alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 137.236 When does a withdrawal become effective? A withdrawal becomes effective within the time frame specified in the resolution that authorizes withdrawal from the participating Tribal organization or inter-Tribal consortium. In the absence of a specific time frame set forth in the resolution, such withdrawal becomes effective on ( a ) The earlier of 1 year after the date of submission of such request, or the date on which the funding agreement expires; or
( b ) Such date as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary, the withdrawing Indian Tribe, and the participating Tribal organization or inter-Tribal consortium that has signed the compact or funding agreement on behalf of the withdrawing Indian Tribe, inter-Tribal consortium, or Tribal organization.
Document

Exhibit 10.1

                         
Third Amendment to the
Campbell Soup Company
Supplemental Retirement Plan


WHEREAS, Campbell Soup Company (“Company”) previously established the Campbell Soup Company Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) primarily to provide eligible executives of the Company and any designated subsidiary with an additional method of planning for retirement and other significant saving needs with respect to amounts deferred or vested after 2004;


WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IX of the Plan, the corporate officer in charge of Human Resources of the Company reserves the right to amend or terminate the Plan; 


WHEREAS, the corporate officer in charge of Human Resources desires to amend the Plan to comply with the final regulations under section 162(m) of Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and remove certain language that could delay a Plan distribution if the payment would be non-deductible under Code section 162(m).


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT:


RESOLVED, effective December 31, 2020, Article I, Section 1.9 is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:


1.9      “Committee” means the Compensation and Organization Committee of the Board or a subcommittee thereof. All members of the Committee shall be “Non-Employee Directors” within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”).


RESOLVED, effective December 31, 2020, Article V, Section 5.11 is amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:


5.11    Permitted Delays.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, any payment to a Participant under the Plan shall be delayed upon the Committee’s reasonable anticipation that making the payment would violate Federal securities laws or other applicable law; provided, that any payment delayed pursuant to this Section 5.11 shall be paid in accordance with Code section 409A on the earliest date in which the Company reasonably anticipates that the making of the payment will not cause a violation of Federal securities laws or other applicable law.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed on December 23, 2020.


Campbell Soup Company




By:       /s/ Xavier Boza           
Xavier Boza
EVP & Chief Human Resources Officer
#### Alan Dale STEADMAN v. Marie M. STEADMAN.

No. 12929.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Jan. 7, 1980.

*1282Janice G. Clark, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellee Alan Dale Steadman.

Boris F. Navratil, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellant Marie M. Stead-man.

A. J. Lord, Zachary, of counsel for inter-venors-appellees Dero Denver Steadman and Evie Knight Steadman.

Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

Defendant appealed from an award of temporary custody of two minor children to the paternal grandparents.

The issue is the propriety of that award.

We affirm.

Plaintiff sued his wife for divorce; she filed a reconventional demand. The trial court granted the divorce to the defendant but awarded temporary custody of two small children to plaintiffs parents.

While it is true that a parent has paramount right to the custody of his or her children, *Tolar v. Cunningham,*368 So.2d 1188 (3rd Cir. 1979), the most essential consideration in a custody suit is to provide for the best interest of the children. *Monsour v. Monsour,*347 So.2d 203 (La.1977).

Even if we be inclined to decide differently, we cannot say the trial court erred. The mother, after a history of some instability, most likely resulting from the relationship with her husband, was at the time of the hearing trying to become self-reliant. She had recently started a job but as yet had no transportation. She had rented an apartment and was no longer living in a boarding house.

The judge decided that it was in the best interest of the children to reside for the time being with their grandparents and stated that the mother could petition for another change when her stability became proved. As a matter of fact we are informed that a rule for change has been filed and tried and that the trial court has the matter under advisement.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 137.26 Must an Indian Tribe receive a planning or negotiation grant to be eligible to participate in self-governance?

No, an Indian Tribe may use other resources to meet the planning requirement and to negotiate.
**EXHIBIT 10.33**

 

**DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

 
| **$15,000** | **December 22, 2003** |   |
|-------------|-----------------------|--------|

 

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,PURCHASESOFT, INC, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), promises to pay to theorder of **LouisBlatt**, an individual resident of the State of Massachusetts(“Lender”), at such place as the holder hereof may designate, in lawful moneyof the United States of America, the principal sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars($15,000), plus interest as hereinafter provided, on demand. This Note shall bedue and payable 180 days from the date hereof.   This Note shall bear interest on the unpaid principal amounthereof at the rate of 6% per annum; provided that interest shall accrue at therate of 8% per annum on any principal or accrued interest that is not paidwithin five days of written demand, from the date of such demand until the dateof payment.

 

Borrower waives presentment,demand, protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, notice of nonpayment,any and all other notices and demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance,performance, default or enforcement of this Note.  No delay by the holder hereof in exercising any power or right inrespect of this Note shall operate as a waiver of such or any other power orright.

 

Borrower may at any timeprepay in whole or in part, from time to time, the outstanding principal amountof this Note, together with accrued interest to date of payment on theprincipal amount so prepaid.

 

Borrower shall pay theholder hereof all costs and expenses of collection of this Note, including withoutlimitation reasonable attorneys’ fees.

 

This Note shall be deemed tobe made under and shall be construed in accordance with and governed by thelaws of the State of California.

 

 
|   | PURCHASESOFT, INC. |
|--------|--------------------|
|   |               |
|   |               |
|   | By                 | /s/ Thomas B. Marsh |   |
|   |               | Thomas B. Marsh |
|   |               | Secretary and Treasurer |

 

1

----
# C_2005296EN.01000501.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München Scania Finance France SA v Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. (1)

1

(Brussels Convention - Recognition and enforcement - Grounds for refusal - Meaning of ‘duly served’)

(2005/C 296/09)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany), made by decision of 31 October 2003, registered at the Court on 15 December 2003 in the proceedings pending before that court between Scania Finance France SA and Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co., — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 27 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol annexed to that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a relevant international convention is applicable between the State in which the judgment is given and the State in which recognition is sought, the question whether the document instituting the proceedings was duly served must be determined in the light of the provisions of that convention, without prejudice to the use of direct transmission between public officers, where the State in which recognition is sought has not officially objected, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSH TAYLOR, SR.

