alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued May 26;

demurrer sustained May 27, 1931

#### KOWITZ *v.*VAN WINKLE, Attorney General, et al.

(299 P. 1017)

*Chris J. Kowitz,*of Salem, for appellant.

*Willis 8. Moore,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from ballot title prepared by the Attorney General, which this day has been considered in opinion in *McDonald v Van Winkle et al.*On oral argument the petitioner confessed that he had no objection to the ballot title filed by the Attorney General and that the only purpose of this proceeding was to obtain a ruling by this court as to the sufficiency of the ballot title. Under the circumstances, there will be no consideration of the objections set out in the petition.

It follows that the demurrer to the petition is sustained and the ballot titles as prepared by the Attorney General are hereby certified to the secretary of state.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 July 2004

in Case T-117/02: Grupo El Prado Cervera, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ‘CHUFAFIT’ - Earlier national word and figurative marks ‘CHUFI’ - Likelihood of confusion - Likelihood of association - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2004/C 239/36)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-117/02: Grupo El Prado Cervera, SL, established in Valencia (Spain), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J.F. Crespo Carrillo and G. Schneider), the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Helene Debuschewitz and Others, as heirs of Johann Debuschewitz, residing at Rösrath-Forsbach (Germany), represented by E. Krings, lawyer — action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2002 (Case R 798/2001-1) concerning the opposition proceedings between Grupo El Prado Cervera, SL, and J. Debuschewitz — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                    a21, Inc.
                        One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
                         San Francisco, California 94111
                                 (415) 284-2121


                            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 a21, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended June 30,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albert Pleus, Chairman
of the Board 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:

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/ Albert H. Pleus
--------------------------------
Albert H. Pleus, Chairman
(Principal Financial Officer)



                                       22
----

----

I Mededelingen

Commissie

----

Wisselkoersen van de euro (1)

7 juli 2004

(2004/C 176/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Bron: door de Europese Centrale Bank gepubliceerde referentiekoers.

----

----

Voorafgaande aanmelding van een concentratie

(Zaak nr. COMP/M.3402 — Siemens/3i/AGUTH/XtraMind)

Zaak die in aanmerking kan komen voor een vereenvoudigde procedure

(2004/C 176/02)

(Voor de EER relevante tekst)

----

(1)PB L 395 van 30.12.1989, blz. 1; corrigendum PB L 257 van 21.9.1990, blz. 13.

(2)PB L 180 van 9.7.1997, blz. 1; corrigendum PB L 40 van 13.2.1998, blz. 17.

(3)PB C 217 van 29.7.2000, blz. 32.

----

----

Mededeling van de Commissie in het kader van de uitvoering van Richtlijn 90/385/EEG

(voor de EER relevante tekst)

Bekendmaking van titels en referentienummers van geharmoniseerde normen in het kader van de richtlijn

Voorbeeld: Voor EN 60601-1:1990 geldt het volgende:

----

(1)  CEN: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 36, B - 1050 Brussel, tel: (32-2) 550 08 11, fax: (32-2) 550 08 19

CENELEC: rue de Stassart/De Stassartstraat 35, B - 1050 Brussel, tel: (32-2) 519 68 71, fax: (32-2) 519 69 19

ETSI: BP 152, F - 06561 Valbonne Cedex, tel: (33) 492 94 42 12, fax: (33) 493 65 47 16

----

----

Voorafgaande aanmelding van een concentratie

(Zaak nr. COMP/M. 3508 — Doughty Hanson/Balta)

Zaak die in aanmerking kan komen voor een vereenvoudigde procedure

(2004/C 176/04)

(Voor de EER relevante tekst)

----

(1)PB L 24 van 29.1.2004, blz. 1.

(2)PB C 217 van 29.7.2000, blz. 32. Verordening van de Raad (EEG) Nr. 4064/89 werd vervangen door de Verordening van de Raad (EG) Nr. 139/2004.

