alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-139/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 2000/38/EC)

(2004/C 228/23)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-139/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.C. Schieferer and H. Støvlbæk) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139, p. 28), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANTS FIRST QUARTER 1999 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE  MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    100,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,083
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,406,019
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,170,063)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,956
<SALES>                                        103,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,932
<CGS>                                           65,349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,093)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,093)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
§ 2200.21 Intervention; appearance by non-parties. ( a ) *When allowed.* A petition for leave to intervene may be filed at any time prior to 14 days before commencement of the hearing. A petition filed less than 14 days prior to the commencement of the hearing will be denied unless good cause is shown for not timely filing the petition. A petition shall be served on all parties in accordance with § 2200.7.
( b ) *Requirements of petition.* ( 1 ) The petition shall set forth the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and show that the participation of the petitioner will assist in the determination of the issues in question and that the intervention will not unduly delay the proceeding.
( 2 ) If the petitioner is an employee who is not employed by the cited employer but who performed work at the cited worksite, the petition, in addition to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall set forth material facts sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner was exposed to or has access to the hazard arising out of the allegedly violative circumstances, conditions, practices, or operations.
( c ) *Ruling on petition.* ( 1 ) For petitions filed by an employee, as defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Commission or the Judge shall grant the petition for intervention.
( 2 ) For all other petitions, the Commission or the Judge may grant a petition for intervention that meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( 3 ) An order granting a petition shall specify the extent and terms of an intervenor's participation in the proceedings.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0254 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0254

**2000/254/EC: Commission Decision of 20 March 2000 amending Decision 94/984/EC laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultry meat from third countries in respect of Argentina (notified under document number C(2000) 703) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 078 , 29/03/2000 P. 0033 - 0034 *

Commission Decision

of 20 March 2000

amending Decision 94/984/EC laying down animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the importation of fresh poultry meat from third countries in respect of Argentina

(notified under document number C(2000) 703)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/254/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/494/EEC of 26 June 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of fresh poultry meat(1), as last amended by Directive 1999/89/EC(2), and in particular Articles 11 and 12 thereof;

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 94/984/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 1999/549/EC(4), established the animal health conditions and the veterinary certificates for imports of fresh poultry meat from certain third countries. Two different certificates, model A and model B are laid down. Their use depends on the Newcastle disease situation in the country concerned.

(2) Argentina is listed in Annex I to Decision 94/984/EC as a third country which is allowed to use the model B certificate laid down in Annex II to that Decision.

(3) An inspection in July 1998 was carried out by the Commission services in Argentina to review the Newcastle disease situation and additional information has been received from that country.

(4) It appears, in accordance with the results of that inspection and the submitted information, that the Newcastle disease situation in Argentina has improved.

(5) Argentina can comply with the requirements of the model A certificate laid down in Annex II to Decision 94/984/EC.

(6) This Decision shall apply for fresh poultry meat certified as from 1 April 2000.

(7) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Annex I to Decision 94/984/EC the line">TABLE>"

is replaced by:">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision shall apply for fresh poultry meat certified as from 1 April 2000.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2000.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 378, 21.12.1994, p. 11.

(4) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999, p. 36.
[No. 48134-7-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### The City of Seattle Housing Authority, *Respondent,*v. Rikki J. Leeson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-29784-0, Catherine D. Shaffer, J., entered January 18, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
APPEAL — BONDS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1900.]

Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ,

#### Oscar W. Kuhn, Assignee, v. Marguerite Haley et al.

Bond of Trustee in Bankruptcy not Sufficient for Appear.

A party desiring to appeal must give a bond according to the statute and subject to the control of state courts. Therefore the bond of a trustee in bankruptcy is not sufficient to exempt such trustee,-under sec. 5228, Rev. Stat., relating to appeals by parties in a trust capacity, from giving the bond required by sec. 5227, Rev. Stat.

Arpear.

*Dan T. Wright,*for the motion.

*Smith & Kuhn,*contra.

Giffen, J.

This case is submitted upon a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Soon after the action was commenced Oscar W. Kuhn, trustee in bankruptcy, was substituted as plaintiff, and as appellant gave no appeal bond.

Does sec. 5228, Rev. Stat., dispense with the same? This section provides that “ a party in any trust capacity, who has given bond in this state with sureties according to law, shall not be required to give bond and security to perfect an appeal.”

The purpose of this provision manifestly is to relieve an appellant from giving an appeal bond where he has already given a bond as trustee that will afford at least equal protection to the appellee.