, 1

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR

FAMILIES,

Petitioner Below,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 276, 2019

Court Below: Family Court

of the State of Delaware

File No. 18

- 11

- 06TN

Petition No. 18

- 34790

Submitted: February 5, 2020

Decided: February 14 , 2020

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VAUGHN and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 14 th day of February 2020 , the Cour t having considered this matter on

the briefs filed by the parties has determined that the final judgment of the Family

Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Family

Court in its order da ted May 30, 2019

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Family Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
# Haiti

223 items

        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Haiti	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Announcement of a Unity Government in Haiti	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 20, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 20, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 20, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 19, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 19, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 14, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 13, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 13, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 13, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with OAS Secretary General Almagro	  July 13, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 12, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 12, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Report  		2021 Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 5 of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-441)	  July 12, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 9, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 9, 2021Washington, DC 

previous page1…1617181920…23next page

Back to Top
§ 596.501 Effect of license or authorization. ( a ) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by or under the direction of the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of the license, unless specifically provided in such license or other authorization.
( b ) No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license authorizes a transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, or license is issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control and specifically refers to a part in 31 CFR chapter V. No regulation, ruling, instruction, or license referring to this part authorizes any transactions prohibited by any provision of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction or license specifically refers to such provision.
( c ) Any regulation, ruling, instruction or license authorizing any transaction otherwise prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition or prohibitions contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property which would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          49,868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                       759
<INVENTORY>                                        937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,174
<PP&E>                                          75,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,161
<BONDS>                                        468,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   670,756
<SALES>                                        108,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,079
<CGS>                                           44,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,708)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (12,041)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,667)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  42,975
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005217EN.01003901.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/39

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-9/04 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Social security benefits - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Admissibility - Statement of reasons)

(2005/C 217/86)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-9/04: Luigi Marcuccio, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tricase (Italy), represented by M. Di Stefano and A. Distante, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application primarily for annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminstrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission's decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission's decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

| 2. | Dismisses the claims for the Court to order measures of inquiry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the claims for the Court to order measures of inquiry.

| 3. | Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

1

---
# C_2005217EN.01001001.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(EAGGF - Financial treatment to be applied in the context of clearance of expenditure financed)

(2005/C 217/18)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic (Agents: G. Kanellopoulos and V. Kontolaimos) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande, assisted by N. Korogiannakis) — ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 August 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caiomh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

Hellenic Republic

Commission of the European Communities

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/481/EC of 27 June 2003 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it relates to the amount of GRD 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884.90) mentioned in Annex I thereto, headed ‘Amounts to be charged to the national budget’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/481/EC of 27 June 2003 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it relates to the amount of GRD 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884.90) mentioned in Annex I thereto, headed ‘Amounts to be charged to the national budget’;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

1

---
#### § 599.406 Entities owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked.

Persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 599.201 have an interest in all property and interests in property of an entity in which such persons directly or indirectly own, whether individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. The property and interests in property of such an entity, therefore, are blocked, and such an entity is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 599.201, regardless of whether the name of the entity is incorporated into OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
#### § 121.12 Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation.

The Secretary will establish, consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation. The Secretary may seek the comments of the Advisory Committee on proposed OPTN policies and such other matters as the Secretary determines.

[64 FR 56661, Oct. 20, 1999]
#### John R. KENNEY, Appellant, *v.*Roy G. KUNNEMAN, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 80-1689.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 6, 1981.

Shepard P. Lesser of Lesser, Lesser & Daniels, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ronald Sales, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that only one of appellant’s points on appeal has merit. We therefore affirm the order of the trial court with the limited exception that appellant be permitted to amend his complaint to attempt to state a cause of action for wages and benefits, if any, accrued and unpaid at the time of termination of his employment.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., and WARREN, LAMAR (Associate Judge), concur.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Nephew’s Travel to Austria, Slovakia, and Bulgaria

# 									Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Nephew’s Travel to Austria, Slovakia, and Bulgaria							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

June 7, 2024

Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Richard Nephew will travel to Austria, Slovakia, and Bulgaria June 10-14.

In Vienna, Austria on June 10-12, Coordinator Nephew will preside at the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) 15th Session of the Implementation Review Group and a joint session of the Asset Recovery Working Group and International Cooperation Working Group.  The sessions will be the first technical working groups under the U.S. Presidency of the UNCAC Conference of the States Parties and will discuss progress in reviewing countries in their implementation of the UNCAC.  He will also meet with the UNODC, other member states, and civil society.

Coordinator Nephew will then meet with government officials, civil society organizations, and private sector representatives in Bratislava, Slovakia on June 13.   He will discuss ongoing anti-corruption efforts and explore opportunities for further cooperation and collaboration.

On June 14, in Sofia, Bulgaria, Coordinator Nephew will deliver keynote remarks at a Basel Institute panel discussion on the Blue Dot Network as a framework for improving public procurement practices.  He will also meet with private sector representatives, government officials, and civil society organizations to discuss their efforts to engage the private sector to strengthen the rule of law.

Follow @StateCGAC on Twitter to learn more.

Tags

Anti-Corruption and TransparencyAustriaBulgariaBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsCivil SocietyCorruptionOffice of the Coordinator on Global Anti-CorruptionOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelRule of LawSlovakia

Back to Top