alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020345EN.01000101.xml

| 16.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2018-2019 SESSION

Sittings of 22 to 25 October 2018

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 324, 27.9.2019.

The texts adopted of 24 October 2018 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2016 have been published in OJ L 331, 28.12.2018.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
PIONEER RAILCORP

                    PROXY FOR ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
                                  JUNE 26, 2002


ELECTION OF DIRECTORS:

Guy L. Brenkman, J. Michael Carr, Orvel L. Cox, John S. Fulton,
J. William Sharpe

         FOR all nominees listed above
-------

         FOR all nominees listed above, except
-------

         WITHHOLD authority to vote for all nominees listed above
-------

PROPOSAL 1 - Ratification of Appointment of Independent Public Accountants

         FOR the appointment of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP as the Company's 2002
-------  independent public accountants

         AGAINST the appointment of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP as the Company's
-------  2002 independent public accountants


THE  UNDERSIGNED  APPOINTS  GUY L.  BRENKMAN AS PROXY,  TO VOTE THEIR  SHARES AS
DIRECTED ABOVE AT THE 2002 ANNUAL MEETING OF  STOCKHOLDERS  AND ANY  ADJOURNMENT
THEREOF. IF NOT OTHERWISE  SPECIFIED,  THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE ELECTION
OF THE PERSONS  NOMINATED  FOR  DIRECTORS  AND FOR  PROPOSALS  SUBMITTED  BY THE
COMPANY AS OUTLINED IN THE PROXY STATEMENT.

Dated:                                  , 2002
      ----------------------------------




Signature

Signature if Held Jointly


                                        1
#### SWIFT & CO. et al. v. KIRKLEY.

No. 30662.

Nov. 24, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1942.

*131 P. 2d 998.*

•Clayton B. Pierce, Truman B. Rucker, and Fred M. Mock, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Dennis Bushyhead, of Claremore, and Lloyd Melone and B. A. Hamilton, both of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial from a judgment for the defendants in a personal injury action. Plaintiff was injured when a bicycle he was riding and a truck driven by James A. Chronister, an employee of defendant Swift & Company, collided at a street intersection in Claremore, Okla.

On motion for new trial it was developed that the jury had obtained possession of an exhibit excluded by the trial court, and that two of the jurors viewed the premises where the accident occurred during the trial. On request of the defendants to give the reasons for the granting of the motion for new trial, the court stated that it was granting the motion generally and on the grounds set forth in the motion for new trial, and especially grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5. The second ground was the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The third ground was that the verdict is contrary to the instructions. The fourth ground was prejudice by reason of the use of the excluded exhibit, and the fifth ground was misconduct of the jury.

Under the rules announced by this court in Morningside Hospital & Training School for Nurses v. Pennington, 189 Okla. 170, 114 P. 2d 943; Bailey v. Sisson, 180 Okla. 212, 69 P. 2d 65; Oklahoma City v. Caple, 178 Okla. 296, 62 P. 2d 1025; Cohen v. Exchange National Bank, 166 Okla. 177, 26 P. 2d 910; Creekmore v. City of Tulsa, 139 Okla. 249, 281 P. 782, and Carroll v. Morris, 143 Okla. 114, 287 P. 1039, we are of the opinion, and hold, that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for new trial. In Morningside Hospital & Training School for Nurses v. Pennington, supra, we said:

> “A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and where such motion has been sustained every presumption which can be properly indulged will be indulged to support the action of the trial court.”

