alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ankrim *v.*Sturges.

Where a rule of court provides that depositions shall not be read unless filed within a reasonable time, and depositions were taken and the cause continued because they were not filed, and the depositions were then filed, they may be read on the trial of the cause.

In error from the Common Pleas of Greene.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of this court.

Burnside, J.

Rules of court are adopted to facilitate the administration of justice. This court pa.ys great respect to the construction courts give to their own rules: 5 Barr, 278. Yet there are cases and constructions given to rules by courts in the hurry of jury trials which operate unjustly, and require the supervision of this court. The rule in question provides that “ depositions (other than those taken on ^commissions) shall be filed *within a reasonable*time, or the party at whose instance they are taken may retain them, provided he gives, within a reasonable time, to the adverse party or his attorney, a true copy of the rule, notice, and deposition.” In this case the depositions of aged men had been taken on cross-examination, and the cause came on for trial before they were filed, and the court rejected the depositions; and the court, in the exercise of their discretion, permitted a juror to be withdrawn and the cause continued. The depositions shortly after were duly filed, and more than a year after, the cause again came on for trial, when the depositions were offered in evidence and rejected by the court, because *they were not filed in a reasonable time. We*cannot concur in this construction of the rule. We think the depositions ought to have been received. As one of the depositions fully proves the ancient deed, it is not necessary to determine whether it was error to reject it without proof.

Judgment reversed, and a *venire de novo*awarded.
# C_2006074EN.01000201.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden by order of that court of 2 December 2005 in Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-434/05)

(2006/C 74/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 2 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Stichting Regionaal Opleidingen Centrum Noord-Kennemerland/West-Friesland (Horizon College) and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 13 A(1)(i) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of education includes the making available, for consideration, of a teacher to an educational institution in order that he may temporarily provide teaching services there within the area of responsibility of that educational institution? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 13 A(1)(i) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of education includes the making available, for consideration, of a teacher to an educational institution in order that he may temporarily provide teaching services there within the area of responsibility of that educational institution?

1

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the negative, can the concept of ‘services closely related to education’ be interpreted as including the service described in Question 1 above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the negative, can the concept of ‘services closely related to education’ be interpreted as including the service described in Question 1 above?

| 3. | Are the answers to the above questions affected by the fact that the body which makes the teacher available is itself also an educational institution? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the answers to the above questions affected by the fact that the body which makes the teacher available is itself also an educational institution?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ 1977 L 145, p 1.

1

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBreakthrough Propulsion Physics Research ProgramIn 1996, a team of government, university and industry researchers proposed a program to seek the ultimate breakthroughs in space transportation: propulsion that requires no propellant mass, propulsion that can approach and, if possible, circumvent light speed, and breakthrough methods of energy production to power such devices. This Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, managed by Lewis Research Center, is one part of a comprehensive, long range Advanced Space Transportation Plan managed by Marshall Space Flight Center. Because the breakthrough goals are beyond existing science, a main emphasis of this program is to establish metrics and ground rules to produce near-term credible progress toward these incredible possibilities. An introduction to the emerging scientific possibilities from which such solutions can be sought is also presented.Document ID19970009634Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsMillis, Marc G.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1996Subject CategoryPhysics (General)Report/Patent NumberE-10569NAS 1.15:107381NASA-TM-107381Meeting InformationMeeting: Space Tecnology and Applications International ForumLocation: Albuquerque, NMCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 26, 1997End Date: January 30, 1997Sponsors:Department of Defense,DSWA,NASA Headquarters,Air Force Data Services CenterAccession Number97N15030Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 242-74-40Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970009634.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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus TRON ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CR-03-1140) Submitted: October 24, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, Acting United States Attorney, Tara L. McGregor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tron Anderson appeals from the judgment of the district court convicting him of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a), and 924(e), and sentencing him to 188 months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm. Anderson claims on appeal that the district court unreasonably imposed his federal term of incarceration to run consecutive to, rather than concurrent with, a previously imposed state sentence. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3(a) (2003), a court is directed to apply a consecutive term of imprisonment for any crime that occurs while a defendant is serving an existing term of imprisonment. SeeUSSG § 5G1.3(a). Anderson does not dispute that he was serving an existing term of imprisonment. In fact, Anderson’s possession of the firearm occurred when he was attempting to escape from state custody, where he was incarcerated for multiple drug charges. Instead, Anderson argues that the record is unclear as to whether the district court recognized that it had the authority to ignore the mandatory nature of § 5G1.3(a) and impose a concurrent sentence, in light of the now-advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines. He further contends that the district court made no reference to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) when determining his sentence.- 3 - Having reviewed the record, we find no error. The district court was adequately informed of the discretion it had to impose a concurrent sentence. Furthermore, the record reveals that the district court was aware of the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and that the sentence took these factors into account. Accordingly, we af firm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EKATERINI ALEXOPOULOS,

