alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1620.4 “Closely related” and “directly essential” activities.

An employee is engaged in the production of goods for interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the FLSA even if the employees's work is not an actual and direct part of such production, so long as the employee is engaged in a process or occupation which is “closely related” and “directly essential” to it. This is true whether the employee is employed by the producer of the goods or by someone else who provides goods or services to the producer. Typical of employees covered under these principles are computer operators, bookkeepers, stenographers, clerks, accountants, and auditors and other office and whitecollar workers, and employees doing payroll, timekeeping, and time study work for the producer of goods; employees in the personnel, labor relations, employee benefits, safety and health, advertising, promotion, and public relations activities of the producing enterprise; work instructors for the producers; employees maintaining, servicing, repairing or improving the buildings, machinery, equipment, vehicles or other facilities used in the production of goods for commerce, and such custodial and productive employees as watchmen, guards, firemen, patrolmen, caretakers, stockroom workers and warehousemen; and transportation workers bringing supplies, materials, or equipment to the producer's premises, removing waste materials therefrom, or transporting materials or other goods, or performing such other transportation activities, as the needs of production may require. These examples are illustrative, rather than exhaustive, of the employees who are “engaged in the production of goods for commerce” by reason of performing activities closely related and directly essential to such production.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

p1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145638

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145638

COA: 300630

Oakland CC: 2010

- 231214

- FH

PENO DERONN WASHINGTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 18.302 Applicability of state law.

The effect of a presumption respecting a fact which is an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision is determined in accordance with State law.
#### § 18.806 Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant.

When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in § 18.801(d)(2), (iii), (iv), or (v), has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.
#### Zinna Griefer, Respondent, *v.*County of Sullivan et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 24, 1937;

decided June 1, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 515.)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132025-6 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PRISCILLA SCHWARZE, as Conservator of CARL Stephen J. Markman, SCHWARZE and PRISCILLA SCHWARZE, Justices Individually, Plaintiff-Appellee, and SC: 132025-6 COA: 257467, 257511 Wayne CC: 01-134972-CK THOMAS SCHWARZE, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF THOMAS SCHWARZE, Intervening Plaintiff,

v

MARY DILWORTH and AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants, and

DAVID MICHAEL FOWLER and HUGH EDWARD DILWORTH, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive
Officer of Fortune Entertainment Corporation, that, to his knowledge, the
quarterly report of the company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the company's financial
condition and results of operations.


November 24, 2004


/s/ Douglas R. Sanderson
Douglas R. Sanderson, Chief Executive Officer
#### ECONOMY MORTGAGE CO v BOULEVARD LAND & MORTGAGE CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 8753.

Decided April 29, 1929

John A Eldon, Cleveland, for Economy Co.

Efros & Efros, Cleveland, for Boulevard Co.

VICKERY, PJ.

I think the books may be searched in vain for a parallel case.

The method The Economy Mortgage Company used to get relief was entirely unknown and unwarranted in our practice of law, and the court below was absolutely right in sustaining the demurrer.

Shorn of all verbiage and leg.al phraseology, what is it the plaintiff is seeking to do by this amended petition? It is to have the court declare it to be assignee of its own mortgage, when the land upon which that mortgage was given had been foreclosed and it had purchased the mortgaged premises.

Now we are not saying necessarily at *313this time that The Economy Mortgage Company has no rights, but this member of the court does think that they cannot be reached in the way that is sought in the instant case, nor have those rights been attacked yet. If Efros would bring a suit to foreclose his mortgage, then The Economy Mortgage Company might set up the fact of this prior mortgage and the proceedings by which it became the owner, and alleg.e that that mortgage which was foreclosed and which it owned was a paramount mortgage and prior to that of Efros. It would then be a question for the court, with those questions before it, to determine, whether under the circumstances of that case'* The Economy Mortgage Company would be subrogated back to its place as mortgage holder which would place it ahead of the Efros mortgage. I say, we do not now decide that question because it is not now before us. We do say, however, that we do not think that the Mortgage Company could affirmatively maintain an action to have the court decide whether it could be subrogated back to its mortgage on its own application. So far as it may appear, Efros may never have asserted a claim or may never assert his mortgage, and so long as The Economy Mortgage Company is not interfered with it has no real complaint to make, nor could it plead affirmatively to have the court say that its mortgage exists on property which it itself owns.