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

WELCH C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. RILEY, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.
Table2-12. Furnace 12 Scrubbe1·-PAH Date: uly 

### ' J 1 25 2012 <ramet- anetta, E M' Ol' no Site/Run No. Parameters 12-PAH-1 

# -- -- Average Date July25, 2012 -- 

### -- July 25,2012 Time 1413-1718 -- 

### -- 1413-1718 Stack Gas Velocity, fps' 63.7 -- 

### -- 63.7 Volumetric FlowRate, acfm0 189,429 -- -- 189,429 Volumetric FlowRate, dscfmc 158,693 

### -- -- 158,693 Temperature, °F 134 -- -- 134 Moisture,% 5.9 -- -- 5.9 C02,% 1.5 -- -- 1.5 02,% 19.5 -- -- 19.5 Naphthalene, ng/dscm 4.29E+06 

### -- -- 4.29E+06 2 - Methylnaphthalene,ng/dscm 1.11E+06



### -- -- 1.11E+06 Acenaphthylene, ng/dscm 1.31E+06 

### -- -- 1.31E+06 Acenaphthene,ng/dscm 1.55E+05 -- -- 1.55E+05 Fluorene, ng/dscm 5.59E+05 -- -- 5.59E+05 Phenanthrene,ng/dscm 9.76E+06 -- 

### -- 9.76E+06 Anthracene, ng/dscm 6.56E+04 

# -- -- 6.56E+04 Fluoranthene, ng/dscm 7.18E+05 -- -- 7.18E+05 Pyrene, ng/dscm 2.10E+07 -- -- 2.10E+07 Benzo (a) Anthracene, ng/dscm 3.70E+03 -- -- 3.70E+03 Chrysene, ng/dscm 5.02E+04 -- 

### -- 5.02E+04 Benzo (b) Fluoranthene, 2.21E+04 -- -- 2.21E+04 ng/dscm Benzo (k) Fluoranthene, 7.42E+04 -- 

### -- 7.42E+04 ng/dscm Benzo (e) Pyrene,ng/dscm 1.24E+05 -- 

### -- 1.24E+05 Benzo (a) Pyrene, ng/dscm 7.41E+04 

# -- -- 7.41E+04 Perylene, ng/dscm 1.19E+03 -- 

### -- 1.19E+03 Indeno (1, 2, 3-cd)Pyrene, 3.81E+03 -- -- 3.81E+03 ng/dscm Dibenzo (a, h) Anthracene, 1.16E+04 -- -- 1.16E+04 ng/dscm Benzo (ghi) Perylene, ng/dscm 3.45E+04 -- -- 3.45E+04 Total PAH, ng/dscm 3.93E+07 

### -- -- 3.93E+07 

### 'Feetper second. bActual cubicfeet perminute. 'Drystandard cubicfeet perminute.

2-10
#### § 619.9240 Participation agreement.

A contract under which a lender agrees to sell a portion of a loan to one or more purchasers under specific terms set forth in the agreement.
#### §§ 606.661-606.669 [Reserved]
# BREAKOUT SESSION 

# DISCUSSION POINTS – HEALTHCARE NIOSH Personal Protective Equipment Conformity Assessment Public Meeting

## 1) Who defines the BHSRs for your industry?

• *FDA has been included in our activities

• *OSHA

• *Joint Commission drives implementation

• *CDC guidelines and recommendations

• AHA – American Hospital Association

• SEIU – Service Employees International Union

• *Users - AMA, ACOEM, ANA, AOHP, ACGHI, AIHA, ASTHO

• Infection Prevention – APIC

• NRC – Ionization Energy

• AAMI

## 2) How should the BHSRs be established?

• General Duty Clause

• Tb and Biological/Infection Control Guidelines – CDC --- OSHA/Joint Commission

• Everything else – laser use, chemotherapy, PPE

• Worker and Patient Protection Synergy needed

• Hazardous Waste Protocols also

# 3) Who should address what PPE is needed to meet BHSRs?

• Need selection and application guide aligned for patient and worker, community health and safety

• Education programs for HCW’s in general

• EPA model for exposures and PPE needed

• Comes down to threat recognition and action by the worker, no system of checks and balances

• Health and safety driven – initial training, unit specific training

• System protection is emphasized, not worker protection Need strong risk assessment and OSH professionals

## 4) Who determines the technical standards that demonstrate the BHSRs are met?

• Voluntary FDA and CDC (advisory committee APIC), NIOSH

• Practice of medicine is not regulated by the agencies, the devices are regulated

• ACOEM (MC) This was a challenging question for our group, answers did not jump out! We noted the European Union Approach – the government provides the scheme for identifying basic health and safety requirements and the standards – facilitates the safety culture

# 5) How are conformity assessment requirements linked to PPE types?

• The need for CA was emphasized, beyond device approval, risk driven conformity – when can the cheap one be used, when is the more specific device needed, how are devices assessed? Planned event and unplanned events Missing periodic assessment – use patient control measures/assessments to indirectly assess occupational safety and health – mesh the two together Procurement issues also considered!! Value Analysis Committee to assess patient concerns, worker concerns and procurement decisions.

