alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CARL H. LOENNECKER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BENJAMIN CASSER, JULIUS CASSER AND NATHAN EISGROU, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted January 27, 1933

Decided July 10, 1933.

Before Justices Bodine and Donges.

For the appellant, *Abram A. Lib son.*

For the respondents, *Joseph Frederick Bratt.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the Bergen Common Pleas. The suit was for the balance due plaintiffs on the purchase price of certain shares of stock of Westwood Bus Lines, Incorporated, alleged to have been sold to defendants. The trial judge sat without a jury and found for the plaintiffs against the defendants Benjamin 'Casser and Nathan Eisgrou. Casser appeals.

Four grounds of appeal are written down but the appellant states that the sole question is whether he participated in the transaction as a principal, who would be liable on the contract of purchase, or as agent for Eisgrou, in whose name the stock was taken. The trial judge found as a fact that he was a principal, and if there be evidence, however slight, to support this finding, it will not be disturbed on appeal. There was evidence to the effect that Benjamin Casser was the actual purchaser and that the stock was put in the name of Eisgrou as an accommodation to Casser because of some agreement he had with the Public Service Corporation growing out of the sale by him to the Public Service Corporation of another bus line.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                               CCFNB BANCORP, INC.

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of CCFNB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lance O. Diehl,
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 the Report fairly represents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: March 9, 2006                     /s/ Lance O. Diehl
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Lance O. Diehl
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       75
----

(2004/C 84 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Serious defects in Greek ambulances

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly brought up in the Greek parliament the question of the provision of ambulances belonging to the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAB), the specifications which should be met, transparency in the choice of the vehicle makes bought and the equipment that they should have in order to be able to carry out their difficult tasks.

Workers at EKAB have on many occasions pointed out that many of these ambulances lack the requisite portable artificial respiration equipment (which is designed to give the first supplies of oxygen to an injured person), as well as another acutely essential piece of equipment, the defibrillator, which ought to be in every ambulance to administer repeated electrical shocks to a patient who has had a heart attack.

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly pointed out (through the social issues coordinator responsible for this area, our former European Parliament colleague Nikitas Kaklamanis) the problem of lack of transparency in the choice of ambulances makes bought from time to time (thanks to the second and third Community support frameworks).

Could the Commission set out the exact total amounts which have been made available by the EU from 1994 until the present, and indicate precisely which operational programmes (either via the CSF or Community initiatives) apply to the provision of ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units? Has the Commission been informed of the above-mentioned defects in ambulance equipment? What is the Commission's position with regard to the allegations by workers at EKAB that for a city such as Athens (with five million residents) there are only 72 ambulances, amounting to one ambulance for every 70 000 city residents; hence the recent incident (on 30 September 2003) of the injured motorcyclist in Athens who waited for two hours in a heap on the road for an ambulance to arrive?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is informed of the following, as regards the fourth paragraph of his question:

----
----

(2004/C 88 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2303/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — European Commission delegation — human rights

Since the EU has decided to:

can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission's Delegation in Cuba is run by a Chargé d'Affaires a.i., under the responsibility of the Head of Delegation in the Dominican Republic, who must also be accredited as Head of Delegation in Cuba. The Cuban Government gave its agreement on 14 April 2003 to his appointment. The date for the presentation of the credentials of the Head of Delegation has yet to be fixed.

The Commission's Delegation in Cuba is fully associated with the implementation of the measures adopted by the Union on Cuba. The Delegation did invite dissidents to the reception organised for Europe Day on 9 May 2003. It participated in the two ‘troika’ démarches in Havana during the last months to inform the Cuban Government of the Union's decisions and to call for the immediate release of imprisoned dissidents.

The re-evaluation of the Union's Common Position has just been concluded.

----
p. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 149 ) IV-C-11 6 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:59 AM Sheet 149of 232P. 2 

# fl 

# -8 7 -M

r "". ""' . '^'••^T/fV*;* ; 

