alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Usunco      Automotive Limited                                       | – | British      Virgin Islands |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-----------------------------|
| (“Usunco”)                                               |    |                        |
|                                                                 |    |                        |
| Zhejiang      ZhongChai Machinery Co., Ltd.                          | – | PRC                         |
| (75% subsidiary of      Usunco)                                      |    |                        |
|                                                                 |    |                        |
| Zhejiang      Shengte Transmission Co., Ltd.                         | – | PRC                         |
| (100% subsidiary of      ZhejiangZhongChai      Machinery Co., Ltd.) |    |                        |

----
# C_2013189EN.01001901.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Canga Fano v Council

(Case T-281/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2009 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Comparison of merits - Review by the court of the manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 189/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Diego Canga Fano (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case F-104/09 Canga Fano v Council, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

Canga Fano

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Diego Canga Fano to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Diego Canga Fano to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.064-4 Marking. ( a ) *Labels.* Each water safety buoyant device must be marked in accordance with the recognized laboratory's listing and labeling requirements in accordance with § 160.064-3(a). At a minimum, all labels must include— ( 1 ) Size information, as appropriate;
( 2 ) The Coast Guard approval number;
( 3 ) Manufacturer's contact information;
( 4 ) Model name/number;
( 5 ) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
( 6 ) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special instructions for use.
( b ) *Durability of marking.* Marking must be of a type which will be durable and legible for the expected life of the device.
[USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56499, Sep. 22, 2014]
§ 109.105 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). To enforce any edition other than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and make the material available to the public. All approved material is on file at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. The material is also available at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* All material is available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The material for incorporation by reference in this part and the sections affected are:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM Adjunct F 1626, Symbols for Use in Accordance with Regulation II-2/20 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention as amended PCN: 12-616260-01 (1996)—109.563 International Maritime Organization (IMO) Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR United Kingdom. Resolution A.654.(16), Graphical Symbols for Fire Control Plans—109.563
[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51208, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52191, Sept. 30, 1998; USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67182, Dec. 1, 1999; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49233, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59781, Oct. 1, 2012; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60152, Sept. 30, 2013]
Exhibit
10.1


 


SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY BONUS FOR THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


 


The
following is a description of a special discretionary bonus to be paid to the
Chief Executive Officer of Zenith National Insurance Corp. (the “Company”)
outside of the Executive Officer Bonus Plan. 
This description is provided pursuant to Paragraph 10(iii) to Item 601
of Regulation S-K requiring a written description of a compensatory arrangement
when no formal document contains the compensation information.


 


In addition to other
compensation arrangements that the Company has adopted, the Compensation
Committee, in its discretion, may award bonuses on a recurring or nonrecurring
basis outside of the Executive Officer Bonus Plan in amounts that are
determined, taking into account factors used to determine Executive Officers’
base compensation and any other factors the Compensation Committee determines
to be relevant.  Amounts paid as special
discretionary bonuses do not come under the exceptions set out in Section
162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and may not be
deductible for federal income tax purposes to the extent a recipient’s other
income is greater than $1,000,000 and does not fall within one of the
exceptions.


 


On January 12, 2005, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company awarded Stanley
R. Zax, Chairman and President, a special discretionary bonus of
$1,000,000.  This bonus was in
recognition of the performance in the Company’s investment portfolio that was
achieved in 2004 due to Mr. Zax’s direct involvement.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.1826 Opening of cargo tanks and cargo sampling. ( a ) The master shall ensure that each cargo tank opening is fully closed at all times.
( b ) The master may authorize the opening of a cargo tank: ( 1 ) During tank cleaning; and
( 2 ) To sample a cargo that Table 4 allows to be carried in a containment system having a restricted gauging system if: ( i ) The cargo tank is not being filled during sampling;
( ii ) The vent system has relieved any pressure in the tank; and
( iii ) The person sampling the cargo wears protective clothing.
( c ) The master shall ensure that cargoes requiring closed gauging as listed in Table 4 are sampled only through the controlled sampling arrangement of the cargo tank.
# C_2012039EN.01001501.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission

(Case T-402/11 R)

(Application for interim measures - Claim for remission of import duties of some food products - Decision to refer the documents in the case to the national authorities - Applications for interim measures - Inadmissibility - No urgency)