# Anything else we need to consider?

• Have the key partners at the table

• Failure is the lack of use, compliance issue, not CA of the certified product

• CA should be considered by the industry

• Respiratory regulation is working but procurement issues still exist
Exhibit 11



Following is information  about the  computation of the earnings per share (EPS)
data for the quarters ended March 31, 2002 and 2001:

                                            For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2002
                                            ------------------------------------
                                              Income       Shares      Per-Share
                                            (Numerator) (Denominator)   Amount
                                            ------------------------------------
Basic EPS

Income available to common stockholders ..   $ 422,217    4,528,462    $   0.09
                                                                       =========
Effect of Diluted Securities

Employee stock options ...................         --           --
                                             ----------------------

Diluted EPS
Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions .............   $ 422,217    4,528,462    $   0.09
                                             ===================================

                                            For the Quarter Ended March 31, 2001
                                            ------------------------------------
                                              Income       Shares      Per-Share
                                            (Numerator) (Denominator)    Amount
                                            ------------------------------------
Basic EPS

Income available to common stockholders ..   $ 102,292    4,530,310    $   0.02
                                                                       =========

Effect of Diluted Securities

Employee stock options ...................         --           --
                                             ---------------------

Diluted EPS
Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions .............   $ 102,292    4,530,310    $   0.02
                                             ===================================


                                       1
<PAGE>
Memorandum


To:      John Gleed
From:    Graham MacMillan, Chairman, Compensation Committee
         Donna Morris, VP Human Resources
Date:    February 16, 2000
Re:      Contractual Terms - Interim CEO, Professional Consulting Services

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John,  further to our  discussions  we are  pleased  to  outline  the terms with
respect to your compensation and benefits in the role of interim CEO, and in the
provision of  professional  consulting  services upon conclusion of your interim
appointment.  This document  supercedes the previous  agreement  outlined in the
memo dated June 16th 1999  prepared by John  Kelly.  I would ask that you review
these  terms  and  upon  acceptance  sign  and  date a copy of this  letter  for
Corporate files.

Compensation

Effective  December 1st 1999 you will compensated at a rate of $1,500 per day in
recognition of your role as interim CEO.

Upon completion of this interim role, as you have agreed to provide professional
consulting  services to JetForm  Corporation for a period up to April 30th 2002,
you  will be paid a  monthly  retainer  of  $7,500  for up to five  (5)  days of
professional services. Any additional time over the five (5) days will be billed
at the rate of $1,500 per day. The contract manager for consulting services will
be the CEO or their  designate.  Should you wish to extend  consulting  services
beyond April 30th 2002 a separate agreement would be entered into.

Stock Option Allocation

In recognition  of your role as interim CEO you have been granted  options under
the terms of the JetForm Employee Stock Option Program to purchase 35,000 common
shares of JetForm Corporation.  The anniversary date of the grant is December 1,
1999 and the  exercise  price of the stock  options  granted  is US  $4.75.  The
options  granted to you become  available for exercise over a three-year  period
and vest in sixths every six months,  a detailed  vesting schedule and Personnel
Stock Option Status Report is attached for your reference. The vesting of all of
your awarded  stock options  including  this  allocation,  will continue for the
natural life of the options.

Extended Medical Insurance / Life Insurance

As a founder of JetForm  Corporation  you and your eligible  dependents  will be
provided with JetForm's medical, dental and life insurance benefits.

