alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROGRESSIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930
Clearwater, FL  33755



							February 16, 2000


Lee Young, Esq.
213 E. Main Street
Union, Missouri  83084

Gentlemen:

	As compensation for legal consulting services rendered by you in the
amount of $63,991.05, we confirm our agreement to issue to you an aggregate of
25,597 shares of Progressive Telecommunications Corporation (the "Company")
common stock, $.001 par value.

These shares will be issued upon the effective date of a Form S-8 Registration
Statement and the delivery of the documents to you which constitute the S-8
Prospectus, which the Company agrees to complete by February 22, 2000, free and
clear of any restrictions on sale by you..  We also confirm that the board of
directors of the Company have duly approved the issuance of shares to you.
Please confirm that this correctly sets forth our understanding relating to the
settlement of compensation due to you for these services by signing the extra
copy of this letter and returning it to us.

					      PROGRESSIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
					      CORPORATION


					      BY: /s/ Barry L. Shevlin
     						   Barry L. Shevlin,
					     	   Chairman and CEO

Accepted:


/s/ Lee Young
Lee Young, Esq.
Before the First Division,

August 22, 1940

No. 44220.

#### Protests 843298-G, etc., of Armand Schwab & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

CrimeCriminal LawDelinquencyDelinquent RehabilitationIndividual CharacteristicsJuvenile CourtsLaw EnforcementRecidivismSentencingViolence

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

**Note:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
No. 43095.

#### Protest 991214-G of Emanuel Forster (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fur pieces similar to those the subject of Abstract 41389. The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1621

ROGER KEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent – Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 06-24110)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Key, Appellant Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard Farber, John Schumann, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Roger Key appeals from the tax court’s orders
dismissing his tax court petition for failure to prosecute and
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the tax court. See Key v. Comm’r, IRS , Tax Ct. No. 06-24110 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 7, 2008 & filed Feb. 27,
2009; entered Mar. 4, 2009). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016305EN.01003501.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/35

---

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA

(Case T-440/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Processing of online transactions - External service provision for software applications - Multiple framework cascade contract EMA/2012/10/ICT - Request for services sent to the applicants - Insertion of new criteria - Subject matter of the action ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 305/48)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Ampazis, M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, and subsequently M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jablonski, N. Rampal Olmedo, G. Gavriilidou and P.A. Eyckmans, Agents)

Defendant:

Subject matter

Subject matter

Application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration concerning the insertion, in EMA’s request S C 002 of 22 May 2015 to provide services, of new criteria which did not feature in the technical specifications for tender EMA/20l1/l7/ICT, Annex I to framework contract EMA/2012/l0/ICT.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2016305EN.01003201.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Thun 1794 v EUIPO — Adekor (Decorative graphical symbols)

(Case T-420/15) (1)

1

((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing decorative graphical symbols - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Disclosure of earlier design - Lack of novelty - Articles 5, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2016/C 305/44)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Thun 1794 a.s. (Nová Role, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Steidl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Adekor s.r.o. (Loket, Czech Republic) (represented by: V. Dohnalová, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 1465/2014-3) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Thun 1794 and Adekor.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Thun 1794 a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Thun 1794 a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
December 17, 1945

No. 6244.

#### *Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. (a/c Art Book Publications, Inc.)*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 6226. Motion by appellant.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 384 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 384

       Designating March 2, 2006, as ``Read Across America Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2006

 Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Lautenberg) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating March 2, 2006, as ``Read Across America Day''.

Whereas reading is a basic requirement for quality education and professional 
        success, and is a source of pleasure throughout life;
Whereas the people of the United States must be able to read if the United 
        States is to remain competitive in the global economy;
Whereas Congress, through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-
        110) and the Reading First, Early Reading First, and Improving Literacy 
        Through School Libraries programs, has placed great emphasis on reading 
        intervention and providing additional resources for reading assistance; 
        and
Whereas more than 40 national associations concerned about reading and education 
        have joined with the National Education Association to use March 2, the 
        anniversary of the birth of Theodor Geisel, also known as Dr. Seuss, to 
        celebrate reading: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates March 2, 2006, as ``Read Across America 
        Day'';
            (2) honors Theodor Geisel, also known as Dr. Seuss, for his 
        success in encouraging children to discover the joy of reading;
            (3) encourages parents to read with their children for at 
        least 30 minutes on Read Across America Day in honor of Dr. 
        Seuss and in celebration of reading; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021338EN.01001601.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-692/15 RENV) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2021/C 338/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Tricot, C. Hödlmayr, J. Roberti di Sarsina and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Articles 268 and 340 TFEU and seeking compensation for the losses which the applicant allegedly suffered following the listing of its name, first, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25) in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1) and, secondly, by Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union relating to the present proceedings and the proceedings in Case T-692/15; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union relating to the present proceedings and the proceedings in Case T-692/15;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings in Case C-123/18 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings in Case C-123/18 P.

