alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016211EN.01006601.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/66

---

Action brought on 23 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-141/15)

(2016/C 211/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to reimburse the applicant the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration under Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for reimbursement of the sums withheld from the applicant’s remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006;

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant those sums withheld together with compound interest at the rate defined in Article 12 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the applicant those sums withheld together with compound interest at the rate defined in Article 12 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 39046.

#### Protests 796718-G, etc., of Ossola Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the-authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
# C_2016016EN.01001402.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/14

---

Action brought on 22 September 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-502/15)

(2016/C 016/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the United Kingdom, by failing to correctly apply the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, with regard to Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, has failed to fulfil the obligations arising from Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the United Kingdom, by failing to correctly apply the Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment, with regard to Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, has failed to fulfil the obligations arising from Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

1

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the Commission requests the Court to declare that the United Kingdom has failed to implement correctly, in Gowerton and Llanelli, Gibraltar and 11 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.

The Commission considers, in particular, that the United Kingdom has not ensured that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in Gowerton and Llanelli are retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of Article 3, 4, 10 and Annex I(A) and Annex I(B) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with the Directive 91/271/EEC with regard to 3 agglomerations, as well as by not subjecting the urban waste water in Gibraltar to any treatment, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC.

Finally, it is argued that the United Kingdom has not correctly complied with the obligations arising from Article 5, Annex I(B) and Annex I(D) of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC, as it has failed to ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems from 8 agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, is made subject to more stringent treatment.

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 30 June 1993.

---

(1)  OJ L 135, p. 40.

1

---
69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–527 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 983] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 983, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of Thursday, February 14, 2008, providing for consideration of a bill addressing foreign intelligence surveillance. 

The resolution also permits consideration of motions to suspend 

the rules on the legislative day of Thursday, February 14, 2008, related to a bill addressing foreign intelligence surveillance. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 435 

Date: February 13, 2008. 

Measure: H. Res. 983. 

Motion by: Mr. Dreier. 

Summary of motion: To strike all after the resolved clause and 

insert the following: ‘‘That upon adoption of this resolution, before 

consideration of any order of business other than one motion that 

the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign IntelVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:21 Feb 14, 2008 Jkt 069008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR527.XXX HR527

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other 

purposes, with Senate amendment thereto, shall be considered to 

have been taken from the Speaker’s table. A motion that the House 

concur in the Senate amendment shall be considered as pending in 

the House without intervention of any point of order. The Senate 

amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled 

by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion 

to final adoption without intervening motion.’’ Results: Defeated 4–9. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Nay; Hastings (FL)—Nay; Matsui—Nay; Cardoza—Nay; Welch—Nay; Castor—Nay; Arcuri—Nay; 

Sutton—Nay; Dreier—Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; Hastings (WA)—Yea; 

Sessions—Yea; Slaughter—Nay. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
|   | EXHIBIT      31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |                                                                            |                               |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         | UNITED      MORTGAGE TRUST                                                      |
|                    |                                                                       |                          |
| Date: May      15, 2009 | By                                                                    | /s/ Christine      A. Griffin |
|                         | President,  Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial  Officer |
#### Brown *versus*Dodge *& al.*

If a grantor, after deeding his land, make to a third person a bill of sale of certain trees standing on the land, in pursuance of a verbal contract, entered into before the deed, the vendee of the trees takes nothing by his purchase, although the grantee of the land, knew of such contract, before he took his deed.

B agreed verbally to sell certain trees on his land to the defendant. C knowing of that agreement, purchased the land of B, by deed in common *168form. B then gave to defendant a bill of sale of the trees, pursuant to said agreement. *Held,*that the bill of sale imparted no rights.

Trespass for entering plaintiff’s land and cutting and removing ash trees.

The case is submitted on agreed facts. Bell and Healy owned the land. Chamberlin was their agent. By a verbal contract, he sold to Dodge the growing ash timber. Bell and Healy afterwards conveyed the land' to Chapin, without any reservation in their deed.

While the land was thus owned by Chapin, Chamberlin took of Dodge a note of $50, and, in his own name, gave him a bill of sale, (without seal,) of the ash. Chapin then conveyed the land to plaintiff. Chamberlin testified that at the purchases by Chapin and by plaintiff, he notified them of Dodge’s claim, and “considered them to assent to it.”