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMMUNITY CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,700,179
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         615,279
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,400,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,567,695
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     29,164,453
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (390,789)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,390,917
<DEPOSITS>                                 337,949,667
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             94,575
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,050,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,496,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              48,390,917
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,127,784
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              415,578
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                54,726
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,598,088
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             751,131
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             759,245
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          838,843
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   94,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                779,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,336
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      25,336
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,336
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.23
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               300,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              390,689
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           390,689
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
----

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-183/04)

(2004/C 217/39)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH, Mönchengladbach (Germany), represented by G. Kroemer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant manufactures cigarette lighters and imports cigarette lighters and parts for cigarette lighters. It contests Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004.

The applicant submits that, by classifying, in the contested regulation, the base metal wheels imported for the manufacture of cigarette lighters in Mexico and Hong Kong as parts (of cigarette lighters) under subheading 961390 of the customs nomenclature, the Commission extended the scope of that subheading beyond its wording. As a result, primary products also used in other goods which cannot be classed under heading 9613 were classified as parts for cigarette lighters. The Commission thereby exceeded the limits of its discretion.

The applicant also claims that, in taking account of the intended use of the metal wheels in the manufacture of cigarette lighters, the Commission acted in breach of the principle that goods are to be classified according to their objective nature. In the reasons stated in the regulation, express reference is made to the wheels' intended use.

Moreover, the applicant submits that, when classifying the metal wheels, the Commission failed to comply with the explanatory notes on the Harmonised System (HS) issued by the Customs Cooperation Council in that, as is stated in the reasons, it based the classification of the wheels in the customs tariff on the criterion of intended use rather than applying the criterion of appearance.

----

(1)  OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21.

----
#### SNYDER et v SILBERMAN et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, ■ Cuyahoga Co

No 10667.

Decided April 21, 1930

H. A. Blachman, Cleveland, for Snyder, et.

Persky & Loeb, Cleveland, for Silberman, et. ‘

LEMERT, PJ and SHERICK, J (5th Dist) and ROBERTS, J (7th Dist) sitting

*419LEMERT, PJ.

It is claimed on behalf of plaintiffs in error that they were not properly and legally served. The record discloses on page five of the bill of exceptions that Louis Snyder testified that he knew there was an action pending and that he had talked it over with his father and that he knew it was concerning commissions claimed by defendants in error.

Plaintiffs in error contended in the court below that they had no financial -interest in the original transaction. However, from the record it is disclosed that they had entered into ,an agreement to sell certain interest they had in their property and to convey title to the same.

There was, in the court below, a joint answer filed by all five defendants, and that, coupled with the fact that the parties were in court and had their day, the issue was tried and determined by the court, so that the issue before this court is not so much a question of law as it is a question of fact. As to the law that court may set aside a judgment and permit a defendant to have his day in court, there can be no doubt, but we find from the record that all the defendants were in court and their interests were ably protected at the trial, and the court below refused to vacate said judgment, so that the record showing that the plaintiffs in error were in court and the record failing to disclose that they filed any motion for new trial, within the time prescribed by law, it occurs to us that justice did prevail and that there was no need for error proceedings at that time. We therefore find and hold that the service of process in this case was good; that the defendants knew about this litigation; that they had their day in court; that the court having heard the evidence rendered a proper judgment.

We find and hold that the plaintiffs in error had a fair and impartial trial and hearing and that therefore we find that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed. Exceptions may be noted.

