alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10932)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 838792-1/4; 844515-1/4; 735991-1/4.

(Decided March 23, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plantiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*585Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in- schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned, Richard Jordan, the Chief Financial Officer of Wataire International, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY 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 Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 (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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 15th day of January 2008.   By:  /s/ Richard Jordan -------------------------------- Richard Jordan, Chief Financial Officer
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JULIANNE MCGUIRE

v.

JENNIFER EGGLESTON, et al.

: CIVIL ACTION 

:

: NO. 02-CV-4074

:

:

RULE 16 CONFERENCE

AND NOW, this day of August, 2003, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, that the parties shall

meet to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, and the possibilities for a

prompt settlement or resolution of the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall

develop a proposed discovery plan and shall submit to the Court, on or before September

12, 2003, a joint “Rule 16 Memorandum” that includes:

1. A proposed schedule for remaining pretrial proceedings setting forth the time limits:

 (a) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;

 (b) to file non-dispositive motions;

 (c) to complete discovery;

 (d) to file pretrial memoranda pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) and Local

Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1(c);

 (e) to exchange exhibits;

 (f) to exchange experts’ reports; and 

 (g) to file dispositive motions.

2. A statement on each of the following:

(a) the prospects of amicable settlement;

(b) whether all parties agree to a referral of this case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart

for trial;

(c) the estimated length of trial; 

(d) the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction; and

(e) any other matter that may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this

case.

Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 9 Filed 08/28/2003 Page 1 of 2
2

3. A certification that all counsel have conferred upon each of the above matters and approve

the contents of the Rule 16 Memorandum.

Upon review of the parties’ Rule 16 Memorandum, the Court will issue a Scheduling

Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) setting forth the dates for the remaining

pretrial proceedings, final pretrial conference, and trial.

BY THE COURT:

 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 9 Filed 08/28/2003 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6399

GERALD HENNEGHAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCOMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-364-PJM) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Henneghan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Henneghan appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henneghan v. Commissioner of Correction , No. CA-98-364-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 25, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 2, 2009

d0929 

# Order

October 2, 2009

139304(85)

In re LAURENCE GEE ROBBINS, JR. and BRAIN JAMAL ROBBINS, Minors.

________________ _______________ __________/

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 139304 COA: 284790 Wayne Circuit Family DEONNA I. SANDERS, Division: 04-437255-NA Respondent-Appellant,

and

LAURENCE ROBBINS, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s August 20, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
nuva-ex1048_269.htm



Exhibit 10.48

 



 

January 1, 2019

 

Lucas S. Vitale

XXX

XXX

  

Dear Lucas, 

Congratulations on your promotion to the role of Leader, Global Human Resources. Your external / business card title is Chief Human Resources Officer. Your commitment and dedication to your work and the continued success of NuVasive sets an example for our Shareowners and is instrumental in our efforts to transform spine surgery and change lives. In this role you will report to me, Chris Barry, Chief Executive Officer. We would like for you to begin your role in this capacity on January 1, 2019. 

 

I am pleased to present you with changes to your compensation package, effective January 1, 2019 and detailed below.

JOB TITLE, CAREER BAND & NEW COMPENSATION
Internal Job Title:  Leader, Global Human Resources
Career Band:  P12

Compensation and 2019 Annual Bonus target percentage:


				
	
 
	
Current
	
New
	
Change

	
Annual Base Salary

(effective January 1, 2019)
	
$273,892
	
$340,000
	
24%

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Annual Bonus Target %*

(effective January 1, 2019)
	
35%
	
60%
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Annual Target Total Cash Opportunity
	
$369,754
	
$544,000
	
47%




* Above table is for illustrative purposes only. You are eligible for the discretionary annual corporate bonus plan which depends upon the Company’s successful achievement of its operational goals and your overall performance against your goals. This bonus requires that you be employed in good standing on the payout date (which is generally the first week of March, in the following year). Bonus target changes after April 1 of the plan year are adjusted to account for changes during the plan year.  Your Bonus Target amount shall equal the sum of your Eligible Earnings for the period of time in role multiplied by the respective Target Bonus Percentage for each bonus-eligible role you occupied during the plan year.

 

We expect to provide you with a 2019 annual LTI award that has a grant face value of $600,000, which is expected to be made in April 2019. The value and form of award is subject to approval by NuVasive’s Board of Directors or its delegate and will be governed by the terms of the applicable grant agreement(s). 

 

Also, you will be eligible for an individual Change-in-Control Agreement (which requires a “double-trigger” of events before any respective severance benefits are payable) with a severance multiple of 1.5x. 

 

 



 

 

 

I appreciate your contributions in taking NuVasive forward in 2019 and look forward to the work our team will do in helping NuVasive own the spine market. If you have any questions regarding your compensation, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. 

 

Keep up the great work and let’s crush it!

 

To an outstanding 2019,

 

/s/ Chris Barry

 

Chris Barry

Chief Executive Officer

 

Please sign below indicating your understanding and acceptance of this new role and return the fully executed letter to Karen Osgood. You should keep a copy of this letter for your records. 

 


		
	
/s/ Lucas Vitale
	
1/2/2019

	
Lucas S. Vitale
	
Date
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24115]



[[Page 75009]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, 
October 31, 2023, 11:00 a.m. to November 03, 2023, 05:00 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the Federal Register on 
September 25, 2023, FR Doc 2023-21368, 88 FR 67334.
    This notice is being amended to change the dates and time of this 
two-day meeting to November 3, 2023, and November 17, 2023; The start 
time has changed to 10:00 a.m., and the end time remains the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 26, 2023.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24115 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
January 5, 1945

No. 49928.

