alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1475

___________________________

Courtney Bernard Clark

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Commissioner Tom Roy; Officer Nate Drevlow; Dr. Lisa Staber; Dr. Steven

Klapmeier; Dr. James Wischer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: April 25, 2018

Filed: April 30, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Courtney Bernard Clark appeals following the district

court’s1adverse judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no basis for

1The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
overturning the district court’s well-reasoned decisions dismissing the claims against

some parties, and granting summary judgment to the remaining party. The judgment

is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2

______________________________

Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2We decline to consider the new matters Clark raises on appeal, see Stone v.

Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004), or his challenge to a ruling this court

summarily affirmed in his prior interlocutory appeal in this case. 

-2-
Serp Amendment


 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 
 REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 POST 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
 Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2005 (the “Supplemental Plan”) 
 As Adopted in December 31, 2008 
 Regions Financial Corporation hereby amends the Plan as follows:

 1. Effective April 16, 2009, Section 3.01 shall be amended by adding to the end thereof the following subsection (f): 

(f) Temporary Benefit Freeze. This subsection (f), adopted on February 25, 2009 and effective April 16, 2009,
implements a benefit freeze that is of indefinite duration although intended to be temporary. The benefit freeze described in this Section applies to all Participants in the Supplemental Plan, including Participants eligible for Supplemental
Benefits, Participants eligible for Enhanced Benefits, and Participants eligible for the greater of the two benefits. 
 (i)
Notwithstanding subsections (a) through (e), effective April 16, 2009, no Participant shall accrue any additional benefit in the Plan. This benefit freeze shall be implemented as follows. The Supplemental Benefit shall be calculated by
determining the benefit in (A) thereof as of April 15, 2009 (the “Freeze Date”) using the Participant’s Credited Service and Average Monthly Earnings (along with any other factors applicable to such calculation) as of the
Freeze Date. The remainder of the calculation of such benefit shall be in accordance with the terms of this Supplemental Plan without regard to this subsection (f). The Enhanced Benefit shall be calculated by determining the benefit in
(A) thereof as of the Freeze Date using the Participant’s Credited Service and Average Monthly Earnings as of the Freeze Date. The estimated Social Security benefit shall be determined using the law in effect on the Freeze Date and all
other factors determined as if the Participant had a Termination of Employment on the Freeze Date. The remainder of the calculation of the Enhanced Benefit shall be in accordance with the terms of this Supplemental Plan without regard to this
subsection (f). 
 (ii) The calculation of the Supplemental Benefit and the Enhanced Benefit, in each case, involves the
calculation of the Participant’s benefit in the Retirement Plan. The benefit in the Retirement Plan has also been frozen as of April 15, 2009. However, the benefit determined in this Supplemental Plan shall take into account the actual
benefit in the Retirement 







 
Plan as of the date of determination, and not the Freeze Date, as a variety of factors could cause the benefit in the Retirement Plan to increase or decrease
notwithstanding the freeze (including, without limitation, changes in the required actuarial assumptions, indexing of the limits under Section 415 of the Code, and the possibility of an amendment unfreezing the Retirement Plan as of a different
date than the Supplemental Plan). 
 2. All other terms, provisions and conditions of the Supplemental Plan not herein amended shall remain
in full force and effect. 
 ****
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 9, 2005

/s/ Brian T. Beckwith
---------------------
Brian T. Beckwith,
Chief Executive Officer


                                       18
41451.

#### PEGG v. KNIGHT’S, INC.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. While the bill of exceptions recites that on October 20, 1964, the court sustained all demurrers, giving the plaintiff eight days within which to amend, later extended to October 31, 1964, no copy of the order sustaining the demurrers is in the record. Thus it is not possible to determine whether by its language it contained an order of dismissal (see *Clark v. S.F.C. &c. Corp.,*109 Ga. App. 180, 182 (135 SE2d 473)), or, if so, whether it was operative in praesenti or in futuro (see *Hayes v. Simpson,*83 Ga. App. 22 (62 SE2d 441), *Smith v. Bugg,*35 Ga. App. 317 (133 SE 49)), and it does not appear whether the order contained self-executing provisions (see *Echols v. Time Motor Sales, Inc.,*111 Ga. App. 554 (142 SE2d 324)). But it does appear from the bill of exceptions that after amendment the demurrers were *renewed*to the petition as amended, and we are of the opinion that we must determine whether the order of April 30', 1965, sustaining the demurrers to the petition as amended was proper without any “law of the case” effect of the first order. *Folsom v. Howell,*94 Ga. 112 (1) (21 SE 136); *Perkins v. First Nat. Bank,*221 Ga. 82, 93 (7) (143 SE2d 474).

