alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 340.4 Shipping services. ( a ) When a defense agency requires shipping services not obtainable through established transportation procurement practices, the following procedures shall apply: ( 1 ) Except during periods of Presidentially-declared national defense emergencies, when requests shall be transmitted to the Administrator, the agency shall transmit a request to the Secretary specifying: ( i ) The type of service required;
( ii ) The route over which priority of service is required;
( iii ) The period during which priority of service is required; and
( iv ) Justification for priority use of the requested service.
( 2 ) The Administrator, pursuant to the circumstances specified in § 340.4(a)(l), shall identify vessel operators that can provide the necessary service and issue NSPOs in coordination with the Secretary to those operators directing that priority be given to the movement and delivery of the defense agency's cargo and/or passengers by the type of service specified in the NSPO during the specified period.
( 3 ) Each vessel operator in receipt of an NSPO shall: ( i ) Give precedence to the cargoes of the defense agency in provision of equipment, loading, ocean transport and delivery; and
( ii ) Coordinate with other operators in receipt of NSPOs applicable to the same priority movement program to ensure movement of the defense agency's cargoes on first available sailings.
( b ) When a defense agency has need for vessels employed in commercial service on a continuing basis for national defense operations for a specified period or for the duration of a defense emergency which they cannot obtain through established transportation procurement practices, the following procedures shall apply: ( 1 ) The agency shall transmit to the Secretary, with a copy to the Administrator, a request specifying the kinds of services required, the arrangements under which the agency proposes that the services be acquired, managed and compensated, and justification for allocation of the required vessels.
( 2 ) The Administrator, upon receiving guidance from the Secretary, shall identify vessel operators that can supply the requested services and issue NAOs to operators directing that specified vessels be made available for use of the defense agency for specified periods. As far as practicable, the economic impact will be balanced among operators.
( 3 ) Each vessel operator in receipt of an NAO shall provide vessels in coordination with the defense agency as specified in the NAO.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.10    
    



	

Villa Guardia, 11th June 2004	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

Messrs.

SIRTON PHARMACEUTICALS S.p.A.

Piazza XX Settembre 2

22079 VILLA GUARDIA—COMO
	Administration and Finance	 	 
	

SC/vs	
 	

 





        With
reference to the investment programmes under way, for an improved management of the bank loans granted, we are writing to request you to grant us a loan of Euro 400,000 in the ways
and under the conditions you suggest. 


        We
trust we will receive your positive reply on this matter, 



	Your sincerely,	 	 
	

 	
 	

Gentium S.p.A.

Administration and Finance

/s/  S. Carsana      
 Dr. Sauro Carsana











	

 	
 	

 
	Villa Guardia, 14th June 2004	 	 
	 	 	Messrs.

GENTIUM S.p.A.

Piazza XX Settembre, 2

22079 VILLA GUARDIA—COMO
	Deputy Chairperson's Office	 	 
	

LIF/vs	
 	

 





        In
reply to your letter of 11/06/2004, we wish to inform you that we are willing to put at your disposal the sum of Euro 400,000 by way of loan under the following conditions: 


	1.
	Duration






        Until
1/10/2008 



	2.
	Reimbursement




        In
a single payment, with the faculty of the borrower to return the sum in advance with 30 days' written notice. 



	3.
	Remuneration




        Fixed
rate of 3.5%. 



	4.
	Payment




        Deferred
annual. 




        Confident
that we have fulfilled your request in the best ways possible, we would be grateful if, for formal regularity, you confirm this letter in full. 



	Yours sincerely,	 	 
	

 	
 	

Sirton Pharmaceuticals S.p.A.
	 	 	The Deputy Chairperson

/s/  Laura Iris Ferro      
 Dr. Laura Iris Ferro
	(signed)	 	 











	

 	
 	

 
	Villa Guardia, 15th June 2004	 	Messrs.

SIRTON PHARMACEUTICALS S.P.A.

