alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Desmond G. JUDGE, Appellant, v. Janet A. JUDGE, Appellee.

No. 78-1801.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 4, 1979.

*834Stephen D. Hughes, Largo, for appellant.

Wayne 0. Smith, of Wallace & Smith, P. A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

GRIMES, Chief Judge.

The only substantial assets of the parties to this dissolution proceeding were a home in Largo and a beach house, both of which were held in tenancy by the entireties. The court awarded the home to the wife as lump sum alimony and directed the beach house to be sold and the net proceeds from the sale divided between the parties.

The award of the home as lump sum alimony cannot stand because there was no showing of positive necessity on the wife’s part. *Meridith v. Meridith,*366 So.2d 425 (Fla.1978). This award is vacated with directions to the trial court to grant the wife, so long as she remains unmarried, the use and occupancy of the marital home until the parties’ children in her custody reach their majority. *Hendricks v. Hendricks,*312 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Keeping in mind the other portions of the judgment, the court should make such provisions for the payment of the mortgage, insurance, taxes and related expenses as may be equitable. *See Fraser v. Fraser,*368 So.2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

The order directing the sale of the beach house suffers from the same defects as the one in *Carlsen v. Carlsen,*346 So.2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). As in *Carlsen,*this order is stricken. The cause is remanded for entry of an amended final judgment setting a reasonable period of time for the parties to conclude private arrangements for the sale of the beach house subject to the approval of the court but providing that if the disposition of the property is not amicably resolved within such time, partition and sale should proceed according to Section 64.061 *et seq.,*Florida Statutes (1977).

The award of attorney’s fees is hereby set aside as void for lack of jurisdiction because it was entered after appellant filed the notice of appeal. *Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David,*No. 78-917 (Fla. 2d DCA, filed February 16, 1979).

The remaining provisions of the judgment of dissolution including the award of permanent alimony are hereby affirmed.

SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### E. J. BENES, Trustee of Frances M. Benes Trust, and Sixth Fairland, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellants, v. S & W MASONRY, INC., an Alabama corporation, Appellee.

No. 74-458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 6, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
EX-10.4


   Exhibit 10.4

 
 THE CENTURY BANCORP 
 SUPPLMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT 
 AND INSURANCE PLAN
  

Second Amendment

 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made by Century Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) to the Century Bancorp Supplemental Executive Retirement and Insurance Plan, As Amended and Restated Effective
as of December 31, 2016 (the “Plan”). This Second Amendment is effective as of October 13, 2020, the date of its adoption by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan for a select group of management employees in order to attract,
retain and motivate qualified management employees by providing retirement benefits and, in certain cases, survivor income; and
  
 WHEREAS, the Board wishes to amend the
Plan to modify the Benefit Percentage (as defined by the Plan) for certain eligible participants; and
  
 WHEREAS, the Board may amend the Plan
pursuant to Section 8.4 thereof;
  

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows, effective as of October
13, 2020:
  

1.      Section 1.1(g) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced
by the following:
  

(g)          “BENEFIT PERCENTAGE” means, (i) 75% for
Participants who are members of the Executive Management Group and any other Participants specifically designated by the Committee and notified in writing upon initial eligibility to participate in the Plan or thereafter, and (ii) 66% for all other
Participants.
  

2.      All other terms of the Plan shall continue unaffected.

 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment to the Plan is hereby executed on this 13th day of October, 2020.

 
 

	 	CENTURY BANCORP, INC.
	 	 
	 	

By: 
	
 

	 	 	Name: Barry R. Sloane
	 	 	Title:   Chairman, President & CEO
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to Cleveland and Parma, Ohio

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to Cleveland and Parma, Ohio							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

January 23, 2023

One week after her trip to Kyiv, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman will travel to Cleveland and Parma, Ohio, on January 24, to engage with Ohioans and the Ukrainian diaspora community, and to discuss U.S. support for Ukraine. Deputy Secretary Sherman will join Governor Mike DeWine and other state and local officials in Parma for a roundtable discussion with Ukrainian refugees and diaspora members. The Deputy Secretary will also deliver a speech on our continued support to Ukraine at the City Club of Cleveland.

While in Cleveland, Deputy Secretary Sherman will visit Case Western Reserve University to engage with students on foreign policy issues and to participate in a discussion on career opportunities in foreign policy. The Deputy Secretary will also meet with students, faculty, and staff who are alumni of the State Department’s people-to-people diplomacy programs, which include alumni of the Fulbright Program, the Benjamin Gilman Scholarship, and Critical Language Scholars.