(2012/C 39/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Preparados Alimenticios del Sur, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: I. Acero Campos, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and L. Bouyon, Agents)

Re:

Applications for interim measures, including suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission of 29 June 2011 informing the applicant of the reference to the Spanish authorities of the documents in the case relating to its claim for remission of import duties, so that those authorities can rule on that claim.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.007-8 Retests. ( a ) Manufacturers of approved structural insulation shall maintain quality control of materials used, manufacturing methods, and the finished product utilizing appropriate quality control testing so as to meet the requirements of this specification, and any other conditions outlined on the certificate of approval. Structural insulation materials are not inspected at regularly scheduled factory inspections; however, approved materials are subject to retest for continued compliance with the requirements of this subpart on the following basis: ( 1 ) The Coast Guard may detail a marine inspector or other Coast Guard designated inspector at any time to visit any place where structural insulation is manufactured to conduct any inspections or examinations deemed advisable and to select representative samples for further examination, inspection, or tests. The inspector shall be admitted to any place where work is done on structural insulation or component materials.
( 2 ) At a frequency of not less than once every 5 years following issuance of approval, samples of an approved material selected from production stock shall be forwarded by the inspector to the Commandant for testing in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. Where the plant is outside the jurisdiction of a Coast Guard District Commander, the frequency of such testing shall be once every 2 years. The cost of such testing shall be borne by the manufacturer. The nature of the product or its production may dictate a differing retest frequency.
( 3 ) The Coast Guard reserves the right to make spot-check tests of approved structural insulation at any time on samples selected by a marine inspector obtained during installation on a vessel. The manufacturer will incur no expense for such tests, but the results, shall be binding upon the approval of his product.
( b ) A small scale furnace test (2′ × 2′ furnace test 60 cm. × 60 cm.) shall be conducted. The time of failure shall not vary from the original small scale test values by more than 10 percent. In addition tests shall be conducted to determine incombustibility (§ 164.009), density and thickness. Values of retesting for density and thickness shall not vary from the original test values by more than 10 percent.
,SUPREME COURT.

#### Williams, Assignee, respondent, agt. Allen *et al.,*appellants.

*New York General Term,*

*October,*1874.

*Ohm'mterr of action determined by complaint—referable actions.*

Where an answer sets up a counter-claim and claims damages by way of recoupment, it does not change the character of the action in the complaint founded on contract, nor render the action non-referable.

One item of account made up of a large number of small charges which would require to be proved on the trial is sufficient ground of reference. ‘

Appeal by defendants from an order of reference.

*Coles Morris & Michael H. Cardozo,*for appellants.

*Culver & Bertrand,*for respondent.

Lawrence, *J.*

I think that the order of reference in this case should be affirmed. In *Welsh*agt. *Darragh*(52 *N. Y.,*590), it was held that the character of an action must be determined by the complaint, and that if that is upon contract the action is referable; and although the answer sets up a counter-claim and claims damages by way of recoupment, it does not change the character of the action, or render it non-referable.

It is quite apparent that the trial of this action may, and that it probably will, involve the examination of a long account (52 *N. Y.,*590, *supra).*

It is true that the defendants state, in the affidavit read in opposition to the motion, that the only items which will be *358disputed by the defendants are the items on the debit side of the account, under the date of March 4, 1873, relating to the gold coupons part due, and the premium thereon, and also for the amount overcharged for advertising bill, estimated at $1,508.

This last item of $1,500 is the aggregate of bills of amounts alleged to have been disbursed by the defendants for advertising, under the agreement between them and the plaintiff’s assignor (Case, p. 17, *fol.*51). The examination of these bills must require the scrutiny of a large number of small charges, and the verification of the same. Tinder these circumstances, I am not disposed to interfere with the order of •* the special term.

It must be affirmed, with costs.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.
THEA~ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

HonorableJesse James Treasurer, State of Texas Capitol Station Austin, Texas Opinion~~-464-~ Re: Authority of the State Treasurer to clear certain funds held by the TreasuryDepartmentby depositing the funds to the GeneralRevenue Dear Mr. James: Fund.

Pleasebe advised that Opinionw-464, dated June 20, 1958, Is amended on page three (3) thereof so that the sum to the right of the fourthparagraph from the top of thepage shallbe Eight Hundred Thirty-six and 36/100 Dollars ($836.36), instead of Seven Hundred Six and 36,400 Dollars ($706.36). Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

HGB:zt APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman Riley Eugene Fletcher Richard B. Stone 

# BY

Assistant "

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENEXAL BY W. V. Geppert
No. 6290.

