alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O’Brien *v.*Brewer *&*Jones.

*Assumpsit.*

(Decided May 16, 1911.

56 South. 49.)

*Appeal and Error; Record; Questions Presented.*— Where motion to set aside a judgment and the court’s action thereon was not reserved by bill of exceptions (Sec. 2846, Code 1907), and was not directed to be enrolled in the record, and was not enrolled, the action of the trial court in overruling the motion cannot be reviewed on appeal.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. E. C. Cr'owe.

Assumpsit by Br,ewer & Jones against P. H. O’Brien. Judgment for plaintiff and from an order overruling motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*592Goodwyn & Noss, for appellant.

The court should have permitted the motion to be *amended.*— Ex *parte E. A. & B. B. R. Co.,*17 So. 182; Secs. 5366-7, Code 1907. The. court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the judgment nil *dicit.*— Ex *parte E. A. & B. R. R. Go., supra;*Sec. 5372, Code 1907.

Frank S. White & Sons, for appellee.

The record does not present the action of the court on motion for *review.*— Randle *v. Worthington,*141 Ala. 497; *Bo. B. L. Go. v. Green,*152 Ala. 499; *Bassenburg v. Lanorence,*160 Ala. 422; *Craig v. Etheridge,*133 Ala. 284. The. motion and the action thereon is not before this court in any *manner.*— Bar *toil v. C. G. P. Go.,*154 Ala. 275; *R. & D. R. R, Co. v Jones,*102 Ala. 212

PELHAM, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant in the court below from an order of the circuit court of Jefferson county, overruling a motion to set aside a judgment nil (licit rendered against defendant (appellant) in favor of the plaintiffs (appellees) and grant appellant a new trjal.

The motion of appellant (the defendant in the circuit court. )to .set aside the judgment theretofore rendered is not set out in the bill of exceptions, in accordance with section 2846 of the Code of 1907, nor is the motion shown to have been enrolled upon the court’s records by an order of the circuit court. Unless the motion is enrolled by 6i;der of the trial court, or set out in the bill of exceptions, this court is precluded from reviewing the ruling of the circuit court in overruling the motion. The Supreme Court has uniformly and unequivocally declared this rule, in many *cases*.—Wig*gins v. Witberington*& *Co.,*96 Ala. 535, 11 South. 539; *Lienkauff v. Tuskaloosa Co.,*99 Ala. 619, 12 South. *593918; *Ewing v. Wofford,*122 Ala. 439, 25 South. 251; *Craig v. Etheredge,*133 Ala. 284, 32 South. 65; *Randall v. Worthington,*141 Ala. 497, 37 South. 594; *Barton v. Charter Gas Engine Co.,*154 Ala. 275, 45 South. 213; and authorities cited in these cases.

Under the authorities above cited, we are precluded from considering the question, and the judgment denying the motion is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
Opinion issued August 20 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 20

- 00248

- CV

——————————— JO HN PETER PAU K , Appellant

V.
FLOW CAPITAL CORPORATION , Appellee

O n Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 05042

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant has filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 10.3(a)( 2), 42.1(a)(1). No opinion has issued. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(c).
Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

.
P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.2 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Ra dack and Justices Lloyd and Countiss

.
#### § 405.927 Initial determinations subject to the reopenings process.

Minor errors or omissions in an initial determination must be corrected only through the contractor's reopenings process under § 405.980(a)(3).
#### Freddi CORTIZA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Italian Secretary General Ettore Sequi

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Italian Secretary General Ettore Sequi							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 7, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with Italian MFA Secretary General Ettore Sequi today in Rome. Deputy Secretary Sherman and Secretary General Sequi highlighted the strength of the U.S. partnership with our NATO Ally Italy, ongoing collaboration in support of Ukraine, our joint efforts to address energy security, and our opposition to unilateral efforts to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. The Deputy Secretary and Secretary General also underscored our shared determination to further support the transatlantic alliance and the deep and enduring bilateral partnership between the United States and Italy.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateEnergyItalyOffice of the SpokespersonSecurityUkraine

Back to Top
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

    - Return to The Civil War
HomeThe United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS ReliefRemarks & Releases...From Secrets and Stigma to Proud Peer Educator

# 									From Secrets and Stigma to Proud Peer Educator							

Stories of Hope

Robinah Babirye, a Ugandan, remembers her mother giving her pills from the time she was very young, but she didn’t know why and couldn’t explain it to her questioning classmates.