In the event that  JetForm  Corporation  decides to  terminate  this  agreement,
without  just  cause,  prior  to  April  30th  2002,  you  will be  entitled  to
compensation  equivalent to the earnings you would have been eligible to receive
under the terms of this agreement.

John, once again we thank you for your continued efforts in support of JetForm's
success!

Graham MacMillan
Chairman, Compensation Committee


Donna Morris
VP, Human Resources


I have read and agree to the above noted terms.




------------------------------                         -------------------------
John Gleed
Date
#### DOANE v. TREASURER OF PICKAWAY, AND TOWN OF CIRCLEVILLE.

Donations to public works — injunction—demurrer—want of equity.

Where one subscribes for a public work, tobe conducted by trustees, and lies .by uutH they complete the work, it is no defence against paying the money, that the trustees changed their plan of expenditure, and the work is of no benefit.

Chancery. The complainant subscribed one hundred dollars to the canal fund in 1828. In 1829 the legislature appropriated the subscription to the treasurer of Pickaway!county, to erect a free bridge aci’oss the Scioto river. The county commissioners neglected to collect the subscriptions and build the bridge. In 1831, the legislature appropriated the subscription for a bridge and road, to be collected and expended under the direction of the town council of Circleville. The council compromised with the subscribers, by agreeing to take one-half of the subscription at a future day, and under this agreement Doane confessed a judgment, to be paid at the stipulated time, and was discharged from the other part of the subscription. He now alleges the agreement to compromise, and the judgment were nude pacts, and inoperative — that the' town council have changed the plan and place of erecting the biidge, so as to make it a nuisance, injurious to the complainant, and unjustly sued out process to revive their judgment to obtain execution, on which the justice gave judgment against the complainant; he appealed to the Common Pleas, and succeeded in dismissing the process, and they now threaten execution on the original judgment. On these premises he prays to enjoin the judgment. The defendants demur for want of equity on the face of the bill.

*Olds,*for the defendants.

Doane, in person.

Wright, J.

The case made is not one calling for our interference. The complainant by compromise obtained a discharge of one-*753half of 'his obligation, and voluntarily confessed a judgment for the balance. The money was to be appropriated to a public work, which has been done; but the complainant alleges that those superintending the expenditure have changed their plan, and the work they have erected is a nuisance instead of a benefit. If the trustees of the fund were misapplying it, he should have restrained when he first discovered it, and not lain by until they had expended the money, and then seek to prevent their collections. There is no equity in the bill, and the demurrer is allowed.
§ 703.105 Reporting requirements. ( a ) *Board reporting.* At least quarterly, a Federal credit union's Senior Executive Officers must deliver a comprehensive Derivatives report, as described in paragraph (c) of this section to the Federal credit union's board of directors.
( b ) *Senior Executive Officer and asset liability or similarly functioning committee.* At least monthly, Federal credit union staff must deliver a comprehensive Derivatives report, as described in paragraph (c) of this section to the Federal credit union's Senior Executive Officers and, if applicable, the Federal credit union's asset liability or similarly functioning committee.
( c ) *Comprehensive Derivatives management report.* At a minimum, the reports required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must include: ( 1 ) Identification of any areas of noncompliance with any provision of this subpart or the Federal credit union's policies, and the planned remediation of such noncompliance;
( 2 ) An itemization of the Federal credit union's individual transactions subject to this subpart, the current values of such transactions, and each individual transaction's intended use for Interest Rate Risk mitigation; and
( 3 ) A comprehensive view of the Federal credit union's risk reports, including, but not limited to, Interest Rate Risk calculations with details of the transactions subject to this subpart.
( d ) *Retention requirement.* Reports required by this section must, at a minimum, be retained in accordance with the requirements in Appendix A to part 749.
( e ) *Notification of noncompliance.* Notification of any noncompliance as part of the Derivatives management report required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be submitted to the applicable Regional Director immediately after it has been submitted to the Federal credit union's board of directors.
( f ) *NCUA request.* The NCUA may, at any time, request the Derivatives management report required by paragraph (c) of this section.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

C.O., A CHILD

,
Petitioner

,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 2844

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Respondent

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed November 4, 2016

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Gail Adams , Judge.