Sherick and Roberts, JJ. concur.
§ 2550.404a-4 Selection of annuity providers—safe harbor for individual account plans. ( a ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) This section establishes a safe harbor for satisfying the fiduciary duties under section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1104-1114, in selecting an annuity provider and contract for benefit distributions from an individual account plan. For guidance concerning the selection of an annuity provider for defined benefit plans see 29 CFR 2509.95-1.
( 2 ) This section sets forth an optional means for satisfying the fiduciary responsibilities under section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA with respect to the selection of an annuity provider or contract for benefit distributions. This section does not establish minimum requirements or the exclusive means for satisfying these responsibilities.
( b ) *Safe harbor.* The selection of an annuity provider for benefit distributions from an individual account plan satisfies the requirements of section 404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA if the fiduciary: ( 1 ) Engages in an objective, thorough and analytical search for the purpose of identifying and selecting providers from which to purchase annuities;
( 2 ) Appropriately considers information sufficient to assess the ability of the annuity provider to make all future payments under the annuity contract;
( 3 ) Appropriately considers the cost (including fees and commissions) of the annuity contract in relation to the benefits and administrative services to be provided under such contract;
( 4 ) Appropriately concludes that, at the time of the selection, the annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments under the annuity contract and the cost of the annuity contract is reasonable in relation to the benefits and services to be provided under the contract; and
( 5 ) If necessary, consults with an appropriate expert or experts for purposes of compliance with the provisions of this paragraph (b).
( c ) *Time of selection.* For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, the “time of selection” may be either: ( 1 ) The time that the annuity provider and contract are selected for distribution of benefits to a specific participant or beneficiary; or
( 2 ) The time that the annuity provider is selected to provide annuity contracts at future dates to participants or beneficiaries, provided that the selecting fiduciary periodically reviews the continuing appropriateness of the conclusion described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, taking into account the factors described in paragraphs (b)(2), (3) and (5) of this section. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(2), a fiduciary is not required to review the appropriateness of this conclusion with respect to any annuity contract purchased for any specific participant or beneficiary.
[73 FR 58449, Oct. 7, 2008]
ELRC EX. 10.2_2.28.15



*** Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain portions of this Agreement.  Omitted portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


	
			
	KEYSIGHT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


	ANT76












EXHIBIT 10.2
Amendment #8 to Authorized Technology Partner
Program Agreement No. ANT76


by and between Electro Rent Corporation ("Electro Rent")
and Keysight Technologies, Inc. ("Keysight")


 
This Amendment to the above referenced Program Agreement (“Agreement”) is executed by and between Keysight Technologies, Inc. (“Keysight”) and Electro Rent Corporation (“Electro Rent”) effective the 1st day of June  2014 (the “Effective Date”).
The following modifications are hereby made to the Program Agreement:
1.       Reseller may be eligible for an [***] in the amount of [***] if Reseller’s total [***] equals or exceeds [***].   The March [***] for all eligible Products, excluding [***].    The [***] will be provided [***].   Keysight will [***] on or before May 1, 2015.  The [***] will be available for [***]. 
2.    If Resellers receives a [***] but subsequently cancels an order(s) placed in [***] time frame and such cancellation would result in either no [***], Keysight may adjust such the [***].  




ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT REMAIN UNCHANGED AND ARE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


EFFECTIVE DATE:  March 30, 2015




	
					
	AGREED TO:
	 
	AGREED TO:

	Customer:
	Electro Rent Corporation
	 
	Keysight:
	Keysight Technologies, Inc.

	 
	/s/ Meryl Evans
	 
	 
	/s/ Jennifer Baker

	 
	Authorized Representative Signature
	 
	 
	Authorized Representative Signature

	Name:
	Meryl Evans
	 
	Name:
	Jennifer Baker

	Title:
	VP
	 
	Title:
	Contracts Specialist

	Address:
	6060 Sepulveda Bl
	 
	Address:
	9780 South Meridian Blvd.

