alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3112

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 relating to

sediments decontamination technology.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 19, 1996

Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992

relating to sediments decontamination technology.

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

3 SECTION 1. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

4 Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act

5 of 1992 (106 Stat. 4683; 33 U.S.C. 2239 note) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(2)

8 the following: ‘‘The goal of the program shall be to

9 make possible the development, on an operational

10 scale, of 1 or more sediment decontamination tech-
2

•HR 3112 IH

1 nologies, each of which demonstrates a sediment de2 contamination capacity of at least 5,000 cubic yards

3 per day.’’;

4 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than

7 September 30, 1996, and September 30 of each year

8 thereafter, the Administrator and the Secretary shall

9 report to Congress on progress made toward the

10 goal described in paragraph (2).’’; and

11 (3) in subsection (c)—

12 (A) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting

13 ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and

14 (B) by striking ‘‘1992’’ and inserting

15 ‘‘1995’’.

Æ
# C_2005320EN.01000702.xml

| 15.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3943 — Saint-Gobain/BPB)

(2005/C 320/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 November 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 32005M3943. 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 32005M3943. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
HomeStart Here – Steps to a Medical Clearance...DOD Contractors – Medical Clearances

# 									DOD Contractors – Medical Clearances							

We’ve restructured our guidance, check out our updated Start Here – Steps to a Medical Clearance page for the latest information.

Tags

Bureau of Medical ServicesHealth InformationUnder Secretary for Management

Back to Top
Exhibit
10.5

    


    Summary
of Compensation Arrangements with Directors

    2008
Fiscal Year

    


    Art’s-Way Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.  (the “Company”) currently does not have a written Board
compensation plan. For the 2008 fiscal year, the Board determined that each of
the Company’s directors would receive a cash retainer fee for his service, paid
as follows:

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    Director Name

                  	 	
                    First Quarter

                    (December-

                    February)

                  	 	 	
                    Second

                    Quarter

                    (March-

                    May)

                  	 	 	
                    Third

                    Quarter

                    (June-

                    August)

                  	 	 	
                    Fourth

                    Quarter

                    (September-

                    November)

                  	 
	
                    Thomas
      E. Buffamante

                  	 	$	5,000	 	 	$	5,833	 	 	$	7,500	 	 	$	7,500	 
	
                    David
      R. Castle

                  	 	$	5,000	 	 	$	5,833	 	 	$	7,500	 	 	$	7,500	 
	
                    Fred
      W. Krahmer

                  	 	$	5,000	 	 	$	5,833	 	 	$	7,500	 	 	$	7,500	 
	
                    James
      Lynch

                  	 	$	5,000	 	 	$	5,833	 	 	$	7,500	 	 	$	7,500	 
	
                    Douglas
      McClellan

                  	 	$	5,000	 	 	$	5,833	 	 	$	7,500	 	 	$	7,500	 


          

        

      

    

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Director Name

                      	 	
                        December

                      	 	 	
                        Monthly,

                        January

                        through

                        April

                      	 	 	
                        Monthly,

                        May

                        through

                        November

                      	 
	
                        J.
      Ward McConnell, Jr.

                        Executive
      Chairman of the Board

                      	 	$	7,000	 	 	$	12,500	 	 	$	12,500	 
	
                        Marc
      H. McConnell

                        Executive
      Vice Chairman of the Board

                      	 	$	1,667	 	 	$	4,000	 	 	$	4,833	 


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    The Company also reimburses directors
for out-of-pocket expenses related to their attendance at board meetings and
performance of other services as Board members.

    


    In addition, pursuant to the Company’s
2007 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, each director is automatically
granted non-qualified stock options to purchase 2,000 (post-split) shares of the
Company’s common stock each year on the date of the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental Investigation of Crossing Shock Wave-Turbulent Boundary Layer-Bleed InteractionResults of an experimental investigation of a symmetric crossing shock wave/turbulent boundary layer/bleed interaction are presented for a freestream unit Reynolds number of 1.68 x 10(exp 7)/m, a Mach number of 2.81, and deflection angles of 8 degrees. The data obtained in this study are bleed mass flow rate using a trace gas technique, qualitative information in the form of oil flow visualization, flow field Pitot pressures, and static pressure measurements using pressure sensitive paint. The main objective of this test is two-fold. First, this study is conducted to explore boundary layer control through mass flow removal near a large region of separated flow caused by the interaction of a double fin-induced shock wave and an incoming turbulent boundary layer. Also, a comprehensive data set is needed for computational fluid dynamics code validation.Document ID19970009931Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsKim, Hyun*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Hingst, Warren R.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Davis, David O.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1996Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107392AIAA Paper 97-0608NAS 1.15:107392E-10592Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 6, 1997End Date: January 10, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N15576Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-52Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970009931.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Georgiana L. Winsor *v.*George F. Hawkins.