It wasn’t until age 9 she and her twin sister discovered they were born HIV-positive. Their mother told them she had contracted HIV during a 1994 blood transfusion and didn’t have access to measures for preventing transmission to her children.

To avoid fellow students’ questions, Robinah tried taking her pills without anyone noticing or not taking them at all. “Growing up with HIV was hard,” Robinah says. “I had to take lots of medicines daily, yet I was told the disease I had was incurable. This was demoralizing, and I could not tell people about it.”

As a result of poor adherence to her medication, Robinah developed resistance to antiretroviral therapy.

With her life in danger, Robinah was put on second-line treatment. Her mother paid for her to attend weekly counseling sessions, and Robinah developed a strategy to take her medications in her school clinic. When she forgot to take her pills, the school nurse reminded her.

Once she finished her secondary studies, Robinah decided to make a change. She posted a picture of herself on Facebook wearing a shirt with the words “I AM HIV POSITIVE.” That night, she connected with many people who applauded her courage. She was suddenly in the public eye and began appearing on TV and radio shows. Since then, Robinah has started university and founded an organization to help young HIV-positive people with adherence and psychological challenges.

“Being HIV-positive is not the end of life,” Robinah says. “Whoever reads my story will be empowered and encouraged to fight stigma in society. I am grateful to the American people for giving us support.”

Tags

The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

s0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

141005

OTTAWA COUNTY a nd OTTAWA COUNTY PARKS & RECREATI ON COMMITTEE,Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellees,

v SC: 141005 COA: 288167 Ottawa CC: 07-060272-CH KERRY SHAFFER, JASIU MILANOWKSI, WENCEL A. MILANOWSKI, and RICHARD VANDAM TRUST, Defendants,

EDWIN CONGER TRUST, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff- Appellee,

and

FRED VAAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.802 Definitions. As used in this subpart, unless the context indicates otherwise— *Bona fide service fees* means fees paid by a manufacturer to an entity, that represent fair market value for a bona fide, itemized service actually performed on behalf of the manufacturer that the manufacturer would otherwise perform (or contract for) in the absence of the service arrangement, and that are not passed on in whole or in part to a client or customer of an entity, whether or not the entity takes title to the drug.
*Drug* means a drug or a biological, and for purposes of applying section 1847A(f) of the Act, includes an item, service, supply, or product that is payable under Medicare Part B as a drug or biological.
*Manufacturer* means any entity that is engaged in the following (This term does not include a wholesale distributor of drugs or a retail pharmacy licensed under State law): ( 1 ) Production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion or processing of prescription drug products, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
( 2 ) The packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling, or distribution of prescription drug products.
*Unit* means the product represented by the 11-digit National Drug Code, unless otherwise specified by CMS to account for situations where labeling indicates that the amount of drug product represented by a National Drug Code varies. The method of counting units excludes units of CAP drugs (as defined in § 414.902 of this part) sold to an approved CAP vendor (as defined in § 414.902 of this part) for use under the CAP (as defined in § 414.902 of this part).
[69 FR 17938, Apr. 6, 2004, as amended at 71 FR 48143, Aug. 18, 2006; 71 FR 69787, Dec. 1, 2006; 74 FR 62012, Nov. 25, 2009; 76 FR 73473, Nov. 28, 2011; 86 FR 65669, Nov. 19, 2021]
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO RULE 24B-2 AND ARE SUBJECT TO A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST.  COPIES OF THIS EXHIBIT CONTAINING THE OMITTED INFORMATION HAVE BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  THE OMITTED PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE MARKED WITH A [***].





Amendment #1 to the


Evaluation Corporation Agreement





Incorporating the terms and conditions of the Evaluation Agreement, effective as of June 14, 2010 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Agreement"), made by and between Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. ("Novartis V&D") and Accelr8 Technology Corporation ("Accelr8”), the Agreement is amended, effective as of November 10, 2010 as set forth herein.





NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:





•
New Section 2(f) shall be added:  Novartis V&D agrees to pay Accelr8 additional $[***] for Accelr8's commitment to cost and expenses associated with performance of obligations referenced in Exhibit C Evaluation Plan included by reference.





This payment will serve to concurrently extend the Exclusive License Period for negotiation exclusivity for two (2) additional 30 day periods.  For the avoidance of doubt, Novartis V&D will have exclusivity of negotiation extended to January 13, 2011,





•      Section 11.  Extending the Term of the agreement to June 30, 2011.