	 
	Van Nuys, CA 91411
	 
	 
	Englewood, CO 80112



































[***] - Confidential portions of this document denoted by [***] have been redacted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


	
			
	E08


	 
	Page 1/2



	Revision Date 01-August-2014


	 
	Revision Number 1



	 
	 
	Printing Date 1 April 2015









*** Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain portions of this Agreement.  Omitted portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


	
			
	KEYSIGHT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


	ANT76












	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 







[***] - Confidential portions of this document denoted by [***] have been redacted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


	
			
	E08


	 
	Page 2/2



	Revision Date 01-August-2014


	 
	Revision Number 1



	 
	 
	Printing Date 1 April 2015
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.1402 Ground conditions. ( a ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) “Ground conditions” means the ability of the ground to support the equipment (including slope, compaction, and firmness).
( 2 ) “Supporting materials” means blocking, mats, cribbing, marsh buggies (in marshes/wetlands), or similar supporting materials or devices.
( b ) The equipment must not be assembled or used unless ground conditions are firm, drained, and graded to a sufficient extent so that, in conjunction (if necessary) with the use of supporting materials, the equipment manufacturer's specifications for adequate support and degree of level of the equipment are met. The requirement for the ground to be drained does not apply to marshes/wetlands.
( c ) The controlling entity must: ( 1 ) Ensure that ground preparations necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section are provided.
( 2 ) Inform the user of the equipment and the operator of the location of hazards beneath the equipment set-up area (such as voids, tanks, utilities) if those hazards are identified in documents (such as site drawings, as-built drawings, and soil analyses) that are in the possession of the controlling entity (whether at the site or off-site) or the hazards are otherwise known to that controlling entity.
( d ) If there is no controlling entity for the project, the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be met by the employer that has authority at the site to make or arrange for ground preparations needed to meet paragraph (b) of this section.
( e ) If the A/D director or the operator determines that ground conditions do not meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, that person's employer must have a discussion with the controlling entity regarding the ground preparations that are needed so that, with the use of suitable supporting materials/devices (if necessary), the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section can be met.
( f ) This section does not apply to cranes designed for use on railroad tracks when used on railroad tracks that are part of the general railroad system of transportation that is regulated pursuant to the Federal Railroad Administration under 49 CFR part 213 and that comply with applicable Federal Railroad Administration requirements.
§ 1960.88 Membership and participation. ( a ) Each field council shall consist of the designated representatives of local Federal activities appointed by their respective activity heads, after consultation with appropriate employee representatives and appropriate certified safety and health committees.
( b ) Federal agency heads should encourage each field activity having responsibility for the safety and health of agency employees to participate in the programs of these councils.
( c ) Each activity head shall appoint an equal number of officially designated representatives (with designated alternates), from management and from nonmanagement employees, consistent with applicable collective bargaining arrangements.
( d ) Representatives shall be selected from individuals in the following categories: ( 1 ) Federal occupational safety and health professionals.
( 2 ) Related Federal professionals, or collateral duty personnel. This includes persons employed in professions or occupations related to or concerned with safety and health of employees.
( 3 ) Line management officials.
( 4 ) Representatives of recognized Federal labor or other employee organizations. ( i ) Where certified occupational safety and health committees exist, nonmanagement members of the committees shall be given the opportunity to select one individual for official appointment to field councils by the activity head.
( ii ) Where employees are represented by collective bargaining arrangements, but no committee exists, nonmanagement members of field councils shall be selected from among those recommended by the exclusive bargaining representatives for official appointment to field councils by the activity head.
( iii ) Where some employees in an activity are represented by collective bargaining arrangements and others are not, the agency head should solicit nominations for the agency's designated nonmanagement representative and alternate both from lawful labor organization(s) with collective bargaining status and from employees not represented through collective bargaining and should select from the nominees for official appointment as designated employee representatives on the field council.
( e ) Representatives from non-Federal organizations. Associate membership may be granted to any non-Federally employed person who demonstrated interest in occupational safety and health. An associate member has no voting rights and may not hold any office.
( f ) No maximum limitation shall be imposed by a council on itself, in regard to the numbers of personnel in any of the above categories that may attend meetings and/or participate in field council activities. An agency is free to have any number of individuals, in addition to the officially designated representatives participate in council activities.
( g ) Only officially designated agency representatives or their alternates shall have voting privileges. All representatives and participants shall serve without additional compensation.
( h ) Travel funds shall be made available equally to management and nonmanagement employee representatives.