alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### METCALF V. COBB.

(Decided June 10, 1913.)

Appeal from Geneva Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. O. Mulicey, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed for want of assignment of errors.
# C_2012376EN.01000701.xml

| 6.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 376/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 376/7

---

Notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority

2012/C 376/07

On 6 November 2012, the EFTA Surveillance Authority received a request pursuant to Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC. The first working day following receipt of the request is 7 November 2012.

This request, filed by the Norwegian Government, concerns activities related to the exploration for, or extraction of oil and gas on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and to activities intended to enable the transportation of natural gas through upstream pipeline networks in Norway. The abovementioned Article 30 provides that Directive 2004/17/EC is not applicable when the activity in question is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority is allowed a period of three months to take a decision on this request, commencing on 7 November 2012. The period therefore expires on 7 February 2013.

The aforementioned period may, however, be extended by a maximum of three months in duly justified cases, in particular if the information provided in the request or in the documents annexed thereto is incomplete or inexact or if the facts as reported undergo any substantive changes. Any such extension shall be published. According to the second subparagraph of Article 30(6), further requests concerning the activities related to the exploration for, or extraction of oil and gas on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and to activities intended to enable the transportation of natural gas through upstream pipeline networks in Norway before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request are not considered as new procedures and are to be treated in the context of this request.

---
**Exhibit31.3**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frederick J. Rowan, II, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of The William Carter Company;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officers andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 17, 2004 |                        |     |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------|----------|
|                  |                        |     |
|                  | /s/ FREDERICK J. ROWAN,  II |     |
|                  | Frederick J.  Rowan, II     |     |
| * *              | *Chief Executive Officer*   | * * |

#### * *

 

----
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE GEORGE A. HENDERSON v. MAR ILYN JO TUCKER HENDERSON Appeal from the Chancery Court for Williamson County

No. 24601, Donald P. Harris, Judge
No. M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 14, 2000

CONCURRING AND D ISSENTING OPINION
I con cur w ith the maj ori ty op ini on, exc ept on t he i ssu e of t he w ife ’s a lim ony.

I agree with the majority’s finding that “the Trial Court should have awarded alimony”. I disagree with the Court’s remanding the case to the Trial Court to deter mine the nature and the extent of the alimony award.

On appeal to this Court

, th e parties are entitled

to a trial de novo upon the issues presented, T.R.A.P. Rule 13. In my view, this includes

deciding all

issues properly before us. In the interest of avoiding needless litigation and judicial economy, I would not remand but would hold that the wife is entitled to

rehabilitative alimony for a period of four ye ars at $2,000.00 per month. If her health does not improve to t

he point where she

is employable, the Court may reconsider he r need and the husband’s ability to pay during that time period. See Tennessee Cod e Annotated §36-5- 101(d)(2).

______________________________ H ERSCHEL P ICKENS F RANKS , J.
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trans World Entertainment Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 4, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Robert J. Higgins, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John J. Sullivan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
|

|/s/ Robert J. Higgins                |  | /s/ John J. Sullivan         | 
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------- | 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and | 
|                                     |  | Chief Financial Officer      | 
|                                     |  |                              | 
|September 13, 2007                   |  | September 13, 2007           | 



---
§ 335.311 Forms for annual, quarterly, current, and other reports of issuers. ( a ) The applicable forms for annual, quarterly, current, and other reports are codified in 17 CFR part 249. All forms shall be filed with the FDIC as appropriate and shall be titled with the name of the FDIC instead of the SEC.
( b ) The requirements for Financial Statements can generally be found in Regulation S-X (17 CFR part 210). Banks and State savings associations may also refer to the instructions for FFIEC Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income when preparing unaudited interim reports. The requirements for Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations can be found at 17 CFR part 229. Additional requirements are included in Industry Guide 3, Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies, which is found at 17 CFR part 229.
[75 FR 73949, Nov. 30, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 63501, Oct. 24, 2014]
# C_2018119EN.01001001.xml

| 5.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 November 2017

in Case E-19/16

Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government

(Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Working time — Travel to and/or from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance)

(Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Working time — Travel to and/or from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance)

(2018/C 119/11)

In Case E-19/16, Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government — REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen, and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

Norges Høyesterett

| 1. | The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the appellant, to and/or from a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the appellant, to and/or from a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC.

| 2. | No intensity assessment is required of the amount of work performed while travelling. |
| --- | --- |

2.