Appellant,

v.

STEVEN GOLDSMITH, P.A., a Florida Professional

Association and STEVEN M. GOLDSMITH,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-1007

[February 14, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 10-

013480.

Ekaterini Alexopoulos, Boca Raton, pro se.

Diran V. Seropian of Shendell & Pollock, P.L., Boca Raton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Fourteenth Anniversary of Robert “Bob” Levinson’s Abduction

# 									Fourteenth Anniversary of Robert “Bob” Levinson’s Abduction							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 9, 2021

Today marks 14 years since Iran abducted beloved husband, father, grandfather and former FBI agent Robert “Bob” Levinson.  In December, the United States sanctioned two high-ranking officials of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security who were involved in the abduction, detention and likely death of Bob Levinson.  However, this case is not closed.

We call on the Iranian government to provide credible answers to what happened to Bob Levinson and to immediately and safely release all U.S. citizens who are unjustly held captive in Iran.  The abhorrent act of unjust detentions for political gain must cease immediately.

I was honored to speak with the Levinson family yesterday.  Since his abduction in 2007, Bob, a father and husband, has missed graduations, marriages, and the birth of all but one of his grandchildren.  Bob’s family continues to advocate for the answers about what happened after he went to Kish Island in Iran 14 years ago.

Bob’s family has inspired the United States to partner with the families of every U.S. hostage and detainee held captive abroad.  Bob’s legacy lives on through the newly passed *Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act.*This law is a fitting tribute to Bob, as it reaffirms the U.S. commitment to secure the freedom of every U.S. citizen unjustly imprisoned abroad and codifies our commitment to provide guidance and support for the families of U.S. hostages and wrongfully held detainees.  The United States will never forget Bob Levinson.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Near Eastern AffairsHostage RecoveryHuman RightsIranOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateOffice of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs

Back to Top
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1170 No. 03-1533 BERNARD FLOWERS, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. OFFICER DARREN FIORE, OFFICER LAWRENCE SILVESTRI, OFFICER MICHAEL

GARAFOLA, and THE TOWN OF WESTERLY, RHODE ISLAND,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on February 25, 2004, is amended as follows: Page 21, line 4: "Flowers" should be "Fiore"
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.12    
    


 
 

  AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.    
    


Non-Employee
Director Compensation Plan* 


        Each
non-employee director will receive an aggregate annual retainer fee of $30,000, payable in four equal quarterly installments. Each member of each of the Company's Audit,
Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees, other than the Chairman, will be paid an additional aggregate annual retainer fee of $5,000, payable in four equal quarterly
installments. The Chairman of each of the Audit, Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees will receive an additional aggregate annual retainer fee of $10,000, payable in four
equal quarterly installments. 


        Once
per calendar year, generally at the last regularly scheduled full meeting of the Board of Directors during such year (the "Annual Grant Date"), each non-employee
director, other than the Chairman of the Board, will be granted an option to purchase 5,000 shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. If the Chairman
of the Board is a non-employee Director on the Annual Grant Date, the Chairman will be granted an option to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's
2007 Equity Incentive Plan. All of the foregoing options will vest in four equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, have an exercise price equal to the fair
market value of a
share of the Company's common stock as of the date of grant, and have a ten year term. In lieu of the foregoing annual grant for the first year of service on the Board, each newly-elected
non-employee director will be granted an option to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's 2007 Equity Incentive Plan. The foregoing options will
vest in four equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of a share of the Company's common stock as of the
date of grant, and have a ten-year term. 