# ^ | . 

# i^ f

i * 

# 13^8 '^£*-si

Honorabl e Orri nG . Hatc h Unite d State s Senat e Washington , D C 2051 0 Dea r Senato r Hatch : Thi s i s i nrespons e t o you r Apri l 22 , 198 8 lette r relayin g th e concern s o f on e o f you r constituent s regarding , amon g otha r items , EPA' s regulator yproposa l t o requir e onboar d canister f o nne wvehicle s t o contro l refuelin g emissions . T o assis t y W wit hyou r response , I hav e enclose d a cop yo f ou r proposa l for : you r review . Sectio nE , entitle d "Decisio nRational e an d Selectio no f Contro l Technology " (page s 31177-31182) , explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar d controls . I^Jrbt t woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t --•• ' Phili p Carlso no f th e Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Brand t o f th e Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivision , 256 5 Plymout h:*..> , Road , An nArbor , Michiqa n4810 5 (FT S 374-8299 ) o r Cofflmarcia l (313 ) 668-4270) . I nth e lette r yo u forwarde d t o us , you r constituen t expresse d concern s ove r tn e nee d fo r a nationwid e contro l progra man d th e cos t o f onnoar d systems . Baae d o nou r analysi s o f refuelin g emissio ncontrols , a nationwid e onboar d contro l progra mi s mor e cost-effectiv e tha na regiona l Stag e I I progra m an d yield s greate r emissio nreductions . Regardin g th e coa t o f onooar d systems , ou r cos t --jstimate s sho wa naverag e increas e i n automobil e price s o f les s tha n$2 0 clu e t o onboar d controls . You r constituen t als o Highlighte d th e safet yissu e whic h ha a bee nraise d yit hregar d t o onboar d controls . EP Ai s awar e o f thi s issu a an di s no wi nth e proces s o f analyzin g th e safet y comment s rac^iya do nth e notic e o f propose d rulemakin g durin g tn e publi c convent." period . W e wil l b e revisin g ou r safet y analysi s i ntj||tun«a r futur e an d wil l provid e th e revise d analysi s t o th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n(DOT ) to r thei rP. 3 

## ? .

•®to ^ ^ J

## 0/\/ •«»» , / $ ^ 7 % '^5 / •

### P. 4

review . Kitty'imreceive D0T* 8 comment s we wil l repropos e the rul e for publi c comment . We believe tha t thi s proces s wil l allowfo r a complet e an d thoroug

hreviewo f the safetyquestio n Than k yo u for your letter . W e wil l plac e your lette r an d the lette r fro

mMr . Ken t Murdoc k in ou r publi c docke t for the onboard rul e an

d full yconside r the comment s during our rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours ,

Richard D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosure s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 * 

## H '
# PremierJets

May3, 2012 Federal Aviation Administration ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 RE: 2011WP910359 To Whom It May Concern, 

# 0/ Did,- 

# 6-470 

# 1r<ECEIVED MAY 1Q

## 21112 

# tiEARfNG DOCKET

Premierjets, Inc. hereby requests a hearing on the above case.

Roger B. Kelsay President Premierjets, Inc. 2140 NE 25th Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124
CC: Michael F. McKinley Senior Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe Chief Counsel 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

P.O. Box 91430 • Portland, Oregon 97291-0430 • (503) 640-2927 • FAX (503) 681-3064
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.33 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Page 1 of 1 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

BRANCH ­ As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2cc26 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-001O-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0248 


Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 


Submitter Information 

Name: Dianna D Burdick 


Address: 


50 Loyola Ave. 


Ventura, CA, 93003 


Email: papermoon2@roadrunner.com 


General Comment 

I am personally against any Grandfathered Health Plan. Let the rules be the rules. 


Thank you. 


https:llfdms.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency1componentlsubmitter InfoCover Page?Cal1=... 8/20/2010
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ IN RE SHERMAN HOWARD , Petitione r.

__________________________ 2014

- 125

__________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Mer it Systems Protection Board in DA0752090172 -C-1.

__________________________ ON PETITION

__________________________ Before N EWMAN , P ROST , and R EYNA , Ci r cuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
Sherman Howard (“Howard”) petitions for a writ of
ma nd amus direct i ng the Merit Systems Protection Board (“ MSPB ”) to issue a final decision in Howard v. Depar tment of the Air Force , DA

- 0752

- 09

- 0172 -C-1 . Howard also seeks attorney fees and costs ass o ciated with filing th is petition pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)

. The MSPB opposes. Case: 14-125 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2014IN RE HOWARD 2 Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear legal right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal cha n nels through which he may obtain that relief; a nd (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circu m stances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367, 380

- 81 (2004); Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976) . In denying this requested relief, we note that on the same day Howard filed this peti tion the MSPB issued its dec ision in DA

- 0752

- 09

- 0172 -C-1

. Accordingly , I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is denied.

F OR T HE C OURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court s23 Case: 14-125 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2014
Docket: HHS-OS-2010-0015 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Comment On: HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: HHS-OS-2010-0015-0011 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

General Comment 

Section 2711 applies to grandfathered group plans. This means that the highest annual limit that 

the grandfathered group plan could have is $750,000. Section 1251 gives various scenarios as to 

ensure retention of grandfather status. If a grandfathered grup health plan had a $1 million lifetime 

limit and no annual limit, does that plan need to set its new annual limit at no less than $1 million 

to keep its grandfather status even though Section 2711 applies to it?

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: August 12, 2010 

Received: July 15, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: July 23, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b1a699 

Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480b1a6... 8/12/2010
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
A.LPHARMA INC. SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN



The Alpharma Inc. Supplemental Pension Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended effective as of June 22, 2006, as follows:

1.    Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof and replacing it with the following:

"While the Company expect to continue the Plan, the Company, acting through its Board of Directors, must necessarily reserve and hereby does reserve the right to amend the Plan from time to time, provided, that no amendment of the Plan may cause the reduction or cessation of any benefits that were accrued as of the date of such amendment and otherwise would be payable under the plan, but for such amendment.



Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board of Directors has delegated to the executive management Benefits Committee the authority to adopt administrative amendments to the Plan, provided, that such amendments do not involve a change in the costs or liability of the Company or alter the benefits payable thereunder.  The Board of Directors has delegated to the Compensation Committee the authority to adopt all other amendments to the Plan, provided, that such amendments do not significantly increase or decrease benefit amounts, or  are  required  to be adopted by the Board of Directors under the Code or the regulations thereunder.  The Board of Directors retains the authority to adopt amendments to the Plan that significantly increase or decrease benefit amounts, or are required to be adopted by the Board of Directors under the Code or regulations thereunder.



The Company, acting through its Board of Directors, may terminate the Plan at any time, provided, that no such termination may cause the reduction or cessation of any benefits that were accrued as of the date of such amendment and otherwise would be payable under the plan, but for such amendment."



2.    Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the phrase, "through its Board of Directors", immediately after the term "Company" in the first sentence thereof."

*	*	*

|/s/ George P. Rose | October 23, 2006______________
|------------------ | ------------------------------
|ALPHARMA INC.      | DATE
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

In Case C-290/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Receveur principal des douanes de Villepinte v Derudder & Cie SA (1)

(Free movement of goods - Release for free circulation - Taking of a sample - Possibility of challenging the representativeness of that sample)

(2004/C 94/04)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-290/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Receveur principal des douanes de Villepinte and Derudder & Cie SA; third party: Tang Frères, on the interpretation of Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

Council Directive 79/695/EEC of 24 July 1979 on the harmonisation of procedures for the release of goods for free circulation and Commission Directive 82/57/EEC of 17 December 1981 laying down certain provisions for implementing Directive 79/695, as amended by Commission Directive 83/371/EEC of 14 July 1983, together with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible for a customs declarant or his representative present when a sample was taken by the customs authorities of imported goods and who did not at the time challenge the representativeness of that sample to challenge its representativeness when requested by those authorities to pay additional import duties following their analysis of that sample, provided that the goods concerned have not been released or, if they have been released, that they have not been altered in any way whatsoever, which is for that declarant to prove.

----

(1)OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

----
#### JOHN F. ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF, v. JOHN GREENLEAF, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October term, 1932

Decided April 28, 1933.

Before Justices Teenchaed, Case and Bbogan.

For the plaintiff, *Griffith B. Vaughan.*

Pee Cubiam:.

The matter comes before us on motion for a rule for declaratory final judgment, interlocutory judgment by default having been already taken on rule entered to that effect. The defendant, though noticed, does not appear.

Plaintiff is the surviving husband of Mary Anderson, deceased. On December 7th, 1925, one Mary Holly, single, conveyed a lot of land to Mary Anderson. That was during the coverture of the plaintiff and of the said Mary Anderson. The latter died intestate without leaving lawful issue but still seized of the real estate on April 27th, 1932. Plaintiff claims that, under the act entitled “A supplement to an act entitled ‘An act directing the descent of real estate/ approved March ninth, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven,” which supplementary act was approved March 17th, 1926 *(Pamph. L.*1926, *ch.*41), he is now the owner in fee of the *331said lands to the exclusion of any right or interest therein of the defendant, a surviving brother of the decedent, and seeks a judgment so declaring.

Acquisition of the property by deed was a form of purchase. There is nothing in the record to show payment of consideration for the land; but we have the assumption in *Weyer*v. *Weyer,*106 *N. J. Eq.*112; 150 *Atl. Rep.*232; affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals on the opinion below, 107 *N. J. Eq.*593; 154 *Atl. Rep.*636, that the word “purchase” is used in the statute in its larger, technical sense, which includes all forms of acquisition except by descent. 2 *Blacks. Com.*241; *Spielmann*v. *Kliest,*36 *N. J. Eq.*199, 203; see, also, *Malague*v. *Marion,*107 *Id.*333; 152 *Atl. Rep.*637. The date of the purchase was before the passage of the 1926 statute, but the statute has been held to be retroactive *(Weyer*v. *Weyer, supra),*and it is enough that the death occurred after the enactment. The facts appear to bring the case within the application of the statute. The practice rests upon precedent. *Hallanan*v. *Hamilton,*104 *N. J. L.*632; 142 *Atl. Rep.*27.

Let the rule for final judgment be entered.
#### Michael Greeley, Appellant, *v.*The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Greeley*v. *Board of Education, JYew York City,*144 App. Div. 911, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted March 19, 1912;

decided April 2, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 21, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff for leave to perfect his appeal to the Appellate Division, open his default and serve a proposed case on appeal.

*548
      *Walter M. Effross*and *John Jerome Rooney*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.