#### Protests 21995-K, etc., of Pan American Products Corp. et al.

C. D. 880. Government’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 13.1

Annual Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Crucell N.V. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald H.P. Brus, as Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Leonard Kruimer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|Date: February 27, 2004 |  | Signature | /s/RONALD H.P. BRUS           
|----------------------- |  | --------- | ------------------------------
|                        |  | Name:     | Ronald H.P. Brus              
|                        |  | Title:    | Acting Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  | Signature | /s/LEONARD KRUIMER            
|                        |  | Name:     | Leonard Kruimer               
|                        |  | Title:    | Chief Financial Officer       

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
No. 51880.

#### William J. Oberle, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 578882-G/9478, etc. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75590-75591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24512]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2023.

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street 
entrance).

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Commission will consider and act upon 
the following in open session: Secretary of Labor on behalf of Hargis 
v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC, Docket Nos. SE 2021-0163, et al. 
(Issues include whether the Judge erred in terminating economic 
temporary reinstatement on the date he issued the merits decision; (2) 
whether the Judge erred in dismissing the Complainant's discrimination 
case on the basis that there was no improper discriminatory motive; and 
(3) whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator failed to 
report an occupational injury, in violation of 30 CFR 50.20(a).)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:  Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 
708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Phone Number for Listening to Meeting:  1-(866) 236-7472; Passcode: 
678-100.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.


[[Page 75591]]


    Dated: November 1, 2023.
Michael A. McCord,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-24512 Filed 11-1-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
No. 62969.

#### Gould Monument Works *v.*United States,

.protest 58/24409 (Port Arthur).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rough granite blocks, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No: 6,627.

#### HOLMEAD v. CORCORAN.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 119.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1816.

Trespass — Quare Clausum Fregit — Damages.

1. In trespass, when the defence is on warrant, the plaintiff is not permitted to give evidence of trespasses committed at a place not located on the plats: nor outside of the plaintiff’s lines as located by him on the plats, although, by his title he had a right to locate them so as to include the place where, &c. The plaintiff is bound by his location, and cannot claim land not included therein. The plaintiff cannot recover unless he was in possession of the land at the time of the alleged trespass.

2. The court will not receive evidence of the declaration of jurors, that they assessed the damages by taking the average of the sums put down by each juror respectively.

Trespass, quare clausum fregit. Defence on warrant.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent, and MORSELL, Circuit Judge, sitting pro forma, by consent of the parties, he having been of counsel in the cause) decided that the plaintiff should not give evidence of trespasses at a place not located on the plats, nor outside of the lines of "Pleasant Plains” as located by the plaintiff on the plats; although the plaintiff, by his title, had a right to locate “Pleasant Plains,” so as to include the place where, &e., being of opinion that the plaintiff, in this suit, is bound by his location, and cannot claim, as part of “Pleasant Plains,” land not located by him on the plat, as such, and that the plaintiff could not recover, unless he was in possession at the time of the alleged trespass.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Damages, 170 dollars. Mr. Wiley, for defendant, moved for a new trial on the ground of misbehavior of the jurors .in taking the average of damages put down by each juror, and making that the amount of damages found for the plaintiff. The motion was grounded upon the affidavit of a person who heard one of the jurors state the fact.

Mr. Jones and Mr. Key, contri.

No evi- • dence of what a juror said after giving the verdict ought to be received by the court. No juror should be permitted to criminate himself or his fellows. The evidence must come from some other source. Vaise v. De-laval, 1 Term R. 11; Barnes, 438, 441. If, after ascertaining the average, the jury agreed to find it as the plaintiff’s damages, it was no misbehavior.

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, not sitting)

was of opinion that such evidence ought not to be received, and overruled the motion for a new trial. See Peake (Am. Ed.) 1ST. and Seld. Prae.
Before the First Division,

April 30, 1962

No. 66720.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/3233, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53384.

protests 120646-K, etc. (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of liqueur veritas similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 404), the claim at $2.50 per proof gallon under paragraph 802, as modified, was sustained. For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the second claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58436.

protest 206526-K (New York).

#### Daniel F. Young, Inc., and Columbia Pictures International Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts are similar to those involved in Abstract 57579, the claim of. the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53448.

protest 110243-K (A) (New York).

#### Chas. H. Asche & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2015118EN.01004301.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/43

---

Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Alfa Wassermann Hungary v OHIM — Pharma Mar (YLOELIS)

(Case T-85/15)

(2015/C 118/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Wassermann Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘YLOELIS’ — Application for registration No 1 0 9 14  431

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 1100/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 February 2014 (opposition proceedings No B 2 0 66  184); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 February 2014 (opposition proceedings No B 2 0 66  184);

| — | reject the opposition No B 2 0 66  184 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition No B 2 0 66  184 in its entirety;

| — | order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE JIMENEZ, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, : NO. 08-0427

:

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION

: NO. 04-63

Respondent. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7th day of May 2009, it is hereby ORDERED

that, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum,

the motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2) (doc. no. 66) is hereby DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Eduardo C. Robreno 

 EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00063-ER Document 71 Filed 05/08/09 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      99.3**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS













We
      hereby
      consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual
      Report") of Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Registrant"). We hereby further
      consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual
      Information Form dated March 12, 2007 for the year ended December 31, 2006,
      which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled "Evaluation
      of the P&NG Reserves in Canada of Enerplus Resources Fund (As of December
      31, 2006)", dated February 14, 2007, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural
      gas and natural gas liquids interests effective December 31, 2006.




Calgary,
                    Alberta, Canada
                  March
                      12, 2007
                SPROULE
                      ASSOCIATES LIMITED/s/
                      R. Keith MacLeodKeith
                      MacLeod, P. Eng.
                    Executive
                      Vice-President