Under sec. 5227, Rev. Stat., a party desiring to appeal must give an undertaking, with surety to be approved by the clerk of the comt or a judge thereof.

Section 4953, Rev. Stat., provides the qualifications of sureties.

The bond of a trustee in bankruptcy is not- approved by the clerk of a court of this state or a judge thereof, nor are the qualifications of his sureties prescribed by our statute. He is not under the control of our courts, and cannot be required by them to give additional security.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that a party under sec. 5228, Rev. Stat., must have first given bond according to the statute, and be subject to the control of the courts of this state, in order to claim exemption from giving an appeal bond.

Motion sustained.
#### Sears, Roebuck and Company, Appellant, *v.*9 Avenue-31 Street Corporation et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 8, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

MEDBOX, INC. 
 8439 WEST
SUNSET BLVD., SUITE 101 
 WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA 90069 

April 3, 2015 
 YA Global
Master SPV, Ltd. 
 c/o Yorkville Advisors Global LP 

Investment Manager 
 1012 Springfield Avenue 

Mountainside, New Jersey 07092 
 Gentlemen: 

The Company has entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement, dated September 18, 2014 (the “Original Purchase
Agreement”) with YA Global Master SPV, Ltd (the “Purchaser”) providing for the issuance of 5% Convertible Debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $2,500,000 (the “Debentures”). On September 19,
2014 the Company issued the first Debenture under the Original Purchase Agreement to the Purchaser in the principal amount of $1,000,000. On January 28, 2015 the Company amended and restated this $1,000,000 Debenture and issued the Purchaser
and Amended and Restated version of the Debenture reflecting the modified terms. Also on January 28, 2015 the Company and the Purchaser entered into an Amendment, Modification, and Supplement to the Securities Purchase Agreement (the
“Amendment Agreement”) which amended the Original Purchase Agreement on January 28, 2015 (the Original Purchase Agreement, as amended shall be referred to herein as the “Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which
certain terms and conditions of the Original Purchase Agreement were modified and the form of the Debentures to be issued at the closing were updated. Capitalized terms not defined in this letter shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase
Agreement. 
 This letter memorializes the parties understanding with respect to the waiver of certain closing conditions under the Purchase
Agreement with respect to the Fourth Modified Closing and the Fifth Modified Closing as follows: 
 (i) The amount of the fourth Tranche
shall be increased by $200,000 such that it shall be a Tranche in the Principal Amount of the $300,000 for a Subscription Amount of $300,000. 

(ii) The amount of the fifth Tranche shall be decreased by $200,000 such that it shall be a Tranche in the Principal Amount of the $1,000,000
for a Subscription Amount of $1,000,000. 
 (iii) Purchaser hereby waives, with respect to the Fourth Modified Closing, the condition that
the Company has received its first comment letter form the Commission in respect of the new Registration Statement to be filed as set forth in Section 2.1(c) of the Amendment Agreement. 

(iv) The waiver is subject to execution and delivery of mutually acceptable forms of a Debenture and Warrant with respect to the Fourth
Modified Closing. 







 No other provisions of the Purchase Agreement have been waived, and this waiver is limited to the
Third Modified Closing. 
 The parties further agree that the Fixed Conversion Price, as defined in each of the Debentures, has been reduced
to $1.83 as a result of a dilutive issuance. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	Medbox, Inc.
		
	By:		




	Name:		
	Title:		CFO
	
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	
	YA Global Master SPV, Ltd.
		
	By:		Yorkville Advisors Global, LP
	Its:		Investment Manager
		
	By:		




	Name:		David Gonzalez
	Title:		Partner & General Counsel
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.8 Disclosure to credit reporting agencies. ( a ) In accordance with guidelines established by the Chief Financial Officer, the responsible Department of Labor agency shall make the disclosure of information on the debtor to the credit reporting agency. Such disclosure to consumer credit reporting agencies shall be made on or after the date specified in the § 20.4 notification to the individual owing the claim, and shall be comprised of the information set forth in the initial determination, or any modification thereof.
( b ) This section shall not apply to individual debtors when— ( 1 ) Such debtor has repaid or agreed to repay his or her obligation, and such agreement is still valid, as provided in § 20.6; or
( 2 ) Such debtor has filed for review of the claim under § 20.7(b), and the reviewing official or employee has not issued a decision on the review.
( c ) In addition, the agency may determine not to make a disclosure of information to a credit reporting agency when the agency, on its own initiative, is reviewing and has not concluded such review of its initial determination of the claim under § 20.7(f).
#### § 35.37 Hearings, decisions, and post-termination proceedings.