The defendant, Dodge, with his servant, the other defendant, afterwards cut and carried away the ash trees, for which this suit is brought.

Kelley, for defendants.

Neither Chapin or the plaintiff paid for the ash. Its value was deducted from then payments. The bill of sale was ratified by Bell and Healy, and it gave to Dodge a title, in writing, before the plaintiff purchased. The plaintiff’s assent, at the time, was a license irrevocable. But if not so, it was operative, till revoked. The sale of standing trees, gives authority to enter and take them.

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The transaction with Dodge was verbal, unexecuted, and without any consideration. So the thing stood when Chapin took. The ash passed to him as a part of the realty. Neither Bell and Healy, or Chamberlin, at that late day, had any right to sever it. The giving of the note by Dodge and the bill of sale to him, were subsequent to Chapin’s purchase. No rights accrued therefrom. By the deed from Chapin, the whole title passed to the plaintiff. The conversation, had, when plaintiff purchased, was quite too *169loose to show the plaintiff’s consent that Dodge, or any one tinder him, should take the ash. *Defendant defaulted.*

*Rowe,*for plaintiff.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1717** 

TERRY A. HARRIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS; CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHARLOTTE

- MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 00516

- FDW

- DSC )

Submitted : October 9, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Terry A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Terry LaMonte Wallace, CHARLOTTE

- MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry A. Harris appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible erro r. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Harris v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Sch. , No. 3:11

- cv - 00516

-
FDW

- DSC (W.D.N.C. July 2, 2012 ; Jan. 23, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
ad equately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### George A. Whitney *& als. versus*Benjamin W. Farrar.

A mortgagee of personal property may waive liis lien under the mortgage and attach the same property in a suit at law.

It is provided by statute, that the attachment of certain kinds of personal property may be preserved, without actual possession by the officer, if his attachment be recorded in the office of the town clerk; and, where this was done by a deputy sheriff, who afterwards voluntarily gave up the property and secured himself by taking a receipt therefor, if he neglect to deliver the same, on demand of an officer having the execution, the sheriff will be answerable for such default of his deputy.

*419Exceptions from the ruling of Mat, J., and on motion to set aside the verdict as against law and the evidence.

• This was an action on the case, against the late sheriff of the county of Washington, for the default of his deputy in not delivering, on demand, certain property attached on the original writ, that the same might be taken to satisfy the execution.

*Granger & Dyer,*for the plaintiffs.

*B. Bradbury,*for the defendant.

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Davis, J.

The plaintiffs were mortgagees of a vessel on the stocks, during its construction. After the mortgage had been given, they sold to the builder, Seth G. Low, certain anchors, cables, and chains. The vessel was destroyed by fire while still unfinished; and the anchors, cables, and chains being saved, the plaintiffs caused them to be attached in a suit against Low. Whether they had been so attached to the vessel that the plaintiffs could have held them under their mortgage is not quite clear from the evidence. But that question is entirely immaterial; for a mortgagee may *waive*his lien under his mortgage, and attach the mortgaged property in a suit at law. *Libbey*v. *Cushman,*29 Maine, 429.

The attachment was made by a deputy of the defendant. He at first caused his attachment to be recorded in the town clerk’s office, as the statute provides for certain kinds of property; but he afterwards gave it up, taking an accountable receipt therefor. The plaintiffs recovered judgment in that suit; and the property was seasonably demanded of the attaching officer, upon the execution. For his default in not delivering it, this action is brought against the sheriff.

Upon the trial these facts were all admitted, or clearly *proved;*but the verdict was for the defendant.

Some instructions were given upon the degree of care which the attaching officer should have exercised in keeping *420the property. As he voluntarily gave it up, and secured himself by taking a receipt, the instructions might have led the jury to believe that the question of *care*was before them, when it was not. But, as there is no pretence that any defence was shown to the suit, the verdict was clearly against the evidence ; and it must be set aside for that reason. *Motion sustained.*— New *trial granted.*

Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Kent and Walton, JJ., con- " curred.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD R. WAGNER, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 395, 24 CMR 205

No. 10,331

Decided November 8, 1957

*Major Edward Fenig*and *First Lieutenant Edwin E. Allen*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*396
      *Colonel J. L. Searles, Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee, Captain Thomas J. Nichols,*and *First Lieutenant Thomas M. Lofton*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

The accused was charged with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including larceny and desertion. He pleaded guilty to three of the charges. On the fourth, the desertion offense, he pleaded not guilty, but guilty to an unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. However, he was convicted as charged. His conviction having been affirmed by intermediate appellate authorities, he petitioned this Court for grant of review. We granted the petition.