2. Plaintiff’s nineteen year old son rented a boat from defendant for the purpose of fishing in its pond. It is alleged that the boat leaked and thus had a wet and slippery bottom and that this was known to the defendant but not to plaintiff’s son. No fact or reason is alleged as to why the condition of the bottom of the boat was not as obvious to the son who got into it as to the defendant. He had reached the age of discretion when he should have been fully capable of appreciating any known or obvious dangers in connection with the fishing venture. *McCall v. McCallie,*48 Ga. App. 99, 100 (171 SE 843).

It is alleged that while plaintiff’s son was rowing the boat out into the lake he “slipped and fell over the side of the boat and into the lake, said fall being'caused by the slippery condition of the boat.” This can only mean that the son was *438standing in the boat while rowing it, for if he were sitting on the boat seat there could be no occasion for his falling overboard by reason of the slippery condition of its bottom.

Submitted September *9,*1965

Decided October 7, 1965.

*Fullbright &, Duffey, Earl C. Duffey, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Matthews, Maddox, Walton ■& Smith, John W. Maddox,*contra.

It is alleged that although the son was an excellent swimmer, he became entangled in lines, ropes and other floating debris and drowned.

We can see no basis of foreseeability to be charged to the defendant that the young man might have fallen out of the boat and drowned in this manner, and defendant’s liability is limited to those consequences which it should have reasonably anticipated as the natural or probable consequence of its own acts or omissions. *Georgia Power Co. v. Kinard,*47 Ga. App. 483 (170 SE 688).

The sustaining of the demurrer to the petition as amended was proper.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell,*«7., *concurs. Nichols, P. J., concurs specially.*
**
**Exhibit 15.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into this Report on Form 20-F, of our report dated March 12, 2020 (which includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the ability of Far Point Acquisition Corporation to continue as a going concern) relating to the balance sheets of Far Point Acquisition Corporation as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, and the related statements ofoperations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2019 and for the period from February 23, 2018 (inception) through December 31, 2018, appearing in the proxy statement/prospectus of Global Blue GroupHolding AG filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) on August 3, 2020, which is a part of this Report, and to the reference to our Firm under the caption “Experts” in this Report. 

 
/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC  
 
 
New York, New York
  
September 3, 2020
  **
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3553

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to

Commission.authorize appropriations for the Federal Trade
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3553

AN ACT

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize

appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Trade Com5 mission Reauthorization Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 3553 EH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

2 Section 25 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15

3 U.S.C. 57c) is amended by striking ‘‘and not to exceed’’

4 and inserting ‘‘not to exceed’’ and by inserting before the

5 period the following: ‘‘; not to exceed $107,000,000 for

6 fiscal year 1997; and not to exceed $111,000,000 for fiscal

7 year 1998’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 4,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Roynell JOSHUA v. Judge Rudolph BECKER, III, Orleans Criminal Judicial District Court.

No. 66309.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Roynell Joshua, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. No. 253-212.

Writ denied. The application is moot. The district court has acted.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...New Guidelines for U.S. Government Interactions with Taiwan Counterparts  

# 									New Guidelines for U.S. Government Interactions with Taiwan Counterparts  							

Press Statement

Ned Price, Department Spokesperson

April 9, 2021

The Department of State has issued new guidelines for U.S. government interaction with Taiwan counterparts to encourage U.S. government engagement with Taiwan that reflects our deepening unofficial relationship.  The guidance underscores Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and an important security and economic partner that is also a force for good in the international community.  These new guidelines liberalize guidance on contacts with Taiwan, consistent with our unofficial relations, and provide clarity throughout the Executive Branch on effective implementation of our “one China” policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances.  The new guidelines have been issued following a review as set forth in the Taiwan Assurance Act.

 

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsChinaDemocracyHuman Rights and DemocracyOffice of the SpokespersonSecurityTaiwan

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – March 5, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – March 5, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

March 5, 2022

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Belgium, Poland, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia from March 3 – 8, 2022.  Please click here for more information.

**11:45 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau in Rzeszow, Poland.**(CLOSED PRESS)**

**12:20 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken and Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau deliver statements to the press in Rzeszow, Poland.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**2:25 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken and Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau visit Korczowa Refugee Reception Center in Poland.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**3:15 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at the Poland-Ukraine Border.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**3:50 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba deliver remarks to the press at the Poland-Ukraine Border.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**4:30 p.m.****LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Ukrainian civil society organization representatives in Rzeszow, Poland.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**5:30 p.m.****LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with a U.S. Congressional delegation led by Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Gregory Meeks in Rzeszow, Poland.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**6:15 p.m.****LOCAL** Secretary Blinken holds a town hall with employees from U.S. Embassy Kyiv in Rzeszow, Poland.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE FOR OPENING REMARKS)**

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### LASSITER V. THE STATE.