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings, the proceedings in Case T-692/15 and the proceedings in Case C-123/18 P. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings, the proceedings in Case T-692/15 and the proceedings in Case C-123/18 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---
#### Close and Stewart *v.*United States

No. 6255.

Entry No. 39-S, etc.

Invoices dated Calgary, Alberta, Canada, December 19, 1944, etc.

Certified December 19, 1944, etc.

Entered at Spokane, Wash., December 27, 1944, etc.

*326(Decided February 14, 1946)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Harold L. Grossman,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Ekwall, Judge:

These cases, which have been consolidated, involve the value for duty purposes of certain merchandise invoiced as mill feed and oat middlings imported at the port of Spokane, Wash. At the hearing held at Seattle, it was agreed by counsel that the export value of the merchandise on the date of exportation was the invoiced unit prices per ton of 2,000 pounds, less nondutiable charges totaling United States dollars, 13.64, United States dollars 2.50 per consular fee, and United States dollars 234.27 for freight, as to each entry. It was further agreed that the foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 was no higher on the date of exportation than the amount set forth above.

In view of this stipulation I find that the proper basis of value for this merchandise is the foreign value as defined in said section 402 (c) .and that such values are the invoiced unit prices per ton of 2,000 •pounds, less nondutiable charges totaling $13.64, consular fee of $2.50, .•and $234.27 for freight; as to each entry, all values in United States dollars.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Nine
                                                     Months
                                                     Ended
                                                    June 30,                    Year Ended September 30,
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------
                                                      2003          2002          2001          2000          1999
                                                      ----          ----          ----          ----          ----
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes ....................   $ 99,905      $ 73,665      $ 79,568      $ 82,882      $ 63,139
Interest expense ................................     12,198        16,365        18,724        18,135        17,317
Amortization of debt discount and expense .......        181           287           264           218           215
Estimated interest component of
  rental expense ................................      1,087         1,563         1,541         1,318         1,539
                                                    --------      --------      --------      --------      --------
                                                    $113,371      $ 91,880      $100,097      $102,553      $ 82,210
                                                    ========      ========      ========      ========      ========

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense ................................   $ 12,198      $ 16,365      $ 18,724      $ 18,135      $ 17,317
Amortization of debt discount and expense .......        181           287           264           218           215
Allowance for funds used during
    construction (capitalized interest) .........         16            19            12            17            36
Estimated interest component of rental expense ..      1,087         1,563         1,541         1,318         1,539
                                                    --------      --------      --------      --------      --------
                                                    $ 13,482      $ 18,234      $ 20,541      $ 19,688      $ 19,107
                                                    ========      ========      ========      ========      ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..............       8.41          5.04          4.87          5.21          4.30
                                                    ========      ========      ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Matthias Jaffé,certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of LogicBioTherapeutics, Inc.; 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
3.
[Omitted]; 

 
4.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

 
 a.
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 
 b.
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financialreporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples; 

 
 c.
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 
 d.
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report), that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

 
5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 
 a.
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 
 b.
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: June 5, 2020  By: /s/ Matthias Jaffé   Matthias Jaffé   
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal FinancialOfficer)
**
(Reap. Dec. 9586)

#### J. E. Bernard *&*Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3380.

(Decided January 27, 1960)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

*557Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for tRe parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement upon a stipulation on the basis of which I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the diamonds involved is export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value is the invoice unit value, plus 0.2 per centum tax, plus packing.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8510]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Correction to Notice of Proposed Addition to the Procurement List

    In the document appearing on page 19878, FR Doc. E7-7525, 
Procurement List Proposed Additions, in the issue of Friday, April 20, 
2007, in the third column, the Committee published the proposed 
addition of a product, Cap, Utility, Camouflage Pattern, Air Force, 
BDU. This notice corrects that proposed addition of the product to read 
as follows: Cap, Utility, Camouflage Pattern, Air Force, ABU. The other 
proposed additions announced in the Notice remain the same.

Patrick Rowe,
Deputy Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E7-8510 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
# C_2016441EN.01001901.xml

| 28.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO (MEISSEN KERAMIK)

(Case T-776/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN KERAMIK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 441/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 531/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEISSEN KERAMIK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Messen Kermaik GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Messen Kermaik GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

---