Tags

Deputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonOhioSubnational Diplomacy Unit

Back to Top
# C_2005273EN.01001001.xml

| 4.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3984 — Bain Fund Group/FCI)

(2005/C 273/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 October 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
No. 99-1817.

No. 99-1822.

No. 99-1824.

#### MCI Telecommunications Corp. et al. *v.*Access Telecom, Inc.; SBC Communications, Inc., et al. *v.*Access Telecom, Inc.; and Telefonos de Mexico, S. A. de C. V. *v.*Access Telecom, Inc.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 197 F. 3d 694.
Exhibit 14.1
 
 CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS
 RE-ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOMANETICS CORPORATION
ON DECEMBER 8, 2009
 Introduction
   If you are in a situation which you believe may violate or lead to a violation of this
Code, follow the guidelines described in Section 14 of this Code.
 1. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations
   2. Conflicts of Interest




---



##### 



3. Insider Trading
  4. Corporate Opportunities
  5. Competition and Fair Dealing
  2




---



##### 



6. Discrimination and Harassment
  7. Health and Safety
   8. Record-Keeping
    3




---



##### 



9. Confidentiality
  10. Protection and Proper Use of Somanetics Assets
   11. Payments to Government Personnel
  4




---



##### 



12. Waivers of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
  13. Reporting any Illegal or Unethical Behavior or Violations of this Code
  Employee Complaint Procedures for
Accounting and Auditing Matters,
   5




---



##### 



14. Compliance Procedures
  
    
    Make sure you have all the facts. In order to reach the right solutions, we
must be as fully informed as possible.
    
    Ask yourself: What specifically am I being asked to do? Does it seem unethical
or improper? This will enable you to focus on the specific question you are faced
with, and the alternatives you have. Use your judgment and common sense; if something
seems unethical or improper, it probably is.
    
    Clarify your responsibility and role. In most situations, there is shared
responsibility. Are your colleagues informed? It may help to get others involved and
discuss the problem.
    
    Discuss the problem with your manager. This is the basic guidance for all
situations. In many cases, your manager will be more knowledgeable about the question,
and will appreciate being brought into the decision-making process. Remember that it
is your managers responsibility to help solve problems.
    
    Seek help from Company resources. In the event that it is not appropriate
to discuss an issue with your manager (or you do not have a manager), or where you do
not feel comfortable approaching your manager with your question, discuss it with the
Chief Administrative Officer, another Company officer or the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors.
    
    You may report ethical violations in confidence and without fear of
retaliation. If your situation requires that your identity be kept secret, your
anonymity will be protected. Somanetics does not permit retaliation of any kind
against employees, officers and directors for good faith reports of ethical violations.
    
    Always ask first, act later: If you are unsure of what to do in any
situation seek guidance before you act.
 6




---



##### 



15. Disclosures and Controls
   16. Accountability for Adherence to this Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
  7




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
  Signature
    
    DatePrint Name
  8
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph Miller PUGH.

No. 65509.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 31, 1979.

In re State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, J. Carl Parkerson, applying for writs of certiorari and review, and a stay order. Ouachita Parish. Nos. 38918 and 38919.

Writ granted. As phrased, the only relevancy of the question is whether the named individual had any connection with the investigation. At the Motion to Suppress hearing, it’s apparent relevancy is only to discover whether the individual was the confidential informant. Without further foundation of other relevancy, the state’s objection to the question shall be sustained. Remanded to District Court.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
# WASTE PROFILES RECEIVED BY VEOLIA (2009 - 2011) AND

HERITAGE - WTI (MAY 2012 - MAY 2013)

T hese data are contained in excel spreadsheets that consist of confidential business information (CBI) . These data can be reviewed through the appropria te EPA procedures governing CBI data. Please c ontact David Ogulei at (312) 353
- 0987 or Ogulei . D avid@epa.gov if you would like to file a request to review the data described in this document.
#### Ex parte William S. LANGLEY. (Re William S. LANGLEY v. STATE of Alabama).

No. 79-505.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1980.