Robert Wesle y, Public Defender, and Colleen Wapole, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

ON CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

C.O., a child, seeks certiorari review of an order placing him in resid ential mental

h ea l th treatment due to his purpo r ted incapacity. The State conc e des C.O. is entitled to

relief. We agree and grant the writ.2

A n order of involuntary commitment to a mental health facility is reviewable by

certiorari. See M.H. v. State , 9 01 So. 2d 197, 1 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2 005). To obtain a writ

of certiorari there must exist: (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law,

(2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, (3) that cannot be corrected

on post

- judgment appeal. Id. at 200. Whe n competent, substantial evidence does not

support the trial court's finding regarding competency or involuntary commitment, the trial

court has departed from the essential requirements of the law. Id. Accord D ep’t of

Children & Families v. Ewell , 949 So. 2d 327 , 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

C.O. argues , and the State concedes, that the trial court departed from the

essential requirements of law when it placed him in a residential mental health treatment

facility after finding him incompetent. C.O. does not dispute that he is incompetent, but

argues that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support placing him in secure

residential treatment. The State agrees that the necessary evidentiary support to co mmit

C.O. to residential treatment is lacking . We agree

, as t h e re p orts relied on by the tri a l

court were stale. See In r e Commitment of Reilly , 970 So. 2d 453, 455

- 56 (Fla. 2d DCA

2007); Brockman v. State , 852 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Theref ore, we grant

the petition

, quash the order below

, and remand this matter to the circuit court for further

proceedings.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

SAWAYA

, PALMER and ORFINGER , JJ., concur.
#### LEVI SCROGGINS v. JANE SCROGGINS.

Divorce — adultery—occupying the same room and bed.

Where a man occupy the same room with another’s wife, with but one bed, for eight or nine months, adultery may be presumed.

Divorce. Cause wilful absence, and adultery with Moses Bane, and another person, name unknown. It was proven, that the parties came from Pittsburg to Cincinnati, in the spring of 1826, and lived as man and wife. About five years ago, she left, without any known cause, passed by the name of Beggs, and had lived with Moses Bane, as his *intended wife.*They occupied the *same*room, with *one bed,*eight or nine months. The plaintiff’s character is good.

Divorce decreed.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                           AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350


         I, Eric Bello, Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Quipp, Inc.,
a Florida corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that, based on my
knowledge:


         (1)      The Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period
                  ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934, as amended; 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/ ERIC BELLO
--------------
Eric Bello
Treasurer (principal financial officer)

Date:    August 12, 2004
§ 264b.6 Requirements for gifts of more than minimal value. ( a ) *Tangible gifts.* Board employees must deposit tangible gifts of more than minimal value with the Office of the Secretary within 60 days of acceptance and assist in preparing a statement that contains the following information for each gift: ( 1 ) The name and position of the Board employee;
( 2 ) A brief description of the gift and the circumstances justifying acceptance;
( 3 ) The identity, if known, of the foreign government and the name and position of the individual who presented the gift;
( 4 ) The date of acceptance of the gift;
( 5 ) The estimated value in the United States of the gift at the time of acceptance; and
( 6 ) The disposition or current location of the gift.
( b ) *Travel or travel expenses without prior approval.* Board employees who accept a gift of travel or expenses for travel under § 264b.5(b)(2) without the prior approval of the Administrative Governor must submit a report to the Office of the Secretary within 30 days of acceptance that contains the following information: ( 1 ) The name and position of the Board employee;
( 2 ) A brief description of the gift, including its estimated value, and the circumstances justifying acceptance; and
( 3 ) The identity, if known, of the foreign government and the name and position of the individual who presented the gift.
( c ) *Reports to the Secretary of State.* The Office of the Secretary must report the information contained in the statements described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to the Secretary of State, who must publish in the Federal Register not later than January 31 of each year a comprehensive listing of all such statements for gifts of more than minimal value that were received by federal employees during the preceding year.