alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013367EN.01000501.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia)) — Katarína Haasová v Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

(Case C-22/12) (1)

1

(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Road traffic accident - Death of a passenger - Right to compensation of the partner and of the child, who is a minor - Non-material damage - Compensation - Cover by compulsory insurance)

2013/C 367/07

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: Katarína Haasová

Applicant:

Defendants: Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove — Interpretation of Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1) — Scope of the guarantee in favour of third parties provided by compulsory insurance — National provision not providing for compensation for non-material damage

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 1(1) and (2) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, and Article 1(1) of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as meaning that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must cover compensation for non-material damage suffered by the next of kin of the deceased victims of a road traffic accident, in so far as such compensation is provided for as part of the civil liability of the insured party under the national law applicable in the dispute in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

1

---
EX-10.10






AMENDMENT NUMBER 1




to the




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Between

KNBT BANCORP, INC.,

KEYSTONE NAZARETH BANK & TRUST COMPANY,

And

SCOTT V. FAINOR




WHEREAS, in connection with the entering into of the Agreement and Plan of Merger between
Keystone Savings Bank (now known as Keystone Nazareth Bank & Trust Company) (the ”Bank”) and First
Colonial Group, Inc. (“First Colonial”) (the “Merger Agreement”), the Bank and Scott V. Fainor (the
“Executive”) entered into an Employment Agreement dated March 5, 2003 (referred to hereinafter as
the “Agreement”);



WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms of Section 29 of the Agreement and in connection with
the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, KNBT Bancorp, Inc., the
parent holding company of the Bank (the Company”), became a party to the Agreement (the Bank and
the Company are hereinafter referred to as the “Employers”);



WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement, the term “Effective Date” was defined as the
effective date of the merger of the Company and First Colonial (the “Merger”);




WHEREAS, the Effective Date of the Merger was October 31, 2003; and



WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors of the Employers and Executive desire to amend the Agreement
to reflect certain mutually agreed upon revisions.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the Employers and
Executive do hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:



1. For purposes of the Agreement, Effective Date is hereby defined as being December 31, 2004 and
all references therein to such term will mean December 31, 2004.



2. All other sections and provisions in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and
are incorporated by reference into this Amendment No. 1 except that the compensation of Executive
shall be that amount which is presently in effect as determined by the Boards of Directors of the
Employers and not the initial compensation referred to in Section 4(a) of the Agreement.




This Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement shall be deemed effective as of December 31, 2004.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 1 to the
Agreement as of this 27th day of January 2005.



1




KNBT BANCORP, INC.



ATTEST:



	 	 	 
	/s/ Michele Linsky	 	By: /s/ Jeffrey P. Feather
	Witness

	 	Title: Chairman







ATTEST: KEYSTONE NAZARETH BANK & TRUST COMPANY



	 	 	 
	/s/ Michele Linsky	 	By: /s/ Eugene T. Sobol
	Witness

	 	Title: Sr. Executive Vice President, Chief

Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer








	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE





	 	 	 
	/s/ Michele Linsky	 	By: /s/ Scott V. Fainor
	Witness

	 	Scott V. Fainor
	 
	 	 








2
#### Arthur M. Dodge and another, *Appellants, v.*John McDermott and others, *Respondents*.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide event.
§ 144.430 Mattresses. Each mattress must comply with either: ( a ) The Consumer Product Safety Commission Standard for Mattress Flammability (FF 4-72, Amended), 16 CFR part 1632, subpart A, and not contain polyurethane foam; or
( b ) IMO Resolution A.688(17) (incorporated by reference, see § 136.112 of this subchapter) in which case the mattress may contain polyurethane foam.
<PAGE>

                           CENTRAL FEDERAL CORPORATION
                                  Exhibit 32.1
                           Section 1350 Certifications

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Central Federal Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
C. Vernon, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated: August 13, 2004               By: /s/ David C. Vernon
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         David C. Vernon
                                         Chairman of the Board, President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)

                                                                             28.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.039-4 Marine type label. ( a ) In addition to all other markings, every semi-portable extinguisher must bear a label containing the “marine type” listing manifest issued by a recognized laboratory. This label will include the Coast Guard approval number, thus: “Marine Type USCG Type Approval No. 162.039/______.”
( b ) All such labels are to be obtained only from the recognized laboratory and will remain under its control until attached to a product found acceptable under its inspection and labeling program.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48279, July 22, 2016]
#### § 180.64 Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRB).

Each vessel that operates on the high seas, or that operates beyond three miles from the coastline of the Great Lakes, must have on board a FCC Type Accepted Category 1, 406 MHz EPIRB, installed to automatically float free and activate.
# C_2012217EN.01003102.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Alionescu v Commission

(Case F-91/11)

(Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Decision to extend the deadline for registration - No complaint - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 217/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ciprian-Calin Alionescu (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M. Stănculescu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the EPSO decision to extend by six hours the period for the submission of applications in open competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Alionescu shall bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Alionescu shall bear his own costs.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

STREAMLINE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, David W. Sides, certify that:

 

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Streamline Health Solutions, Inc.