JONES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur!
§ 412.304 Implementation of the capital prospective payment system. ( a ) *General rule.* As described in §§ 412.312 through 412.370, effective with cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1991, CMS pays an amount determined under the capital prospective payment system for each inpatient hospital discharge as defined in § 412.4. This amount is in addition to the amount payable under the prospective payment system for inpatient hospital operating costs as determined under subpart D of this part.
( b ) *Cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1991 and before October 1, 2001.* For cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1991 and before October 1, 2001, the capital payment amount is based on either a combination of payments for old capital costs and new capital costs or a fully prospective rate, as determined under § 412.324 through § 412.348.
( c ) *Cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2001* — ( 1 ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2001, the capital payment amount is based solely on the Federal rate determined under §§ 412.308(a) and (b) and updated under § 412.308(c).
( 2 ) *Payment to new hospitals.* For cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2002— ( i ) A new hospital, as defined under § 412.300(b), is paid 85 percent of its allowable Medicare inpatient hospital capital-related costs through its cost report ending at least 2 years after the hospital accepts its first patient, unless the new hospital elects to be paid under the capital prospective payment system based on 100 percent of the Federal rate. ( A ) If the new hospital elects to be paid based on 100 percent of the Federal rate, the new hospital must submit a written request to the fiscal intermediary by the later of December 1, 2002 or 60 days before the beginning of its cost reporting period.
( B ) Once a new hospital elects to be paid based on 100 percent of the Federal rate, it may not revert to payment at 85 percent of its allowable Medicare inpatient hospital capital-related costs.
( ii ) For the third year and subsequent years, the hospital is paid based on the Federal rate as described under § 412.312.
( d ) *Interim payments.* Interim payments are made to the hospital as provided in § 412.116.
[56 FR 43449, Aug. 30, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 50113, Aug. 1, 2002; 70 FR 47487, Aug. 12, 2005]
Attachment C

Work Sheets used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0843 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS: 325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Cost 

Category Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly 

Rate 1= W $55.84 $28.25 $17.23 

Benefits 

Percentage 2Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour

B = 

W*Lb $24.35 $12.32 $7.51 

Loaded Hourly

Rate

Wb = 

W+B = 

W(1+Lb) $80.19 $40.57 $24.74 

Overhead 

Percentage 3

Lo = 

OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour

OH = 

Wb*Lo $40.09 $20.28 $12.37 

Fully Loaded 

Wage Rate

Wf = Wb 

+ OH

$120.28 $60.85 $37.11 

= W + B 

+ OH 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm May 2010 data

 NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0843 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999100 

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1= W $55.64 $33.23 $20.06 

Benefits Percentage2Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.26 $14.49 $8.75 

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb)

$79.90 $47.72 $28.81 

Overhead Percentage3Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $39.95 $23.86 $14.40 

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate Wf = Wb + OH $119.85 $71.58 $43.21 

= W + B + OH 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2010 data

 NAICS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
130 STAT. 444 PUBLIC LAW 114–179—JUNE 22, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1762: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

May 23, considered and passed House. 

June 10, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–179 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic 

in The Dalles, Oregon, as the ‘‘Loren R. Kaufman VA Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, THE DALLES, 

OREGON. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic located at 704 Veterans Drive, The Dalles, Oregon, 

shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Loren R. Kaufman VA Clinic’’. Any reference 

to such community-based outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, 

map, document, record, or other paper of the United States shall 

be considered to be a reference to the Loren R. Kaufman VA 

Clinic. 

Approved June 22, 2016. 

June 22, 2016 

[H.R. 1762] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael R. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


| |     |                                                      
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Michael R. Tuttle                                
| |     | Michael R. Tuttle
President & Chief Executive Officer
| |     |                                                      
| |     | November 6, 2009                                     
| |     | Date
#### Kim Clarke MEYERS, a/k/a Eric Wayne Thompson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-895.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 29, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### § 582.313 United States person; U.S. person.

The term *United States person* or *U.S. person* means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
# C_2006048EN.01001601.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 7 December 2005 in Crown Prosecutor — Parties claiming damages: L'Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique U.P:R. and Jean Totolidis v Ioannis Doulamis

(Case C-446/05)

(2006/C 48/30)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance Brussels) of 7 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between the Crown Prosecutor — Parties claiming damages: L'Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique U.P.R. (The Belgian Association of Dentists and Stomatologists) and Jean Totolidis and Ioannis Doulamis on the following question:

Must Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, be interpreted as precluding a national law — in the present case the Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters — which prohibits (any person or) dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind, whether directly or indirectly, in the dental care sector?

---