the jury upon any question of fact, but as the latter did not move for a dismissal of the complaint,. or ,do any other act from which a waiver of their right to go to the jury could be implied, them exception to the direction-in respondents’ favor is sufficient upon this appeal to raise the point whether there were any questions of fact requiring determination by the-jury. Vail v. Reynolds, 118 N. Y. 297, 301, and citations.

As there must be a new trial, we consider it proper to say that greater care should be shown in putting in the proofs.' Among other things, it is- impossible to- determine from the record what discounts the defendants were entitled to and on what basis they were estimated.

The judgment should, therefore, be reversed land a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Beekmah, P. J., and Gildebsleeve, J., concur.

- Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event. . -
# C_2005155EN.01001701.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 20 April 2005

in Case T-318/03 Atomic Austria GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark ATOMIC BLITZ - Opposition of the proprietor of national word marks ATOMIC - Evidence of renewal of registration of the earlier mark - Scope of the examination conducted by OHIM - Rejection of opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 155/33)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-318/03: Atomic Austria GmbH, established in Altenmarkt (Austria), represented by G. Kucsko and C. Schumacher, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and B. Müller), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal having been Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil, SA, established in Onil (Spain) — action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2003 (Case R 95/2003-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Atomic Austria GmbH and Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil, SA, — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2003 (Case R 95/2003-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2003 (Case R 95/2003-2);

| 2. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

1

---
HomeDigest of United States Practice in International Law 2019...Chapter 19: Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2019

# 									Chapter 19: Digest of United States Practice in International Law 2019							

2019 Digest: Chapter 19 [1 MB]

Tags

International LawLegal Adviser

Back to Top
# C_2005181EN.01000101.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 July 2005

(2005/C 181/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2143 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,98 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4615 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69510 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4528 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5635 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9740 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9560 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5738 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,208 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,73 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1145 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5515 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,49 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,900 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6286 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5859 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4779 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4385 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7697 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0172 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 236,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0117 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8493 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3000 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 882,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,590 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,788 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,7400 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,238 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2143

JPY

Japanese yen

134,98

DKK

Danish krone

7,4615

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69510

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4528

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5635

ISK

Iceland króna

78,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9740

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9560

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5738

CZK

Czech koruna

30,208

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,73

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1145

RON

Romanian leu

3,5515

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,49

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,900

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6286

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5859

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4779

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4385

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7697

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0172

KRW

South Korean won

1 236,64

ZAR

South African rand

8,0117

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8493

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3000

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 882,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,590

PHP

Philippine peso

67,788

RUB

Russian rouble

34,7400

THB

Thai baht

50,238

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Earl LOCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2350/T4-18.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 9, 1980.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Tatjana Ostapoff, Chief, Appellate Division, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Edwin H. Duff, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.-

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Brevard County, Florida. The Public Defender has filed an Anders1 motion and brief, requesting leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant and representing to this court that no reversible error appears. On December 7, 1979, the Fifth District Court of Appeal gave the appellant thirty (30) days within which to file a brief in his own behalf. No such brief has been filed. The court has reviewed counsel’s brief and the record herein and no reversible error appears. The motion of the Public Defender to withdraw is hereby granted, and the judgment and sentence is hereby

AFFIRMED.

' DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

1

. *Anders*v. *California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
# C_2005205EN.01000302.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 May 2005

in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (1)

1

(Agriculture - Export refunds - Agricultural products which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex I EC) - Inaccurate declaration - Sanction)

(2005/C 205/06)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-542/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 23 December 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Milupa GmbH & Co. KG — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it ruled:

The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1), the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) and Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 229/96 of 7 February 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that where an exporter has declared in a request for an export refund that, in the production of the goods in issue, a product was used which, by virtue of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is assimilated to the skimmed milk powder described in Annex A (PG 2), whereas in fact another product was used which, by virtue of the same provision, is also assimilated to the same skimmed milk powder, he is entitled to the grant of an export refund, corrected if appropriate in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 375.10 What is the purpose of the redemption operation announcement?

We provide public notice that we are redeeming Treasury securities by issuing a redemption operation announcement. This announcement lists the details of each proposed redemption operation, including the maximum redemption amount, the range of maturities of eligible securities, descriptions of the securities that fall within that maturity range, and the redemption operation and settlement dates. The redemption operation announcement and this part specify the terms and conditions of a redemption operation. If anything in the redemption operation announcement differs from anything in this part, the redemption operation announcement will apply. Accordingly, you should read the applicable redemption operation announcement along with this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         427,099
<SECURITIES>                                   504,815
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,615
<INVENTORY>                                    787,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,797,057
<PP&E>                                         176,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,948,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,464
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,970,627
<COMMON>                                       240,656
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,219,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,948,432
<SALES>                                        699,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               731,590
<CGS>                                          352,352
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  770,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,698)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,698)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 594.501 General and specific licensing procedures.

For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter. Licensing actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part.

[68 FR 53660, Sept. 11, 2003]