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

Argued March 7

decided April 13, 1944.

*H. Allen Barton,*for the appellant (defendant).

*William L. Tierney,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

This is an automobile negligence case in which the defendant admitted liability, a hearing in damages was had to the court and damages were assessed for injuries to person and property. Much of the appeal has to do with claimed corrections in the finding. No change can be made in it which would avail the defendant. The principal claim is that the complaint did not allege any damages arising after its *670date, except as to the loss of use of the automobile, but that the court nevertheless allowed such damages.

All' the damages awarded by the court were of such a nature that they were in general within the allegations of the complaint, and the allowance of items occurring after the date of the writ did not constitute a departure from those allegations in a “matter essential to the charge or claim” which would render the judgment awarding them invalid. *Frosch*v. *Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*124 Conn. 300, 303, 199 Atl. 646. There was at most a variance. If the variance was material, the question should have been raised when the evidence was presented. This was not done, and so no' opportunity was given to the plaintiff to make his pleading, if insufficient, conform to the proof. The entire evidence was received without any objection on the ground of variance between allegation and proof. No motion was made to strike out any evidence on the ground that it was not within the issues. It is now too late to raise such a point on appeal. *Scott*v. *Scott,*83 Conn. 634, 641, 78 Atl. 314; *Sasso*v. *K. G. & G. Realty & Construction Co.,*98 Conn. 571, 577, 120 Atl. 158; *Booth*v. *Booth & Bayliss Commercial School, Inc.,*120 Conn. 221, 230, 180 Atl. 278.

On the same principle, the defendant cannot now claim error in the allowance in the judgment of lost earnings under the allegation that.the plaintiff was unable to attend to her usual duties, as he did not object to the evidence offered in proof of them or move to strike it out. The claim is also made that the allowance for lost earnings is not reasonably supported by evidence, and a similar claim is made as to other items of damages. We cannot say that the evidence does not reasonably justify the award.

The defendant further claims that the testimony of the plaintiff that she had neuritis and water on the *671knee was not competent evidence in the absence of medical testimony to that effect. She made no attempt to give a medical opinion. She testified without objection. She was doubtless repeating what her doctor told her, and the testimony would fall in general within the class of hearsay testimony to which, if no objection is made, the trial court can give such weight as it thinks it deserves. *Doris*v. *McFarland,*113 Conn. 610, 614, 156 Atl. 58, Conn. App. Proc., p. 39, note 23.

There is no error.
# C_2005243EN.01001102.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/11

---

Action brought on 8 August 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-310/05)

(2005/C 243/18)

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 8 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Marie-José Jonczy and Antonio Aresu, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the said provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the said provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of 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 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has yet to take the measures which it was obliged to put in place by 15 January 2004 in relation to Directive 2001/95 and in any event has failed to communicate those measures to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 11 of 15.01.2002, p. 4

1

---
# C_2006116EN.01000101.xml

| 17.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 May 2006

(2006/C 116/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2817 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4558 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68110 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3985 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5525 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,13 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8360 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5751 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,312 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 262,83 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9110 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5209 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,540 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8580 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6822 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4263 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9375 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0625 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0218 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 211,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1821 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2728 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2698 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 810,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,617 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,110 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6280 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,893 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2817

JPY

Japanese yen

141,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4558

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68110

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3985

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5525

ISK

Iceland króna

91,13

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8360

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5751

CZK

Czech koruna

28,312

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

262,83

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9110

RON

Romanian leu

3,5209

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,540

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8580

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6822

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4263

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9375

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0625

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0218

KRW

South Korean won

1 211,21

ZAR

South African rand

8,1821

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2728

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2698

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 810,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,617

PHP

Philippine peso

67,110

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6280

THB

Thai baht

48,893

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
40782.

#### ATLAS FINANCE COMPANY v. McDONALD.

Decided June 15, 1964

Rehearing denied July 2, 1964.

*Levy, Buffington & Levy, M. Alvin Levy,*for plaintiff in error.