#### Steve Stevens *v.*The State.

1. Aggravated Assault and Battery—Evidence.—See the opinion for the substance of evidence *held,*insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated assault and battery because insufficient to support the ground of aggravation alleged in either of the counts of the indictment.

2. Same—Diligence—Hew Trial.—The application for continuance shows that the defendant sued out as many as four subpranas and one attachment for the absent witness, who was a resident of Dallas county, and alleged that by the absent witness he would prove that the alleged injured party was the aggressor, and that he struck said party only in defense. The testimony of the prosecuting witness was not only contradicted as to material matter by the witnesses for the defense, but they testified that the prosecuting witness cursed the defendant, and struck him before defendant struck the prosecuting witness, and that, when the defendant finally struck the two blows inflicted upon the prosecuting witness, he, defendant, was retreating. *Held*that the diligence being sufficient, and the absent testimony being, in view of the proof, both material and probably true, a new trial should have been awarded.

Appeal from the County Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. E. G. Bower.

This conviction was for an aggravated assault and battery on one G. W. Blasdell, and the penalty assessed was a fine of fifty dollars and sixty days in the county jail.

*J. J. Eckford,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*462Opinion delivered April 10, 1889.

White, Presiding Judge.

There were two counts in the information upon which this conviction was had, viz: One for an aggravated assault committed with a deadly weapon, and one for an aggravated assault, by which serious bodily injury was inflicted. In our opinion neither of these counts has been established by the evidence as disclosed in the record before us.

The only evidence as to the character of the weapon used is that “it was a good sized walking-stick, made of Bois d’Arc and loaded.” Defendant’s witness testified that “the walking-stick was a fair sized walking-stick.” There is no evidence that it was a deadly weapon.

As to the injury inflicted, the injured party, Blasdell, testified that when he was struck again over the eyes, this last blow partially stunned him and defendant ran off. The other State’s witness says the lick over the eye cut the skin. Another witness saw Blasdell wipe blood from his forehead. This evidence is insufficient to show serious bodily injury.

Under the circumstances developed by the evidence adduced at the trial, we are further of opinion that a new trial should have been awarded on defendant’s application for a continuance. We think the application showed sufficient diligence in the first place, and the materiality and probable truth of the proposed testimony in the light of the other testimony is, we think, unquestionable. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.038-6 Procedure for approval. ( a ) Portable magazine chests are not subject to formal approval, but will be accepted by the inspector on the basis of this subpart at annual inspections and reinspections of vessels.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 147 Sixty Fifth Plenary: Minimum 
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision 
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment/Fourth Meeting of Working Group 75

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 147 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147: Minimum Operational Performance 
Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne 
Equipment and Working Group 75.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 24, 2007 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Mercure Toulouse Saint Georges 
Hotel, Rue St. Jerome-Place Occitane, 31000 Toulouse, Haute-Garonne.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 147 meeting and Working Group 
75. The agenda will include:
<bullet> May 24:
    <bullet> Opening Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Review/
Approve minutes from February WG75/SC 186 meeting, Review agenda).
    <bullet> Notice of matters that WG51 wishes to raise.
    <bullet> Notice of matters that SC147 wishes to raise.
    <bullet> Notice of any other business.
    <bullet> SC-147 Activity Reports.
    <bullet> Surveillance Working Group (SWG) Report.
    <bullet> Operations Working Group (OWG) Report.
    <bullet> Requirements Working Group (RWG) Activities.
    <bullet> Comments received on draft DO-185B.
    <bullet> FAA TCAS II Program Office Activities.
    <bullet> CP115-Consideration of the Way Forward.
    <bullet> Plans and Schedule to Complete DO-185B.
    <bullet> Closing Session (Other Business, Future Actions/
Activities, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2007.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 07-1989 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001006591
<NAME> WHITE PINE SOFTWARE, INC
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      14,703,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,527,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                   124,227
<INVENTORY>                                     98,455
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,378,166
<PP&E>                                       3,839,386
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,325,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,610,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,851,692
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,057
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,610,140
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,051,777
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,889,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,907,690
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                33,757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,818,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,761
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,825,636)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)


</TABLE>