Certain DOL procedural provisions applicable to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to DOL enforcement of these regulations. They are found at 29 CFR 31.9 through 31.11.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4762 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4762

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
To designate the airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad 
 International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, as the ``Senator 
               Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The airport traffic control tower located at Piedmont Triad 
International Airport in Greensboro, North Carolina, and any successor 
airport traffic control tower at that location, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the airport traffic control tower 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Senator Kay Hagan Airport Traffic Control Tower''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0556 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0556

**98/556/EC: Commission Decision of 30 September 1998 amending Commission Decision 97/467/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (notified under document number C(1998) 2941) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 266 , 01/10/1998 P. 0086 - 0086 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 September 1998 amending Commission Decision 97/467/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat (notified under document number C(1998) 2941) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/556/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products and live bivalve molluscs (1), as amended by Decision 97/34/EC (2) and in particular Article 2(1) and Article 7 thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 97/467/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 98/219/EC (4), drew up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of rabbit meat and farmed game meat; whereas the list of establishments drawn up by the aforementioned Decision does not include establishments producing ratite meat;

Whereas the list of third countries from which Member States are authorised to import ratite meat, the animal health conditions and the veterinary certification required for import of this meat in the Community are not established yet;

Whereas Member States in accordance with the provisions of Decision 97/467/EC may until 1 October 1998 authorise establishments for import or ratite meat;

Whereas the date of 1 October 1998 shall be replaced by 1 October 1999 to allow for adoption of harmonised legislation proposed for presentation to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for observations;

Whereas the measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 1(2)(a) of Decision 97/467/EC the words '1 October 1998` are replaced by '1 October 1999`.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 33.

(3) OJ L 199, 26. 7. 1997, p. 57.

(4) OJ L 82, 19. 3. 1998, p. 44.
§ 1614.110 Final action by agencies. ( a ) *Final action by an agency following a decision by an administrative judge.* When an administrative judge has issued a decision under § 1614.109(b), (g) or (i), the agency shall take final action on the complaint by issuing a final order within 40 days of receipt of the hearing file and the administrative judge's decision. The final order shall notify the complainant whether or not the agency will fully implement the decision of the administrative judge and shall contain notice of the complainant's right to appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the right to file a civil action in federal district court, the name of the proper defendant in any such lawsuit and the applicable time limits for appeals and lawsuits. If the final order does not fully implement the decision of the administrative judge, then the agency shall simultaneously file an appeal in accordance with § 1614.403 and append a copy of the appeal to the final order. A copy of EEOC Form 573 shall be attached to the final order.
( b ) *Final action by an agency in all other circumstances.* When an agency dismisses an entire complaint under § 1614.107, receives a request for an immediate final decision or does not receive a reply to the notice issued under § 1614.108(f), the agency shall take final action by issuing a final decision. The final decision shall consist of findings by the agency on the merits of each issue in the complaint, or, as appropriate, the rationale for dismissing any claims in the complaint and, when discrimination is found, appropriate remedies and relief in accordance with subpart E of this part. The agency shall issue the final decision within 60 days of receiving notification that a complainant has requested an immediate decision from the agency, or within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing or an immediate final decision where the complainant has not requested either a hearing or a decision. The final action shall contain notice of the right to appeal the final action to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the right to file a civil action in federal district court, the name of the proper defendant in any such lawsuit and the applicable time limits for appeals and lawsuits. A copy of EEOC Form 573 shall be attached to the final action.
( c ) When an agency takes final action by issuing a final order or decision that requires the agency to include a notice that the complainant has the right to file an appeal with the EEOC, the notice shall inform the complainant that the appeal may be filed using the EEOC Public Portal, available at *https://publicportal.eeoc.gov .*
[64 FR 37657, July 12, 1999, as amended at 88 FR 57881, Aug. 24, 2023]
#### In re MUCHINNIPPI CREEK etc FIRST NAT BK of WAPAKONETA et v WILDERMUTH et

Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist, Logan Co

No 777.

Decided April 6, 1929

West & Campbell, George S. Middleton, Dittmer & Timmermeister, Elmer Godwin and A. Jay Miller, all of Bellefontaine, and Otto J. Boesel, Wapakoneta, for plaintiffs in error.

F. G. Long, Bellefontaine, Mills & Doorley, Sidney and Dow Aiken, Bellefontaine, for defendants in error.

*159Before Judges Hughes, Justice and Crow.

Full Opinion will be published later. Watch Omnibus Index.