Two issues are presented for our consideration. Both pertain to the desertion charge. The Government concedes that one of the issues has been decided in the accused’s favor by some of our recent decisions. In • a motion for reconsideration of our order granting review, it also acknowledges that it would not oppose the second issue if the case were returned to the board of review for consideration. In view of our disposition of the case, the Government’s motion for reconsideration of our order granting the accused’s petition for grant of review is granted.

Under the circumstances we think the interests of justice will be best served by accepting the Government’s concessions and granting the accused the relief to which he is entitled. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is set aside insofar as it relates to Charge I and its specification, and the sentence. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for resubmission to the board of review. In its discretion, the board of review can order a rehearing on Charge I or affirm a finding of guilty in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, supra, and reassess-the sentence on the basis of the lesser offense and the other findings of guilty.
#### Tobias & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6712.

Entry No. 708779.

Invoice dated London, England, July 3, 1942.

Certified July 3, 1942.

Entered at New York, N.'Y., October 16, 1942.

(Decided January 7, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 41972.

#### Protests 312166-G, etc., of Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the articles in question were held dutiable as hollow ware at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *Viking Trading Co.*v. *United States*(C. D. 132) cited.
No. 47538.

#### Protests 80928-K, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
January 19, 1940

No. 43076.

Suit *4227.*

#### *United States*v. *Chas. Kalb, Inc., et al.*

Abstracts 39901/3. Appeal dismissed December 6, 1939; not yet reported.
Document

Exhibit 4.3

DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES 
REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 


As of April 15, 2022, Zovio Inc has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), our Common Stock.
Description of Common Stock
The following description of our Common Stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”) and our Third Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.3 is a part. We encourage you to read our Certificate of Incorporation, our Bylaws and the applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, for additional information.
Authorized Capital Shares
Our authorized capital stock will consist of 300,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share (“Common Stock”), and 20,000,000 shares of undesignated preferred stock, $0.01 par value per share. The outstanding shares of our Common Stock are fully paid and nonassessable.
Voting Rights
The holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on any matter to be voted upon by stockholders. All shares of Common Stock rank equally as to voting and all other matters. The shares of Common Stock have no preemptive or conversion rights, no redemption or sinking fund provisions, are not liable for further call or assessment and are not entitled to cumulative voting rights.
Dividend Rights
The holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive ratably any dividends when and as declared from time to time by the board of directors out of funds legally available for dividends. We have never declared or paid cash dividends. We currently intend to retain all future earnings for the operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on the Common Stock in the foreseeable future.
Liquidation Rights
Upon a liquidation or dissolution of our company, whether voluntary or involuntary, creditors with preferential liquidation rights will be paid before any distribution to holders of our Common Stock. After such distribution, holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive a pro rata distribution per share of any excess amount.
Undesignated Preferred Stock
The board of directors has the authority to issue undesignated preferred stock without stockholder approval, subject to applicable law and listing exchange standards. The board of directors may also determine or alter for each class of preferred stock the voting powers, designations, preferences and special rights, qualifications, limitations or restrictions as permitted by law. The board of directors may authorize the issuance of preferred stock with voting or conversion rights that could adversely affect the voting power or other rights of the holders of the Common Stock.
Listing
Our Common Stock is traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the trading symbol “ZVO.”
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                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  Quarterly  Report of  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Kenneth H. Globus,  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
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 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.


Date:  November 5, 2006                   /s/ Kenneth H. Globus
                                          --------------------------
                                          Kenneth H. Globus
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 56594.

protest 171397-K (A) (Detroit)

#### Millard A. Ring *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Case No. 6,910.

#### HUNTER v. ROYAL CANADIAN INS. CO.

[See Case No. 6,909.]