Capitalized terms in this Amendment # 1 shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Agreement.  All of theother terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.This Amendment #1, together with the Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior and/or contemporaneous agreement(s), understanding(s) and/or negotiations(s).





IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto hereby execute this Amendment # 1 as of the date set forth above.


Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.

Accelr8 Technology CorporationBy:

By:(Signature)

(Signature)Name:

Name:Title:

Title:Date:

Date:  Accelr8 Technology Corporation
NOVARTIS V&DC1T201011051654
Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         155,849
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             150
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               100,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    228,739
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         609,462
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           615,784
<LOANS>                                      1,471,461
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,777,066
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,981,341
<SHORT-TERM>                                   362,762
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             34,082
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       398,881
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,777,066
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                149,554
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               55,631
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,906
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               209,091
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              54,649
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              72,849
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          136,242
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 345
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                100,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 79,458
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      79,458
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.82
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,039
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,627
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    90
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 66,366
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                23,002
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,205
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,333
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,530
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,349
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         14,181
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

The following table sets
forth all subsidiaries of the registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each, and the names under which such subsidiaries do business as of December 31, 2009. The financial statements of all subsidiaries
are included in the consolidated statements of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary.



| | 1. | The Palmetto Bank, a South Carolina corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Palmetto Capital Inc., a South Carolina corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of The Palmetto Bank
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Palmetto Loan Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of The Palmetto Bank
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT (21)

                             WALL STREET DELI, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Percentage
                                                State of         of Voting
                                              Incorporation      Securities
                                                                   Owned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>                 <C> 
Sandwich Chef of Alabama, Inc.                   Alabama              100%

Downtown Food Service, Inc.                     Tennessee             100%

Sandwich Chef of Colorado, Inc.                 Colorado              100%

Sandwich Chef of Texas, Inc.                      Texas               100%(a)

Sandwich Chef of D.C., Inc.                     Delaware              100%

Sandwich Chef of Illinois, Inc.                 Illinois              100%

Sandwich Chef of Louisiana, Inc.                Louisiana             100%
</TABLE>







---------------------
(a)      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Sandwich Chef of Colorado, Inc.

                                       60
# C_2006086EN.01001801.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/18

---

Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-83/06)

(2006/C 86/33)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC (1) of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC (2), which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC (1) of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC (2), which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive;

1

2

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  Official Journal L 313 of 12/10/2004, p. 16.

1

(2)  Official Journal L 169 of 10/07/2000, p. 1.

2

---
J

~~~ EO sr qT ~

s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o ~ \ ~~~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

0

~ 211 4 PROj

~ G
~ \



### DEC 16 ~ OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Ed Ziemianski Manager, Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 Dear Mr. Ziemianski : This letter is to inform the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed review of DOE's remotehandled (RH) transuranic (TRU) Waste Characterization Program Implementation Plan (WCPIP), DOE/WIPP-02-3214, Revision 2 provided to EPA on December 1, 2010. EPA concurs with the RH waste characterization requirements described in Revision 2. Revision 2 of the WCPIP reflects implementation of RH waste characterization processes approved by EPA except for the use of corroborating data to qualify Acceptable Knowledge (AK) information discussed in Section 5.2. Upon receiving DOE's approval of this process, but before its implementation at an RH site, EPA will review relevant process documentation. This will include a report discussing the use of the corroborating data selection process, type and nature of corroborating data to be used, and other primary information. The RH waste characterization site will address EPA comments prior to implementation of the process that EPA will verify during a baseline inspection or Tier I evaluation for approval. lmplementation of Revision 2 of the WCPIP at all RH sites will occur as planned except the Bettis Site. The Bettis site, scheduled for a Spring 2011 EPA Baseline Inspection, has appropriately implemented Revision 1 of the WCPIP. We expect that periodic changes to the RH WCPIP may be necessary based on information and experience gained from program-wide and site-specific conditions. Any significant changes made to the WCPIP will require EPA concurrence prior to implementation.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100%, Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperIf you have any questions regarding this concurrence, please contact Rajani

Joglekar (202-343-9462) or Ed Feltcorn (202-343-9422). Sincerely,



### J ~ Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations Enclosure
cc (electronic distribution): Frank Marcinowski, DOE EM Christine Gelles, DOE EM Alton Harris, DOE EM J R Stroble, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Court Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Martin Navarrate, CBFO D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP Irene Quintana, WTS-CCP Steve Zappe, NMED Jonathan Edwards, EPA Alan Perrin, EPA Raymond Lee, EPA Patrick Kelly, SCA