(Decided Dec. 19, 1911.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Frank Cahalan.

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

de Graffenried, J.

No error in the record. Affirmed.
§ 493.1807 Additional sanctions: Laboratories that participate in Medicare. The following additional sanctions are available for laboratories that are out of compliance with one or more CLIA conditions and that have approval to receive Medicare payment for their services. ( a ) *Principal sanction.* Cancellation of the laboratory's approval to receive Medicare payment for its services.
( b ) *Alternative sanctions.* ( 1 ) Suspension of payment for tests in one or more specific specialties or subspecialties, performed on or after the effective date of sanction.
( 2 ) Suspension of payment for all tests in all specialties and subspecialties performed on or after the effective date of sanction.
****

This chart presents 1997 North Carolina exports to the Newly IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union.  Data used to create the chart werecollected by the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,with further analysis by the University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER). Formore information call BISNIS at (202) 482-4655 or visit the MISER websiteat www.umass.edu/miser.
'96 export data for North Carolina
'95 export data for North Carolina
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
Exhibit 31(b)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation (the Company);
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
     5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
   Date:
    
    August 10, 2009
    
    
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Thomas N. Tipton Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### §§ 425.614-425.629 [Reserved]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of

C.J.B.,

A Juvenile. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00001

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court

of Crane County, Texas

(TC# 363 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

trial court’s disposition order dated January 24, 2013. We therefore vacate the disposition order

and remand the cause for a new disposition hearing, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. It

appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no

other order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 20 15.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
41039.

#### BARNES v. THE STATE.

Decided March 12, 1965.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Where a motion for mistrial is made and the trial court instructs the jury to disregard the statement which brought about the motion to dismiss, to dismiss it from their minds and forget all about it, if counsel was dissatisfied with such action of the trial judge he should have renewed his motion, and his failure to do so authorized the trial court to conclude that he was satisfied with the action taken. Under such circumstances no error is shown by a ground of a motion for new trial complaining of the failure to grant the motion for mistrial. See *Purcell v. Hill,*111 Ga. App. 256 (141 SE2d 153), following answer to certified question, 220 Ga. 663 (141 SE2d 152).

A ground of an amendment to a motion for new trial which is not unqualifiedly approved by the trial court cannot be considered by this court. See *Gray v. Junction City Mfg. Co.,*195 Ga. 33 (1) (22 SE2d 847); *Bedgood v. Rogers,*81 Ga. App. 343 (3) (58 SE2d 473).

The usual general grounds of the motion for new trial have been neither argued nor insisted upon and are treated as abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*

*349
      *Guy B. Dunn,*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Boyd, Solicitor General, Paul Ginsberg, J. Walter LeCraw,*contra.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

THE COAST
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for
the Quarter and Nine Months September 30, 2008

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The Coast Distribution System,
Inc (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine month period ended September 30, 2008, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2008



/s/    JAMES MUSBACHJames Musbach President
and Chief Executive Officer  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 88/2005

of 20 January 2005         

fixing the export refunds on syrups and certain other sugar products exported in the natural state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(d), (f), (g) and (h) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, exported in the natural state, shall be set out in the Annex hereto to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 214, 8.9.1995, p. 16.

(3)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 63.

----

ANNEX

EXPORT REFUNDS ON SYRUPS AND CERTAIN OTHER SUGAR PRODUCTS EXPORTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING APPLICABLE FROM 21 JANUARY 2005

----

(1)  Applicable only to products referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(2)  Applicable only to products referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(3)  The basic amount is not applicable to syrups which are less than 85 % pure (Regulation (EC) No 2135/95). Sucrose content is determined in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2135/95.

(4)  The basic amount is not applicable to the product defined under point 2 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3513/92 (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 12).

----
§ 512.215 Beneficiary population. ( a ) *Beneficiary inclusion criteria.* An individual is an RO beneficiary if: ( 1 ) The individual receives included RT services from an RO participant that billed the SOE modifier for the PC or TC of an RO episode during the Model performance period for an included cancer type; and
( 2 ) At the time that the initial treatment planning service of an RO episode is furnished by an RO participant, the individual: ( i ) Is eligible for Medicare Part A and enrolled in Medicare Part B;
( ii ) Has traditional FFS Medicare as his or her primary payer (for example, is not enrolled in a PACE plan, Medicare Advantage or another managed care plan, or United Mine Workers insurance); and
( iii ) Is not in a Medicare hospice benefit period.
( b ) Any individual enrolled in a clinical trial for RT services for which Medicare pays routine costs is an RO beneficiary if the individual satisfies all of the beneficiary inclusion criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.