We have reviewed this whole record and have spent much time in trying to unravel what is a difficult and complicated matter, and we have come to the conclusion that the Common Pleas Court was right in sustaining the demurrer, that this action could not be maintained and while holding the Court of Appeals of the Fourth District was within its power and right in permitting an amendment to the petition when it came to the Court of Appeals on appeal, yet, from the view we take of this, the amended petition does not give the plaintiff any right tq maintain the suit that it is seeking to maintain, and we think that the demurrer to the oetition must be sustained, and the petition dismissed, and if the plaintiff has any right iñ the premises, he must proceed in a different way to obtain it.

The decree will, therefore, be, demurrer sustained, petition dismissed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
# Rlante**~oran** "/**~** 

### , J

March 19,2010

The Honorable Ray LaHood**.~** -- -United StalesITepaftmenrOfTi1Uisportafion 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary LaHood: OnbehalfofPlante & Moran, PLLC, I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDeltaAir Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for ourregion, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are almost 250 Japanese companies located in Indiana and hundreds more whose business activities rely on access to Japan and its market. The growth ofour business ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Indianacorporate representatives look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Indianapolis does not offer international service to Asia, and many ofourbusiness travelers use Detroit as their hub when flying to Japan. Detroit is a proven and successful gatewayto Asia and is an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make itthe airline's gatewayto Asia. The addition offIaneaa as a destination'is a**naturarfiifhat~-·** would clearlybenefit ourregion. Thank you for consideration ofthis request. Sincerely, 

# llWdw;it- /

Matthew Kelly 

# 'I
Plante & Moran, PLLC

Illinois Chicago' Elgin Michigan Ann Arbor' Auburn Hills' Detroit • East Lansing Flint. Grand Rapids' Kalamazoo**~** Macomb' St. Joseph· Southfield· Traverse City Ohio Cleveland • Columbus' Toledo China Shanghai Mexico Monterrey plantemoran.com
§ 1604.6 Employment agencies. ( a ) Section 703(b) of the Civil Rights Act specifically states that it shall be unlawful for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual because of sex. The Commission has determined that private employment agencies which deal exclusively with one sex are engaged in an unlawful employment practice, except to the extent that such agencies limit their services to furnishing employees for particular jobs for which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification.
( b ) An employment agency that receives a job order containing an unlawful sex specification will share responsibility with the employer placing the job order if the agency fills the order knowing that the sex specification is not based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. However, an employment agency will not be deemed to be in violation of the law, regardless of the determination as to the employer, if the agency does not have reason to believe that the employer's claim of bona fide occupations qualification is without substance and the agency makes and maintains a written record available to the Commission of each such job order. Such record shall include the name of the employer, the description of the job and the basis for the employer's claim of bona fide occupational qualification.
( c ) It is the responsibility of employment agencies to keep informed of opinions and decisions of the Commission on sex discrimination.
§ 313.6 Energy statements. ( a ) Each major regulatory action shall include, to the extent practicable, consideration of the probable impact of the action taken or to be taken upon energy efficiency and conservation. The administrative law judge or the DOT decisionmaker, as the case may be, shall normally make findings and conclusions about: ( 1 ) The net change in energy consumption;
( 2 ) The net change in energy efficiency; and
( 3 ) The balance struck between energy factors and other public interest and public convenience and necessity factors in the decision.
( b ) Energy findings and conclusions contained in any initial or recommended decision are a part of that decision and thus subject to discretionary review by DOT.
( c ) In the case of orders to show cause initiated by DOT, energy findings and conclusions may be omitted if adequate information is not available. In such instances, the energy statement shall be integrated into the final decision.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY
-----------------

The undersigned, directors of Kellwood Company (the Company), do hereby
constitute and appoint Hal J. Upbin or W. Lee Capps III as his or her true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, to
sign the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Amended for the fiscal year ended January
29, 2005, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact full power and authority to
sign such document on behalf of the undersigned and to make such filing, as
fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the attorney-in-fact, or
his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated: March 10, 2005



/s/ Robert J. Baer                      /s/ Janice E. Page
---------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Robert J. Baer                          Janice E. Page


/s/ Martin Bloom                        /s/ Robert C. Skinner, Jr.
---------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Martin Bloom                            Robert C. Skinner, Jr.