No intensity assessment is required of the amount of work performed while travelling.

| 3. | The frequency of such journeys is immaterial unless the effect is to transfer the worker’s place of employment to a new fixed or habitual place of attendance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The frequency of such journeys is immaterial unless the effect is to transfer the worker’s place of employment to a new fixed or habitual place of attendance.

---
#### CRAWFORD, Adm’r, et al. v. GRAYSON.

No. 31699.

Feb. 29, 1944.

*146 P. 2d 298.*

Saunders & Van Wagner, of Shawnee, and Bishop & Bishop, of Seminole, for plaintiff in error.

W. L. Chapman, of Shawnee, D. G. Hart and G. O. Wallace, both of Wewoka, and M. L. Thompson, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court of Seminole county rendered on the 7th day of June, 1943. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 22nd day of June, 1943. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on the 23rd day of December, 1943. The defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that this proceeding was not commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or order overruling the motion for new trial. 12 O. S. 1941 § 972 provides that all proceedings for reversing, vacating or modifying a judgment or final order shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of.

In the case of Bishop v. Harris, 168 Okla. 626, 34 P. 2d 243, we held that where the petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of the six months from the date of the judgment or order appealed from the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See . Pittsburgh Mortgage Inv. Co. v. Savage, 47 Okla. 616, 149 P. 1147; and Incorporated Town of Caddo v. Terry Const. Co., 58 Okla. 293, 159 P. 328. To a like effect see Provident Life *653& Accident Ins. Co. v. Austin, 161 Okla. 280, 18 P. 2d 539; Gilmore v. Smith, 93 Okla. 4, 219 P. 92; Verschoyle v. McDaniels, 127 Okla. 166, 260 P. 55; Williams v. Local Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 165 Okla. 244, 25 P. 2d 1086.

The time in which to file the appeal in this action expired on the 22nd day of December, 1943. Since the petition in error with case-made attached was not filed in this court on or before that date, this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, and the appeal is dismissed.

CORN, C.J., GIBSON, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
# C_2017026EN.01001601.xml

| 26.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/16

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 19 February 2016 in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet

(Case E-3/16)

(2017/C 26/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 February 2016 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 February 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet on the following questions:

| 1. | What is the legal test when determining whether an agreement between undertakings has a competition-restricting object within the meaning of Article 53 EEA?






  a) | In this context, is it sufficient in order to be able to categorise a form of conduct as an infringement by object pursuant to Article 53 EEA, that the cooperation is capable of restricting competition? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

What is the legal test when determining whether an agreement between undertakings has a competition-restricting object within the meaning of Article 53 EEA?

a)

In this context, is it sufficient in order to be able to categorise a form of conduct as an infringement by object pursuant to Article 53 EEA, that the cooperation is capable of restricting competition?

| 2. | What is the legal significance for the consideration of whether a form of conduct constitutes an infringement by object, that such cooperation took place openly vis-à-vis the procuring authority? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the legal significance for the consideration of whether a form of conduct constitutes an infringement by object, that such cooperation took place openly vis-à-vis the procuring authority?

| 3. | What legal criteria must in particular be emphasised when considering whether cooperation that takes the form of two competing companies submitting a joint tender through a joint venture, and where the two undertakings are to be subcontractors to the joint venture, should be deemed to constitute an infringement by object? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What legal criteria must in particular be emphasised when considering whether cooperation that takes the form of two competing companies submitting a joint tender through a joint venture, and where the two undertakings are to be subcontractors to the joint venture, should be deemed to constitute an infringement by object?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     June 30, 2000 - Financial Data Schedule for NHP Retirement Housing Partners
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000793730
<NAME>                        NHP Retirement Housing Partners I Limited
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          5,534,593
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   15,327
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          24,858,053
<DEPRECIATION>                  (6,642,429)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  24,036,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         20,157,826
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      (12,439,386)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    24,036,225
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,588,304
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,965,487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                238,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,634,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,249,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,249,914)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (29)