Piazza XX Settembre, 2

22079 VILLA GUARDIA—COMO
	Administration and Finance	 	 
	

CS/vs	
 	

 





        In
reply to your letter of 14/06/2004, please find below its full contents which we accept and sign for acceptance: 


        "In
reply to your letter of 10/06/04, we wish to inform you that we are willing to put at your disposal the sum of Euro 400,000 by way of loan under the following conditions: 


	1.
	Duration




        Until
1/10/2008 



	2.
	Reimbursement 



        In
a single payment, with the faculty of the borrower to return the sum in advance with 30 days' written notice. 



	3.
	Remuneration




        Fixed
rate of 3.5%. 



	4.
	Payment




        Deferred
annual. 




        Confident
that we have fulfilled your request in the best ways possible, we would be grateful if, for formal regularity, you confirm this letter in full." 


        Thanking
your for your helpfulness, 



	Yours sincerely,	 	 
	

 	
 	

Gentium S.p.A.

Administration and Finance

/s/  S. Carsana      
 Dr. Sauro Carsana













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.10
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M
 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

DATE & TIME: THURSDAY, MARCH 1,2012 AT 10:00 A.M. 

PLACE: 999 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. (NINTH FLOOR) 

STATUS: THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

Correction and Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of February 16, 2012 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-04: Justice Party of Mississippi 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-03: ActRight 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-01: Stop This Insanity, Inc. Employee 

Leadership Fund 

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Chris Dodd for President, Inc. 

Management and Administrative Matters 

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead 

Werth, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date. 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:	 Judith Ingram, Press Officer 

Telephone: (202) 694-1220 

Signed: 

Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary of the Commission 

Submitted: February 23, 2012
§ 189.35-9 Plans. ( a ) Plans will not normally be required, however depending on the use of the weight handling gear, submission of plans or other technical information may be required by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Unless an unsafe condition is in evidence, vessel operations will not be delayed while plans or other technical information are under review. Plans, when required, shall normally include: ( 1 ) One line electrical diagrams showing appropriate overload protection as currently required by subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter.
( 2 ) Plans showing hydraulic or pneumatic equipment.
( 3 ) Stress and/or arrangement diagrams with supporting design calculations as appropriate to the specific equipment in question.
( b ) When weight handling gear is built to a recognized code or specification, plans or other technical data will not normally be required. Purchase specification or vendor's information may be accepted in lieu of design calculations if sufficiently definitive of materials, design (safety) factors and operating limitations.
( c ) Design information, when required, will be evaluated against the following minimum design criteria: ( 1 ) Wet Weight Handling Gear: Wet gear shall be considered to consist of gear used to lower equipment, apparatus or objects beneath the surface of the water or for trailing objects, where the wire rope or cable is payed out beneath the surface and becomes part of the line pull at the head sheave or winch drum. Wet gear shall be designed, as a minimum, to withstand and operate in excess of the breaking strength of the strongest section or wire to be used in any condition of loading. The safety factor for all metal structural parts shall be a minimum of 1.5; *i.e.*, the yield strength of the material shall be at least 1.5 times the calculated stresses resulting from application of a load equal to the nominal breaking strength of the strongest section or wire rope to be used. Suitable assumptions for the actual loading conditions shall be used in the design of wet gear. The lead of the wire rope from the head sheave or winch drum shall be considered to vary from the vertical and in azimuth in a manner to represent the most adverse loading condition.
( 2 ) Other weight handling gear will be evaluated on the basis of the standards of a recognized organization or association recognized by the Commandant under § 31.10-6.
( 3 ) Hydraulic or pneumatic systems will be evaluated on the basis of Subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1118, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGFR 69-116, 35 FR 6863, Apr. 30, 1970; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51219, Sept. 30, 1997]
§ 189.40-5 Notice and plans required. ( a ) The master, owner, operator, or agent of the vessel shall notify the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, whenever the vessel is to be drydocked regardless of the reason for drydocking.
( b ) Each vessel, except barges, that holds a Load Line Certificate must have on board a plan showing the vessel's scantlings. This plan must be made available to the Coast Guard marine inspector whenever the vessel undergoes a drydock examination, internal structural examination, or underwater survey or whenever repairs are made to the vessel's hull.
( c ) Each barge that holds a Load Line Certificate must have a plan showing the barge's scantlings. The plan need not be maintained on board the barge but must be made available to the Coast Guard marine inspector whenever the barge undergoes a drydock examination, internal structural examination, or underwater survey or whenever repairs are made to the barge's hull.
[CGD 84-024, 52 FR 39657, Oct. 23, 1987]
#### KATHERINE PESPECKY, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, MICHAEL PESPECKY, PLAINTIFFS, v. HARRY N. FORMAN, DEFENDANT.