/s/ Kitty G. Dickerson                  /s/ Hal J. Upbin
---------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Kitty G. Dickerson, Ph.D.               Hal J. Upbin


/s/ Jerry M. Hunter                     /s/ Harvey A. Weinberg
---------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Jerry M. Hunter                         Harvey A. Weinberg


/s/ Larry R. Katzen
---------------------------------
Larry R. Katzen
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHERI SMITH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF SAN JUAN COUNTY ; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

DOUG ALLEN ECHOLS ; et al.,

Defendant s

. No. 20

- 15763

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 04641

- DLR

- ESW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19 , 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Cheri Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15763

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the

district court’s dismissal under its local rules. Hinton v. Pac

. Enter s. , 5 F.3d 391,

395 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith’s action

after Smith failed to file an opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss as

required by Local Rule 7.2( i )

. See D. Ariz. R. 7.2( i ) (providing that failure to file

the required answering memoranda to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the . .

. granting of the motion”) ; Ghazali v. Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53

- 54 (9th Cir. 1995)

( setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to

follow the local rules

, concluding that this court may review the record

independently if the d istrict court does not make explicit findings regarding the

factors, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure )

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion to

file a second amended complaint becaus e Smith failed to describe how the

amendments would cure the deficiencies in the prior complaint , and the proposed

amendments did not cure the deficiencies

. See D. Ariz. R. 15.1 (providing that the

proposed amended pleading “must indicate in what respect it differs from the

pleading which it amends” ); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d

1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that3 20

- 15763

dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We reject as meritless Smith’s contention that the district court erred by not

taking judicial notice of her proposed exhibits.

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 36, 4 6, 54, and 55) are denied.

Defendants’ request that this c ourt designate Smith a vexatious litigant

, set

forth in the answering brief

, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
f8k090809ex10iii_celsius.htm


     

     

    Exhibit
10.3

    


    ADDENDUM
TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     

    Addendum
to Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of September 8, 2009 (this “Addendum”)
by and between Celsius Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation, with principal
executive offices located at 140 NE 4th
Avenue, Suite C, Delray Beach, Florida 33483 (the “Company”), and Golden Gate
Investors, Inc. (“Holder”).

     

    WHEREAS,
the Company and Holder entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of
December 19, 2007.

     

    WHEREAS,
the Company and Holder wish to amend the said Securities Purchase Agreement
dated December 19, 2007.

     

    NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained
herein, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as
follows:

     

    1.           Holder
and Company agree that rights to any and all of the Additional Debentures are
hereby cancelled and terminated without penalty to either party.

     

    2.           Holder
and Company agree that the remaining principal balance of $250,000 of the
Promissory Note due from Holder to the Company will be netted against the
outstanding Debenture. This will leave a current principal balance of the
Debenture of $346,000.

     

    3.           Section
IV. CERTAIN COVENANTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS sub section H. Certain Restrictions is
deleted in its entirety.

     

    4.           The
amendments provided in Sections 1 and 3, and the first sentence of Section 2
above, are contingent upon Company honoring all of Holder's Debenture
conversions associated with the $346,000 Debenture balance, and the Company not
objecting to Holder selling such shares under Rule 144; provided that, for each
conversion, counsel for Holder (reasonably acceptable to the Company), provides
the Company with a legal opinion as to the availability of Rule 144 to
Holder.  For purposes of this provision, “reasonably acceptable”
shall, that counsel for Holder providing the opinion to the Company has a
current/valid professional liability policy of at least $1,000,000 per
incident.

     

    5.           All
other terms and conditions remain the same.

    
 

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly caused this Agreement to be
executed and delivered on the date first above written.

    


    


    Celsius
Holdings,
Inc.                                                                                                Golden
Gate Investors, Inc.

    


    /s/ Jan
Norelid_____________                                                                                /s/ Travis
Huff_________

    Jan
Norelid,
CFO                                                                                                         
Travis Huff, Manager
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1488 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1488

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/1999 of 7 July 1999 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature **

*
Official Journal L 172 , 08/07/1999 P. 0025 - 0026 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1488/1999

of 7 July 1999

concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1372/1999(2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

(1) Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to the said Regulation, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the referred to the Annex to this Regulation;

(2) Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has set down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and those rules also apply to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other relating to trade in goods;

(3) Whereas, pursuant to the said general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table annexed to the present Regulation must be classified under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3;

(4) Whereas it is accepted that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation, can continue to be invoked, under the provisions in Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 established the Community Customs Code(3), for a period of three months by the holder;

(5) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Commitee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The goods described in columm 1 of the annexed table are now classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2 of the said table.

Article 2

Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of member States which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation can continue to be invoked under the provisions of Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 for a period of three months.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 7 July 1999.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999, p. 46.

(3) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

ANNEX

>TABLE>

>PIC FILE= "L_1999172EN.002602.EPS">