 

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| May 30,   2018 | /s/   David W. Sides                    |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                | Chief   Executive Officer and President |

 

----
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian W. Coderre, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 of Universal Access GlobalHoldings Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

**(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;**

** **

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

**5.  The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):**

** **

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2004 |                    |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               |                    |
|               |                    |
|               | /S/ Brian W. Coderre    |   |
|               | Brian W. Coderre        |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
#### § 201.134 Separation of functions.

The separation of functions as required by section 5(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act shall be observed in adversary proceedings involving controverted factual issues arising under the regulations in this part.
# C_2012399EN.01002001.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex)

(Case T-415/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Nutriskin Protection Complex - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - OHIM’s decision-making practice - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 399/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and A. Poch, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1524/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the sign Nutriskin Protection Complex as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
#### § 201.174 Petition for reopening.

A petition for reopening for the purpose of rehearing, reargument, or reconsideration, shall be made in writing, shall state the grounds relied upon, and conform to the requirements of subpart D of this part. If the petition is for the purpose of rehearing, said petition shall state the nature and purpose of the new evidence to be adduced and that such evidence was not available at the time of the prior hearing. If the petition be for reargument or reconsideration, the matter claimed to have been erroneously decided shall be specified and the alleged errors briefly stated. In case of exceptional circumstances, satisfactorily shown by the petitioner, a request for modification of rules or orders may be made by telegram or otherwise, upon notice to all parties or attorneys of record, but such request shall be followed by a petition filed and served in accordance with subpart D of this part.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00048

- CR

Jerry Louis ZULAICA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CR

- 10438

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The

appellant ’ s brief is due on July 10, 2018.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 21, 2005 * Decided July 21, 2005 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 05-1052 HOMER CALHOUN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois No. 03-1029 Michael M. Mihm, Judge

.
O R D E R Homer Calhoun, Jr. is an African-American man who was employed at Mitsubishi Motors’ plant in Normal, Illinois from September 2000 until he was fired in April 2003. Calhoun filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. , alleging that he was harassed and eventually fired because of racial discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mitsubishi for a number of reasons, including that some of Calhoun’s claims were untimely and others were barred by a settlement agreement in a previous class action lawsuit, that he failed to present any direct evidence of discrimination, and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the indirect burden-shifting method described in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973). UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 05-1052 Page 2

Calhoun appeals, but his brief is simply a photocopy of his complaint in the district court with a new cover page. Even a pro se litigant like Calhoun must identify a basis for overturning the district court’s judgment and support his argument with citations to the record and relevant legal authority. See Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001); F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 28(a)(9). Calhoun has provided no cognizable argument and, accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.176-17 Manufacturer records. ( a ) Each manufacturer of inflatable lifejackets must keep the records required by § 159.007-13 of this chapter except that they must be retained for at least 120 months after the month in which the inspection or test was conducted.
( b ) Each record required by § 159.007-13 of this chapter must also include the following information: ( 1 ) For each test, the serial number of the test instrument used if there is more than one available.
( 2 ) For each test and inspection, the identification of the samples used, the lot number, the approval number, and the number of lifejackets in the lot.
( 3 ) For each lot rejected, the cause for rejection, any corrective action taken, and the final disposition of the lot.
( c ) The description or photographs of procedures and apparatus used in testing is not required for the records prescribed in § 159.007-13 of this chapter as long as the manufacturer's procedures and apparatus meet the requirements of this subpart.
( d ) Each manufacturer of inflatable lifejackets must also keep the following records: ( 1 ) Records for all materials used in production including the following: ( i ) Name and address of the supplier.
( ii ) Date of purchase and receipt.
( iii ) Lot number.
( iv ) Certification meeting § 160.176-8(a)(3) of this part.
( 2 ) A copy of this subpart.
( 3 ) Each document incorporated by reference in § 160.176-4 of this part.
( 4 ) A copy of the approved plans and specifications required by § 160.176-5(a)(2) of this part.
( 5 ) The approval certificate.
( 6 ) Calibration of test equipment, including the identity of the agency performing the calibration, date of calibration, and results.
( 7 ) A listing of current and formerly approved servicing facilities.
( e ) The records required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section must be kept for at least 120 months after preparation. All other records required by paragraph (d) of this section must be kept for at least 60 months after the lifejacket approval expires or is terminated.
§ 176.404 Subsequent inspections for certification. ( a ) An inspection for renewal of a Certificate of Inspection is conducted to determine if the vessel is in satisfactory condition, fit for the service intended, and complies with all applicable regulations. It normally includes inspection and testing of the structure, machinery, equipment, and on a sailing vessel, rigging and sails. The owner or operator must conduct all tests as required by the OCMI, and make the vessel available for all specific inspections and drills required by subpart H of this part. In addition, the OCMI may require the vessel to get underway.
( b ) You must submit your written application for renewal of a Certificate of Inspection to the OCMI at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Certificate of Inspection, as required in § 176.105 of this part.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996; USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000; USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 39315, July 1, 2003]