Argued May 7, 1929

Decided May 21, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the motion, *McDermott, Finegold & Hartshorne.*

*Contra, Ward & McGinnis.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The plaintiff, a minor, by her brother as next friend, brought suit for the breach of a promise of marriage in the Passaic Circuit. The plaintiff alleges seduction under promise of marriage. The rule is for a change of venue to Monmouth county, where the defendant resides.

The plaintiff’s parents have lived in that county for many years, and she resided with them until shortly before her child was born in May of 1928. After the birth of the child, she returned to her parents’ home and received $15 a week from the defendant until October of 1928, when the payments ceased and she moved to Clift.on in Passaic county, because she had friends there and was able to secure employment. She left her parents’ home with their consent and has been steadily employed, receiving her own wages. She lives with a family whom she has known for the last ten years. Her *519brother, the next friend, resides next door. She prepares his meals and does his washing. Her testimony on the point as to why she moved is as follows: “I moved up there because I didn’t like the way the people talked about me here and I couldn’t get work and up here I had friends and they got me work right away.” A cogent reason for a change of residence.

The plaintiff appears to be emancipated. *Berla*v. *Meisel,*53 *Atl. Rep.*999.

“Under the provisions of the Practice act the venue of a Supreme Court issue may be laid in the county where the plaintiff resides.” *Robbins*v. *Glendon,*103 *N. J. L.*564.

“Residence under the statute, therefore, for the purpose of fixing the venue, means actual residence at the time of the institution of the suit.” *Dabaghian*v. *Kaffafian,*71 *N. J. L.*116.

“Residence is that fixed and permanent home to which, whenever absent, a person intends to return.” *Cadwalader*v. *Howell,*18 *N. J. L.*138. The plaintiff appears to have established such a residence at Clifton.

“While it is true that the cause of action arose prior to the making of the change, there is nothing in the law which prevents one, after a cause of action has arisen in one county, from changing his residence to another county. The question of residence is fixed as of the date the suit is instituted and not as of the date the cause of action accrued.” *Robbins*v. *Glendon, supra.*

The change of residence was made in good faith and upon the score of convenience the case may as well be tried in Passaic as in Monmouth county.

The rule will be dismissed.
#### Susannah B. Loveridge, *Respondent, v.*Lewis O. Hill and Clayton L. Hill, *Appellants*.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Haight, J.
# C_2013225EN.01004901.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/49

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — I Marchi Italiani Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Osra SA

(Case C-381/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Community mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 - Earlier national mark BASILE - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 53(2) - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1) of that regulation - Likelihood of confusion)

2013/C 225/86

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: I Marchi Italiani Srl (represented by: L. Militerni and G. Militerni, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent), Osra SA

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 in Case T-133/09 I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952) by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 502/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and I Marchi Italiani Srl — Misapplication of Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Infringement of the principle of good faith — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Prerequisites for the limitation period to run — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue

I Marchi Italiani and Basile

OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | I Marchi Italiani Srl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

I Marchi Italiani Srl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012

1

---
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 2014

- 0578 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2013

- SW

- 048

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

lis t latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o

f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree w ith because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, do uble

- click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch M anager Date
§ 197.318 Gages and timekeeping devices. ( a ) A gage indicating diver depth must be at each dive location for surface-supplied dives.
( b ) A timekeeping device must be at each dive location.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00116-CV

Minerva RAMOS,

Appellants

v.