</TABLE>
§ 308.112 Notice of disapproval. ( a ) *General rule.* ( 1 ) Within three days of the decision by the Board of Directors or its designee to disapprove a proposed acquisition of control of an insured nonmember bank, a written notice of disapproval shall be mailed by first class mail to, or otherwise served upon, the party seeking acquire control.
( 2 ) The notice of disapproval shall: ( i ) Contain a statement of the basis for the disapproval; and
( ii ) Indicate that a hearing may be requested by filing a written request with the Administrative Officer within ten days after service of the notice of disapproval; and if a hearing is requested, that an answer to the notice of disapproval, as required by § 308.113, must be filed within 20 days after service of the notice of disapproval.
( b ) *Waiver of hearing.* Failure to request a hearing pursuant to this section shall constitute a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and the notice of disapproval shall constitute a final and unappealable order.
( c ) Section 308.18(b) of the Uniform Rules shall not apply to the content of the Notice of Disapproval.
[56 FR 37975, Aug. 9, 1991, as amended at 86 FR 2249, Jan. 12, 2021]
EXHIBIT 10.194

THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are in
any doubt as to the action you should take, you are recommended to seek your own
financial advice from your stockbroker, bank manager, solicitor, accountant or
other independent professional adviser duly authorised under the Financial
Services Act 1986.

Companies Form No.  429(4)
Notice to non-assenting shareholders

Pursuant to Section 429(4) of the Companies Act 1985 as inserted by Schedule 12
to the Financial Services Act 1986

To:






Recommended cash offers ("the Offers") were made on 1 June 2000 by N M
Rothschild & Sons Limited on behalf of Catalina International PLC ("the
Offeror") for all the ordinary shares of 50p each and all the convertible
preference shares of 25p each in Ring PLC ("the Company"). On 5 July 2000 the
Offers were declared unconditional in all respects.

The Offeror has, within four months of making the Ordinary Offer, acquired or
contracted to acquire not less than nine-tenths in value of the ordinary shares
to which the Ordinary Offer relates. The Offeror gives notice that it now
intends to exercise its right under section 429 of the Companies Act 1985 to
acquire ordinary shares held by shareholders of the Company who have not yet
accepted the Ordinary Offer.

The terms of the Offer are set out in the Offer Document dated 1 June 2000. The
Offers will remain open for acceptance until further notice.

The terms of the Offer are:

For every ordinary share                        50p in cash

Further details of the Offer can be found in the Offer Document.

Words or phrases used in this Notice but not defined herein shall, unless the
context otherwise requires, have the meanings ascribed to them in the Offer
Document.

If you do nothing and do not make application to the Court (see below) the
Offeror will acquire your shares on the following terms:

For every ordinary share                        50p in cash

Settlement will be made within 14 days following the expiry of the six-week
period from the date of the Notice.

<PAGE>

If you return the Form of Acceptance sent to you with the Offer Document and
accept the Ordinary Offer, settlement will be made within 14 days of such
acceptance.

NOTE You are entitled under section 430C of the Companies Act 1985 to make an
application in the court within six weeks of the date of this Notice for an
order either that the Offer shall not be entitled and bound to acquire your
shares or that different terms to those of the Ordinary Offer shall apply to the
acquisition. If you are contemplating such action you may wish to seek legal
advice.

Signed

/S/ THOMAS BLUTH
---------------------------------
Director/Secretary
Catalina International PLC                                     Dated 5 July 2000

If you have not received a copy of the Offer Document or the accompanying Form
of Acceptance, or you require any further information in respect of the above
notice, please contact the New Issues Department, IRG plc, PO Box No. 166,
Bourne House, 34 Beckenham Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 4TH (Telephone: 0208 639
2141).