alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Motty Eitingon *v.*Town and City of Stamford.

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson,' Js.

Argued November 2

decided December 1, 1943.

*James E. Brinckerhoff,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*George Wise,*with whom was *Sydney C. Kweskin,*for the appellee (defendant town of Stamford) and, on the-brief, *Charles N. Wexler,*for the appellee (defendant city of Stamford).

Per Curiam.

This is the ordinary appeal by a property owner who claims that the assessment of his land and buildings located in the defendant city is too high: He attacks the finding in numerous respects. The plaintiff’s brief is specific in enumerating the assignments of error pursued. The first concerns paragraph eighteen of the finding. Turning to the assignments of error, nothing appears therein concerning-paragraph eighteen! The second claim is error in the conclusions reached. No other assignment of error is pursued in the brief. “Unless a claim of error is included -in the brief, the court regards it as abandoned.” Conn. App. Proc., § 165.

, The finding supports the conclusions essential to the *419judgment. Among them is one that the tax assessor, in making the assessment, complied with the statute. The plaintiff fails to point out any respect in which he claims that this is not so. There is also a conclusion that the method of reproduction cost less depreciation, as used by the assessor, is an approved method of ascertaining the value of real estate for purposes of taxation, and the brief of the plaintiff seems to concede that this was a proper consideration. The court found that there was no market for the property, and the finding states that the assessor, while using the method stated, also included the functional depreciation and economic factors involved in its use and applied his own experience and knowledge of values; and this accords with our law. *Underwood Typewriter Co.*V. *Hartford,*99 Conn. 329, 337, 122 Atl. *91; Lomas & Nettleton Co.*v. *Waterbury,*122 Conn. 228, 231, 188 Atl. 433. In his brief the plaintiff attacks the special acts governing the assessment of property for taxation in the defendant town and city and claims that they are unconstitutional, but he raised no such point in the trial court.

There is no error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                            2135
<SECURITIES>                                      8262
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3399
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (74)
<INVENTORY>                                       2191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 16118
<PP&E>                                            5930
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3530)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   21845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2674
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         19247
<OTHER-SE>                                        (76)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19171
<SALES>                                          11325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11325
<CGS>                                             5150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (36)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (701)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1650)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7734)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7734)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)


</TABLE>
# C_2006074EN.01001301.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/13

---

Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-77/06)

(2006/C 74/25)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC expired on 21 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 197 of 21.7.2001, p. 30.

1

---
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3141

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to scheduled passenger

air service at reliever airports.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1996

Mr. HEFLEY (for himself and Mr. SCHAEFER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee

concerned

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to scheduled

passenger air service at reliever airports.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF RELIEVER AIRPORTS.

4 Section 47107 of title 49, United States Code, is

5 amended by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(m) PROTECTION OF RELIEVER AIRPORTS.—It

7 shall not be considered unreasonable or unjust discrimina8 tion, nor shall it be a violation of the requirements of this

9 section, for the owner or operator of a reliever airport to
2

•HR 3141 IH

1 deny access to any person providing scheduled passenger

2 air service if the airport is located within 25 miles of an

3 airport designated as a hub airport in the National Airport

4 Plan and if no scheduled passenger air service was pro5 vided at the reliever airport in January 1996.’’.

Æ
HomeDSS Press Releases...Florida Man Sentenced To 48 Months In Federal Prison For Using Counterfeit U.S. Passport Cards In Check-Cashing Scheme

# 									Florida Man Sentenced To 48 Months In Federal Prison For Using Counterfeit U.S. Passport Cards In Check-Cashing Scheme							

DSS Releases

August 18, 2023

For Immediate Release – August 18, 2023

Click here to read more about this

Tags

DSS ReleasesFinanceFraudMichiganPassportsUnited States

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.692 Review by the Administrator. ( a ) *Request for review by Administrator.* CMS or an MA organization that has received a hearing decision may request a review by the Administrator within 15 calendar days after receipt of the hearing decision as provided under § 422.690(b). Both the MA organization and CMS may provide written arguments to the Administrator for review.
( b ) *Decision to review the hearing decision.* After receiving a request for review, the Administrator has the discretion to elect to review the hearing decision in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section or to decline to review the hearing decision.
( c ) *Notification of Administrator determination.* The Administrator notifies both parties of his or her determination regarding review of the hearing decision within 30 calendar days after receipt of request for review. If the Administrator declines to review the hearing decision or the Administrator does not make a determination regarding review within 30 calendar days, the decision of the hearing officer is final.
( d ) *Review by the Administrator.* If the Administrator elects to review the hearing decision regarding a contract determination, the Administrator shall review the hearing officer's decision and determine, based upon this decision, the hearing record, and any written arguments submitted by the MA organization or CMS, whether the determination should be upheld, reversed, or modified.
( e ) *Decision by the Administrator.* The Administrator issues a written decision, and furnishes the decision to the MA organization requesting review.
[63 FR 35113, June 26, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 68725, Dec. 5, 2007; 75 FR 19813, Apr. 15, 2010]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to South Africa, Angola, Gabon, and France

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Travel to South Africa, Angola, Gabon, and France							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 29, 2022

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman will travel to South Africa, Angola, Gabon, and France from May 2 to 7. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee and National Security Council Senior Director for Africa Dana Banks will join the Deputy Secretary’s delegation.