Daniel LOREDO,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024CV00069

Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 26, 2024

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was originally due on March 25, 2024. On June 4, 2024, we ordered 

appellant to file her brief and to show cause in writing by June 14, 2024, why this appeal should 

not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant 

did not respond to this court’s order, and, to date, appellant has not filed a brief. Because appellant 

failed to timely file a brief in this appeal, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id.

PER CURIAM
#### John Carroll, *Respondent, v.*Ellen Carroll, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 Lisa Woods filed this petition for habeas corpus claiming that when she pled nolo 

contendre in 2012 to an assault charge, she did not do so voluntarily and her counsel was 

ineffective. 

In a prior opinion addressing the Warden’s motion to dismiss, the Court ordered Woods 

to address three issues with her petition. (R. 9, PID 310–12); Woods v. Stewart, No. 2:15-CV12221, 2016 WL 5870048, at *3–4 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2016). The Court then stated: 

Given these substantial doubts over whether Woods wants to and may obtain 

habeas corpus relief from this Court, the Court hereby ORDERS Woods to show 

cause on or before November 2, 2016 as to why her habeas corpus petition should 

not be dismissed. If Woods fails to file by November 2, 2016, or fails to 

adequately address the three issues raised above, the Court will dismiss Woods’ 

petition. 

(R. 9, PID 312); id. at *4. 

Today is November 7, 2016 and the docket reflects that Woods has not filed a response. 

Accordingly, pursuant to this Court’s prior opinion and order, Woods’ petition for a writ of 

LISA WOODS, 

 Petitioner, 

 

v. 

 

ANTHONY STEWART, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12221 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS 

2:15-cv-12221-LJM-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 11/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 314
2 

habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: November 7, 2016 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 7, 2016. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager 

2:15-cv-12221-LJM-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 11/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 315
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

38.0 38.5 39.0 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/09 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
exv10w28



 






Exhibit 10.28




Summary of Compensation Policy for Directors of Analogic Corporation




     The following summarizes the compensation policy for directors of Analogic Corporation (the
“Company”):



     The Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) is entitled to receive a
monthly fee of $5,000. Each of the other directors who is not an employee of the Company (a
“Non-Employee Director”) is entitled to an annual fee of $15,000. Each of the Non-Employee
Directors also is entitled to:



          (i) a fee of $1,500 per meeting for each meeting of the Board or any committee of the Board
attended in person;



          (ii) a fee of $1,000 per meeting for each meeting of the Board or any committee of the Board
attended by telephone; and



          (iii) an annual fee of $3,000 for serving as chairman of any committee of the Board.



     Directors are reimbursed for travel expenses under certain circumstances.



     The Company’s 1997 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “1997
Plan”) provides that each new Non-Employee Director elected to the Board shall be granted an option
to acquire 5,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”), effective as of the
date he or she is first elected to the Board. Every four (4) years from the date on which a
Non-Employee Director was last granted a Non-Employee Director option, that Non-Employee Director
shall be granted an option to acquire 5,000 shares of Common Stock, effective as of the date of
that fourth anniversary. The exercise price of any option granted to a Non-Employee Director is
equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of grant. Options granted under the
1997 Plan become exercisable in three equal annual installments on each of the first three
anniversaries of the date of grant and expire 10 years after the date of grant.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

         I, Jose' A. Infante, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Issuer, certify that:

         (i)      the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of the Issuer.

Dated: November 14, 2003

                                            /s/ Jose' A. Infante
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jose' A. Infante
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer