alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006086EN.01001602.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/16

---

Action brought on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-79/06)

(2006/C 86/30)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Heller, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 27 November 2003 in Case C-429/01, (1) regarding failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC (2) correctly and in full, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 27 November 2003 in Case C-429/01, (1) regarding failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC (2) correctly and in full, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

1

2

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, for the ‘European Community's own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 168 000 per day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-429/01, from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-429/01 is complied with; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, for the ‘European Community's own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 168 000 per day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-429/01, from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-429/01 is complied with;

| 3. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Republic should have initiated, immediately after the Court's judgment, the necessary legislative process and adopted the appropriate amendments to comply with Directive 90/219/EEC.

Hitherto the amendments necessary at both the legislative and regulatory levels have still not been adopted, 14 years, and even ten and seven years respectively after the expiry of the period for compliance and more than two years after the Court's declaration of the failure to fulfil obligations.

---

(1)  [2003] ECR I-14355.

1

(2)  Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms ‘GMMO’ (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1).

2

---
§ 416.195 Determination of membership in new classes of new technology IOLs. ( a ) *Factors to be considered.* CMS uses the following criteria to determine whether an IOL qualifies for a payment adjustment as a member of a new class of new technology IOLs when inserted at an ASC: ( 1 ) The IOL is considered new. CMS will evaluate an application for a new technology IOL only if the IOL type has received initial FDA premarket approval within the 3 years prior to the new technology IOL application submission date.
( 2 ) The IOL shall have a new lens characteristic in comparison to currently available IOLs. The labeling, which must be approved by FDA, shall contain a claim of a specific clinical benefit imparted by the new lens characteristic.
( 3 ) The IOL is not described by an active or expired class of new technology IOLs; that is, it does not share a predominant, class-defining characteristic associated with improved clinical outcomes with members of an active or expired class.
( 4 ) Any specific clinical benefit referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the IOL results in a measurable, clinically meaningful, improved outcome. Improved outcomes include: ( i ) Reduced risk of intraoperative or postoperative complication or trauma;
( ii ) Accelerated postoperative recovery;
( iii ) Reduced induced astigmatism;
( iv ) Improved postoperative visual acuity;
( v ) More stable postoperative vision;
( vi ) Other comparable clinical advantages.
( b ) *CMS determination of eligibility for payment adjustment.* CMS reviews the information submitted with a completed request for review, public comments submitted timely, and other pertinent information and makes a determination as follows: ( 1 ) The IOL is eligible for a payment adjustment as a member of a new class of new technology IOLs.
( 2 ) The IOL is a member of an active class of new technology IOLs and is eligible for a payment adjustment for the remainder of the period established for that class.
( 3 ) The IOL does not meet the criteria for designation as a new technology IOL and a payment adjustment is not appropriate.
[71 FR 68226, Nov. 24, 2006, as amended at 77 FR 68558, Nov. 15, 2012; 80 FR 70604, Nov. 13, 2015]
EX-10.27






Exhibit 10.27




SECOND

AMENDMENT

TO THE KEYCORP

EXCESS CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN




     WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan (the “Plan”),
and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has authorized its Compensation Committee to permit
amendments to the Plan, and



     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has determined it
desirable to amend the Plan and has accordingly authorized the execution of this Second Amendment,



     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to such action of the Compensation Committee, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:



     1. Article III, Section 3.1 shall be amended to delete it in its entirety and to
substitute therefore the following:




“3.1 Eligibility. A Participant shall be eligible for an
Excess Pension Benefit hereunder if the Participant (i) terminates
employment with an Employer on or after age 55 with five or more
years of Credited Service, (ii) terminates his or her active
employment with an Employer upon becoming Disabled after completing
five or more years of Credited Service and disability benefits have
ceased under the KeyCorp Long-Term Disability Plan due to the
Participant’s election of an Early or Normal Retirement under the
Pension Plan, or (iii) dies after completing five years of Credited
Service, and has a Beneficiary who is eligible for a benefit under
the Pension Plan.




Effective January 1, 2003 a Participant shall also be eligible for
an Excess Pension Benefit if the Participant becomes involuntarily
terminated from his or her employment with an Employer for reasons
other than the Participant’s Discharge for Cause, and (i) as of the
Participant’s termination date the Participant has a minimum of
twenty-five (25) or more years of Credited Service, and (ii) the
Participant enters into a written non-solicitation and non-compete
agreement under terms that are satisfactory to the Employer.




For purposes of this Section 3.1, hereof, the term “Discharge for
Cause” shall mean a Participant’s employment termination that is the
result of the Participant’s violation of the Employer’s policies,
practices or procedures, violation of city, state, or federal law,
or failure to perform his or her assigned job duties in a
satisfactory manner. The Employer in its sole and absolute
discretion shall determine whether a Participant has been Discharged
for Cause.



1









 






Notwithstanding any of the forgoing provisions of this Section 3.1,
however, a Participant’s eligibility for an Excess Pension Benefit
shall be subject to the election requirements of Article V of the
Plan.”



     2. The amendment set forth in Paragraph 1 shall be effective as of January 1, 2003.



     3. Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Second Amendment to the Plan to be executed by its
duly authorized officer to be effective as of the first day of January, 2003.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	KEYCORP	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 






2
Exhibit 31.1  PRESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-QSB SEPTEMBER 30, 2006    CERTIFICATIONS  I, Eggert Dagbjartsson, certify that:  1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Presidential Associates I Limited Partnership;  2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;  c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  12 of 16   Exhibit 31.1  PRESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-QSB SEPTEMBER 30, 2006    5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 14, 2006
/s/ Eggert Dagbjartsson Eggert Dagbjartsson Chief Executive Officer  13 of 16
#### William H. Palmer, Plaintiff, *v.*Henrietta Palmer et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Oneida Special Term,

July, 1898.)

Attorney and client — Costs — Agreement as to recovery, controlling the right of set-off of a third person.

*Semble,*that costs in a judgment and a judgment for costs on appeal belong to the attorney.

An attorney may, by an agreement with his client relative to a judgment recovered by him for her against a third person and by the assignment thereof by her to him, acquire a lien thereon superior to any right of set-off which the third person may have to offset against her judgment one which he has subsequently recovered against her.

Action to compel a set-off of a judgment recovered by plaintiff against defendant Palmer, against two judgments recovered by said defendant against said plaintiff.

Sayles, Searle & Sayles, for plaintiff.

Timothy Curtin, for defendants.

*218Hiscock, J.

March. 6, 1897, a judgment was docketed in favor of the defendant Henrietta Palmer, against the plaintiff, for the sum of $350 damages, and $91.43 costs, making in all the sum of $441.43. Thereafter and on or about December 30, 1897, another judgment was docketed in favor of said defendant, against said plaintiff, for costs upon appeal from said first-mentioned judgment for $112.15. January 27, 1897, a judgment was docketed' in favor of said plaintiff against said defendant, for the sum of $298.06.

Plaintiff, practically conceding that the costs represented in said first-mentioned two judgments j should be paid to the defendant Curtin, who was attorney of record for the defendant Palmer therein, claims that as against the balance of said judgment of March 6, 1897, he should be allowed to set off to the extent thereof the judgment recovered by him against said defendant as above stated. The defendant Curtin, however, claims that by. an agreement between him and his codefendant herein, made on or about October 20, 1896, and followed by an assignment of said judgment of March -6, 1897, he has acquired a lien in and upon one-half of the damages represented by said judgment, which is superior to. any right of set-off which plaintiff may have. Upon all of the facts, I am inclined to think that this contention is well founded, and that, therefore, plaintiff’s only right of setoff upon his judgment is against one-half of the damages included in said judgment of March 6, 1897, with interest from the date of recovery.