In South Africa, Deputy Secretary Sherman will travel to Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Pretoria from May 2 to 4 and meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Alvin Botes and other senior government officials to discuss furthering U.S.-South African cooperation on a range of issues, including global and regional peace and security, trade and investment, sustainable infrastructure, health security, and the climate crisis. She will meet with business leaders and entrepreneurs to discuss strengthening the important trade and investment relationship between the U.S. and South Africa. The Deputy Secretary will also present the International Women of Courage Award during a discussion with women leaders promoting human rights for marginalized communities.

Deputy Secretary Sherman will then travel to Luanda, Angola from May 4 to 5 to meet with President João Lourenço, Foreign Minister Tete Antonio, and other senior Angolan officials to discuss our shared interests, including regional security and defense cooperation, economic prosperity, good governance, support for Angola’s COVID-19 vaccination effort, and cooperation on shared maritime law enforcement as well as economic, and climate-related challenges in the Atlantic Basin. She will also hold discussions with business leaders, and Mandela Washington Fellowship alumni who are working to promote women’s entrepreneurship and youth engagement.

From May 5 to 6, the Deputy Secretary will travel to Libreville, Gabon, where she will meet with President Ali Bongo Ondimba, Foreign Minister Michael Moussa-Adamo, and Minister of Defense Félicité Ongouori Ngoubili to engage on our shared priorities including promoting environmental protection, addressing the climate crisis, and furthering security cooperation. The Deputy Secretary will also visit Raponda Walker Arboretum to learn about Gabon’s work in forest conservation leadership to combat the climate crisis.

Finally, on May 7, the Deputy Secretary will meet in Paris, France, with French MFA Secretary General Francois Delattre, German MFA State Secretary Andreas Michaelis, Italian MFA Secretary General Ettore Sequi, and UK Minister of State for Europe and North America James Cleverly to discuss our ongoing, close coordination to respond to Putin’s brutal, unprovoked war against Ukraine.

Tags

AngolaBureau of African AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripFranceGabonOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelPeaceRussiaSouth AfricaUkraine

Back to Top
Exhibit 32



Certification Of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd.-2 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Donald J. Liebentritt, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
First Capital Financial, L.L.C., the General Partner of the Partnership (the General Partner), and Philip Tinkler, as Vice PresidentFinance and Treasurer of the General Partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    DONALD J. LIEBENTRITTDONALD J. LIEBENTRITT President and Chief Executive Officer August 13, 2004/s/    PHILIP TINKLERPHILIP TINKLER Vice PresidentFinance and Treasurer August 13, 2004
# C_2006010EN.01002101.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2005 — Ouariachi v Commission

(Case T-124/04) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Damage caused by a member of staff in the exercise of his functions - Absence of causal link)

(2006/C 10/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jamal Ouariachi (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: F. Blanmailland and C. Verbrouck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Dintilhac and G. Boudot, Agents)

Defendant:

Application for

damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the alleged illegal conduct of a member of staff of the Commission delegation in Khartoum (Sudan)

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 30.4.2004.

1

---
Home2021 Treaties and Agreements...Ghana (21-617) – Amendment to Millennium Challenge Compact Agreement

# 									Ghana (21-617) – Amendment to Millennium Challenge Compact Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

June 17, 2021

Foreign Assistance:  Millennium Challenge

Exchange of notes at Accra June 16, 2021; entered into force June 17, 2021.

Amendment of agreement signed August 5, 2014: TIAS 16-906.
Download Agreement						 [8 MB]

Tags

Foreign AssistanceGhanaMillennium ChallengeTreaties

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1030 Notice of prehearing conference. ( a ) *Timing of notice.* The ALJ will fix a time and place for the prehearing conference and mail written notice to the parties at least 10 calendar days before the scheduled date.
( b ) *Content of notice.* The notice will inform the parties of the purpose of the conference and specify what issues are sought to be resolved, agreed to, or excluded.
( c ) *Additional issues.* Issues other than those set forth in the notice of determination or the request for hearing may be considered at the prehearing conference if— ( 1 ) Either party gives timely notice to that effect to the ALJ and the other party; or
( 2 ) The ALJ raises the issues in the notice of prehearing conference or at the conference.
Exhibit 10.28


 


Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd.