*James A. Able, Jr.,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

Atlas Finance Company brought suit in the Civil Court of Fulton County against Richard J. McDonald, on a note dated June 21, 1963, by which McDonald had promised to pay to the order of Confederate Motor Company a given sum of money. A copy of the note was attached to the petition. The note contains an assignment clause executed in blank by the Confederate Motor Company. While the petition alleges that McDonald is indebted to the plaintiff upon a note in a specified amount, neither the petition nor the note shows that a transfer has been made to the plaintiff by written indorsement or for value without an indorsement. The trial court sustained several special demurrers to the petition with 15 days to amend. The plaintiff filed an amendment in response to the trial court’s ruling on one special demurrer. Upon its failure to file further amendments within the time allowed, the trial court dismissed the petition and the exception is to this judgment. *Held:*

1. “It is a principle ancient and well settled that a correct decision of a trial judge will not be reversed by . . . [an appellate court], even though he gives a wrong reason for his judgment.” *Thomas v. Mayor &c. of*Savannah, 209 Ga. 866 (1) (76 SE2d 796).

2. A petition based upon a promissory note payable to the order of a third party is subject to general demurrer where it does not affirmatively appear that the note has been transferred to the plaintiff by written indorsement or for value without indorsement. *Hardwick v. Avary,*107 Ga. App. 79, 80 (129 SE2d 379). Accord *Kersey v. Grant,*47 Ga. App. 408 (170 SE 503); *Folsom v. Continental Adjustment Corp.,*48 Ga. App. 435 (172 SE 833); *Lunceford v. Nunnally,*65 Ga. App. 234, 238 (15 SE2d 620); cf. *Code Ann.*§ 109A—3-201 (Georgia Uniform Commercial Code, as amended 1963).

The trial court did not err in dismissing the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.*
40786.

#### FREEMAN v. VIRIS.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “Three elements are essential to a contract of sale: 1. An identification of the thing sold. 2. An agreement as to the price to be paid. 3. Consent of the parties.” *Code*§ 96-101.

2. The conditional sale contract sued on stated the price to be $267.66, complying with the second necessary element of a contract of sale, and was executed by both parties thereto— the plaintiff-seller and the defendant-purchaser—indicating a prima facie compliance with the third prerequisite.

3. “In a suit to recover the contract price of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant under the terms of an alleged written contract which is defective in that it fails to contain such an accurate and definite description as will suffice to identify the goods sold, the delivery and the receipt of the particular goods sued for render an accurate description of the goods in the contract immaterial.” *National Grocery Co. v. Gee Go Wonder Soap Co.,*30 Ga. App. 751 (1) (119 SE 423). The conditional sale contract signed by the defendant-purchaser contained the following provision: “The undersigned Seller hereby sells, and the undersigned Purchaser hereby purchases for the TIME PRICE and subject to the terms hereinafter set forth, the following property, *delivery and acceptance of which in good order is acknowledged by the Purchaser,*viz: 1 Kirby, style-model 562, 1 polisher, power tools.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Regardless of whether or not the above description was sufficiently accurate and definite to identify the goods sold, for the purpose of ruling on the judgment of the lower court to *81which the defendant excepts, i.e., the overruling of the general demurrer to the petition, it is sufficient to note that the petition and the attached contract sued on show on their face that the defendant-purchaser acknowledged delivery and acceptance of the goods, thereby waiving any indefiniteness that may have existed in the description. Any defenses which might be raised subsequently to the ruling on the general demurrer—such as pleas of non est factum, failure of consideration and rescission, for example—cannot be ruled on at this time since the only judgment excepted to and included in the record is that on the general demurrer.

Decided July 9, 1964.

*Walter W. Finely,*for plaintiff in error.

*Albert A. Sadler, Weir D. Walker,*contra.

The petition alleged a cause of action based on a prima facie valid conditional sale contract; therefore the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Fannell, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

Editorial Note on Subpart H of Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart H of part 422 appear at 63 FR 35098, 35099, June 26, 1998.

§ 422.378 Relationship to State law. ( a ) *Preemption of State law.* Any provisions of State law that relate to the licensing of the organization and that prohibit the organization from providing coverage under a contract as specified in this subpart, are superseded.
( b ) *Consumer protection and quality standards.* ( 1 ) A waiver of State licensure granted under this subpart is conditioned upon the organization's compliance with all State consumer protection and quality standards that— ( i ) Would apply to the organization if it were licensed under State law;
( ii ) Generally apply to other MA organizations and plans in the State; and
( iii ) Are consistent with the standards established under this part.
( 2 ) The standards specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section do not include any standard preempted under section 1856(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
( c ) *Incorporation into contract.* In contracting with an organization that has a waiver of State licensure, CMS incorporates into the contract the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) *Enforcement.* CMS may enter into an agreement with a State for the State to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section by an organization that has obtained a waiver under this subpart.
[63 FR 25377, May 7, 1998]