Findings and judgment may be prepared to that effect, with costs to defendants, not exceeding, however, the sum of $40 and taxable disbursements.

Ordered accordingly.
### Geology of the Alvord Mountain quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California

By: F.M. Byers Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1089A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Geologic map of the Alvord Mountain quadrangle, California(1956)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31154

Summary Calendar

LAWRENCE HUTCHIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

AMERICAN TOBACCO CO.; BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(92-CV-1934)

April 18, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Lawrence Hutchin ( “Hutchin”) comes to this court

asking that we ignore a holding by a previous panel and reverse the

district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendantappellees so that his claim against the appellees for failure towarn his now deceased mother of the dangers of their loose tobacco

products may proceed. Hutchin brings a failure to warn claim under

the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) and asserts that the

appellees had a duty to warn his mother of the dangers of loose

tobacco. We cannot overrule a panel decision by this court except

as an en banc court, see

, e.g.

, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore

Servs., Inc.

, 83 F.3d 118, 119 (5th Cir.), petition for cert.

filed

, 65 U.S.L.W. 3432 (U.S. Dec. 16, 1996) (No. 96-568), and

following Allgood v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

, 80 F.3d 168 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 599, 136 L. Ed. 2d 526 (1996), we

affirm.

Manufacturers may be liable for failure to warn of dangers in

their products under the LPLA, but they have no duty to warn under

the LPLA when “[t]he product is not dangerous to an extent beyond

that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or handler of

the product, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as

to the product’s characteristics.” La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.57(B)(1).

This court has previously held that the health risks of

smoking have long been common knowledge and has affirmed summary

judgment for claims alleging a manufacturer’s duty to warn of the

dangers of smoking. S ee Allgood

, 80 F.3d at 172 (“Like the dangers

of alcohol consumption, the dangers of cigarette smoking have long

been known to the community”); see also Roysdon v. R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Co

., 849 F.2d 230. 236 (6th Cir. 1988). Given such, the

appellees had no duty to warn of the dangers, and we AFFIRM thedistrict court’s order.
#### COLONIAL AND SEMORAN SHELL SERVICE and American Home Group & New Hampshire Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Vaughn GRISSOM, Appellee.

No. SS-104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 4, 1980.

Bernard J. Zimmerman and Jose R. Rodriguez of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellants.

Ronald J. Langa of Maher, Overchuck & Langa, Orlando, for appellee.

*1220MILLS, Chief Judge.

The Employer/Carrier appeals from a workers’ compensation order awarding 50 percent permanent partial disability. We reverse.

The relevant medical testimony was that the claimant had sustained between 10 and 15 percent permanent physical impairment of the body as a whole. Other evidence focused on a work search by claimant and his difficulties in obtaining émployment because of his compensable injury. In the order, the Judge of Industrial Claims did not state whether the award was based on a finding of a permanent impairment or of loss of wage earning capacity.

If the finding was based on permanent impairment, it is erroneous because Section 440.25(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1978), which was in effect at the time of this industrial accident, prohibits the Judge from making a finding of a degree of physical impairment that is greater than the greatest permanent impairment rating given by a physician. On the other hand, if the finding was based on loss of wage earning capacity, the order is defective because there was no finding that claimant sustained any permanent anatomical impairment. *Agrico Chemical Company v. Laws,*384 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Thus, we must reverse and remand for entry of a proper order or for other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Since the award on which attorneys fees are based must be reversed and remanded for further consideration, the attorneys fees provision must also be reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

McCORD and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
# C_2006074EN.01003201.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/32

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2006 — Henkel v OHIM

(Case T -67/03) (1)

1

(2006/C 74/59)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 124, 24.5.2003.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3186 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3186

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in 
    Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3186

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in 
    Overland, Missouri, as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 1655 Woodson Road in Overland, 
Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ``Sammy L. Davis Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sammy L. Davis 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```