2009 Annual Bonus Plan


 


Purpose


 


The purpose of this Plan is to increase the intrinsic
business value of Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd. and its operating subsidiaries
(the “Company”) by aligning employee performance with the interests of the
Company’s owners. All full-time employees of the Company shall be eligible to
participate in the Plan.


 


Performance Targets


 


The Plan shall be tied to a calendar year performance
cycle consistent with the Company’s fiscal year. Annual bonus pool targets for
categories of employees and an overall Company performance target under the
Plan shall be set by the Company’s Compensation and Nominating Committee (the “Committee”).
At the conclusion of the calendar year, the Committee shall judge Company
performance against the bonus pool targets when determining the final size of
the bonus pools and the level of payout for each employee. At lower levels of
the Company employee individual performance is also considered .The Company’s
Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Committee, shall then
recommend the distribution of the pool to individual Plan participants who are
non-executive officers of the Company. The Committee shall approve any payments
to the Company’s executive officers.


 


Bonus Pool Targets


 


For the 2009 calendar year, the annual bonus pool
targets for the Company’s officers and all remaining Company staff shall be the
following percentages of eligible salaries:


 


	
  Performance

  	
   

  	
  Group A

  	
   

  	
  Group B

  	
   

  	
  Group C-G

  
	
  Minimum

  	
   

  	
  0%

  	
   

  	
  0%

  	
   

  	
  0%

  
	
  On Target

  	
   

  	
  100%

  	
   

  	
  75%

  	
   

  	
  10-50%

  
	
  Superior

  	
   

  	
  200%

  	
   

  	
  150%

  	
   

  	
  20-100%

  



 


Eligible salaries for all officers and staff shall be
equivalent to the 2009 base salaries of Plan participants, pro-rated in the
case of any officer or staff member employed by the Company for less than the
entire 2009 calendar year.


 


1
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Diane SUMNER, by and through her attorney and next friend, Relator, v. Hon. Robert L. WILLIAMS and the Hon. Ray E. Ulmer, Jr., as Judges of the Sixth Judicial *Circuit of*Florida, in and for Pasco County, Respondents.

No. 74-1246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 11, 1974.

*473Robert A. Young, Asst. Public Defender, Dade City, for relator.

Frederick W. Vollrath, Asst. State’s Atty., Dade City, for respondents.

McNULTY, Chief Judge.

The relator, a minor charged with careless driving, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent judges of the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court for Pasco County from exercising jurisdiction over her. She made a timely demand pursuant to Rule 8.100(b), R.J.P., for a waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and a certification for trial as an adult. The pertinent portions of Rule 8.100(b), *supra,*read as follows:

> “On demand, the Court shall waive juvenile jurisdiction and certify the case for trial as if the child were an adult. He shall thereafter be treated in that case in all respects as an adult.”

Respondents refused the demand holding that a transfer is not mandatory under the rule but is at the discretion of the juvenile court judge. We disagree.

Section 22 of our Declaration of Rights 1 provides that the right to jury trial “shall be secure to all and remain inviolate.” Additionally, even more precisely on the point here, § 15(b) of the Declaration of Rights reads in pertinent part:

> “[A] child . . . may be charged with a violation of law as an act of delinquency instead of crime and tried without a jury . . . . Any child so charged shall, upon demand made as provided by law before a trial in a juvenile proceeding, be tried in an appropriate court as an adult.”

Nothing in these provisions suggests a distinction between adults and juveniles with respect to rights so guaranteed. Indeed, a full reading indicates to the contrary. We think, therefore, that these two fundamenta are absolute and must control the interpretation of Rule 8.100(b), *supra.*We accordingly hold that the provisions of the rule are mandatory.2

Prohibition is appropriate, therefore, and the rule heretofore issued herein should be, and it is hereby, made absolute.

BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

1

. Art. I, § 22, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, 1968.

2

. Wolff v. Culbreath (Fla.App.3d, 1964), 168 So.2d 339; *cf.*In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).
# C_2006074EN.01000502.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Nancy by judgment of that court of 9 January 2006 in S.A.R.L. CELINE v S.A. CELINE

(Case C-17/06)

(2006/C 74/12)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Nancy of 9 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 17 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between S.A.R.L. CELINE and S.A. CELINE on the following question:

| | Must Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the adoption, by a third party without authorisation, of a registered word mark, as a company name, business name or style in connection with the marketing of identical goods, amounts to use of that mark in the course of trade, which the proprietor is entitled to stop by reason of his exclusive rights? |
| --- | --- |

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the adoption, by a third party without authorisation, of a registered word mark, as a company name, business name or style in connection with the marketing of identical goods, amounts to use of that mark in the course of trade, which the proprietor is entitled to stop by reason of his exclusive rights?

1

---

(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1)

1

---