	*
	Effective
as of December 19, 2008 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.12


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Government of Zimbabwe Forcibly Removed USAID Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Assessment Team

# 											Government of Zimbabwe Forcibly Removed USAID Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Assessment Team									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

March 8, 2024

Last month, Zimbabwean officials abruptly detained and deported USAID officials and contractors, who were conducting an assessment of the development and governance context in Zimbabwe. Members of the assessment team were subject to aggressive handling, prolonged interrogation and intimidation, unsafe and forced nighttime transportation, overnight detention and confinement, and forced removal from the country. As we have made clear in the strongest possible terms to the Government of Zimbabwe, these actions against a team of development professionals legally admitted to Zimbabwe to support the Government of Zimbabwe’s expressed commitment to democratic reform are egregious, unjustified and unacceptable.

The Government of Zimbabwe has said it wants to pursue international reengagement and democratic reforms. Its actions undermine those claims. We take the safety and security of U.S. citizens seriously and demand accountability from the Government of Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe deserve better and we will continue to support them as we work to build a more inclusive, democratic society with accountable political leaders and government institutions.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentZimbabwe

Back to Top
# C_2005281EN.01001002.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/10

---

Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

(Case C-342/05)

(2005/C 281/19)

Language of the case: Finnish

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and I. Koskinen, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by regularly permitting the hunting of wolves contrary to the principles for derogations laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1) of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by regularly permitting the hunting of wolves contrary to the principles for derogations laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1) of the directive;

1

| 2. | order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC is an exception to the system of the strict protection of species in Article 12, so that it must be interpreted strictly. Article 12(1) lays down two preconditions for derogating on the basis of points (a) to (e). First, the derogation must not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Second, a derogation is possible only where there is no other satisfactory solution.

Since the level of protection of the wolf is not favourable in Finland and other alternative methods are available, and since permits for hunting wolves are regularly issued without there being a properly ascertained connection with individuals causing particularly significant damage, the hunting of wolves is permitted in Finland to an extent which exceeds the conditions laid down in Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterlyperiod ended November 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Michael Dodson, VicePresident of Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Michael Dodson                    |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. Michael Dodson                        |
| Senior Vice President of Administration, |
| Chief Financial Officer and Secretary    |
| December  22, 2004                       |

 

----
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Hong Kong’s Proposed Article 23 Legislation Further Undermines “One Country, Two Systems” Framework

# 									Hong Kong’s Proposed Article 23 Legislation Further Undermines “One Country, Two Systems” Framework							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

February 28, 2024

The United States is closely monitoring Hong Kong’s development of national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law and its implications for U.S. citizens, investments, and companies operating in Hong Kong.  We are particularly concerned by Hong Kong authorities’ proposal to adopt broad and vague definitions of “state secrets” and “external interference” that could be used to eliminate dissent through the fear of arrest and detention.

We are also concerned that Hong Kong authorities will apply Article 23 extraterritorially in their ongoing campaign of transnational repression to intimidate and restrict the free speech of U.S. citizens and residents. 

Article 23 risks compounding the 2020 National Security Law that has curtailed the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong.  Enacting additional national security legislation with vaguely defined provisions and purported extraterritorial reach would further violate the PRC’s international commitments and undermine the “One Country, Two Systems” framework.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsHong KongOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
#### Keith WAUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-706.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Peter de Manió, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 99-1770.

No. 99-8429.

No. 99-9143.

No. 99-9884.

#### Simpson *v.*Galanos et al., Sumpter *v.*Stegall, Warden, Golliver *v.*Walker, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Williams *v.*United States,

530 U. S. 1276;

530 U. S. 1206;

530 U. S. 1247; and

530 U. S. 1283. Petitions for rehearing denied.