alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Fringe Benefit Provisions From State Minimum Wage Laws and Orders, September 1, 1966

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Fringe Benefit Provisions From State Minimum Wage Laws and Orders, September 1, 1966 : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 293*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1966,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5557,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Before the First Division,

September 17, 1940

No. 44315.

#### Protests 545764-G, etc., of Feltex Corp. (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.
No. 96-5871.

#### McCall et vir *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 American Physicians Capital, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frank H. Freund Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Frank H. Freund
---------------------------
Frank H. Freund
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of Trinity Capital Corporation, a New Mexico corporation (“Trinity”), for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William C. Enloe, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Trinity, 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 my knowledge:

 

|   | (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 Trinity. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ William C. Enloe                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| William C. Enloe                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 15, 2008                       |
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0069- 09

K EN N ET H LE E M A Y ER , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S EVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

S W I S HER CO UNTY K EASLE R , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., M E YE RS , and W OMACK , J J ., jo in e d . O P I N I O N T he courtof appe al s i n thi s cas e di d notaddr es s w hethera cha l l enge t o the

r ei m bur s ementor dercoul d be ra i s ed for the fi r s t t i m e on appeal w hen K enneth L ee M ay er f a iled to o b

jec t to th e o rd e r in th e trial c o u rt. P re se rv a tio n o f e rro r is a sy ste m ic r e q u ire m e n t, and the court s of appe al s ar e obl i gat ed t o cons i derw hethereac h poi ntof err or rais ed on appea l i s s ubj ectt o pr es ervat i on r equi r ement s , and i f s o, w hetherth e p o int o f er r orw asM A Y E R D I S S E N T —2

S e e W ilso n v . S ta te , PD
- 0307- 09, 2010 T ex. C r i m . A pp. L E X I S 20, at*40- 41 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . M ar. 3, 20 1 0 ) (K ea sler, J. , d issen ti n g ); J o n e s v . S ta te , 9 4 2 S .W .2 d 1 , 2 n .1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) (“ P re se rv a tio n o f e rro r is a sy ste m ic r e q u ire m e n t th a t a firstleve l app ell ate c o u rtsh o u ld o rdin aril yrev iew o n it s o w n m o ti o n . ”). S e e Id o w u v . S ta te , 73 S. W
. 3d 918, 921 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2002) ( “I f a de fenda nt 2 w ishe s to c o m p lai n ab o u t th e a p p rop ri aten ess o f (a s o p p o sed to the fa ctua l bas is fo r) a tr ial co u rt ’s resti tuti o n o rde r, h e m u st do so in the tr ial co u rt , an d m u st do so ex p li cit ly
. ”). S e e e .g ., S

p e th v . S ta te , 6 S. W
. 3d 530, 531 n. 1 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1999) ( s t at i ng 3 that im p o sit ion o f p rob ati o n co n d it ion s is no t app rop ri ate f o r a su ff ici en cyrev iew ). Ble ds oev . S

tate , 1 7 8 S
. W
. 3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 6 ( T e x . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( T exas R ul e of 4 A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 47. 1 r equi r es court s of appe al s t o addr es s everyi s s ue r ai s ed and n ec essa ryto the fin al disp o sit ion o f th e c ase in it s o p inion s). pr oper l ypr es erved. I di s agr ee w i th the maj or i ty ’ s cont ent i on thatM ay err ai s ed a l egal 1

s uffi ci encycl ai m . A s evi dence d bythe br i efs befor e us, the exa ctnatur e of the i s s ue r ai s ed b y M a y e r is h o tly c o n tes ted
. It is a lso d e b a tab le w h e th e r a su f f icie n c yre v iew is a p p ro p ria te 2 in th is c a se . T h e p re se rv a tio n iss u e h e re is u n se ttl e d , so w e sh o u ld g iv e th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls 3
the oppor tuni tyt o addr es s thi s i s su e in the firsti ns t ance . I w oul d vaca t e the courtof 4

a p p e a ls’s ju d g m e n t an d su m m a rilyre m a n d th e c a se to th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls s o th a t itc o u ld det erm i ne w hetherM ay erw as r equi r ed t o pr es erve hi s compl ai ntaboutthe r ei m bur s ement
o rde r.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : M ar ch 24, 2010 PU BL I SH
# C_2017202EN.01001701.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)

(Case T-680/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination))

(2017/C 202/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, 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: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Decker, 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 First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 2266/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Les Éclaires and L’éclaireur International.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
Amendment No. 3 to the 1997 Equity Participation Plan



 Exhibit 10.27 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO 
 THE 1997 EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN 
 OF 
 INPATIENT CONSULTANTS MANAGEMENT, INC. 
 This Amendment
No. 3 (this Amendment) to The Equity Participation Plan of InPatient Consultants Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation (IPCM), is effective as of October 10, 2000, with reference to the following: 
 1. InPatient Consultants Management, Inc., a California corporation (IPCM California), adopted the 1997 Equity Participation Plan (the Plan), effective
October 22, 1997, for the benefit of its eligible employees, consultants and directors. 
 2. The Shareholders of IPCM, successor by
merger to IPCM California amended the Plan, effective April 18, 1998, increasing the aggregate number of shares which could be issued upon exercise of options or rights or upon any such award under the Plan. 
 3. The Shareholders of IPCM amended the Plan, effective April 28, 1999, increasing the aggregate number of shares which could be issued upon
exercise of options or rights or upon any such award under the Plan. 
 4. The Shareholders and Directors of IPCM now desire to amend the
Plan to further increase the aggregate number of shares which may be issued upon exercise of options or rights or upon any such award under the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. As of the date hereof, Article II,
Section 2.1(a) of the Plan shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 2.0.1 Shares Subject to Plan.  
 (a) The shares of stock subject to Options, awards of Restricted Stock, Performance Awards, Dividend Equivalents, awards of Deferred Stock
or Stock Payments shall be Common Stock, and initially shares of the Company’s Common Stock. The aggregate number of such shares which may be issued upon exercise of such options or rights or upon any such awards under the Plan shall not exceed
Six Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (6,750,000). The shares of Common Stock issuable upon exercise of such options or rights or upon any such awards may be either previously authorized but unissued shares or treasury shares. 
 2. Except as amended hereby, The 1997 Equity Participation Plan remains in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
executed this Amendment this 10th the day of October, 2000. 
  

			
	 InPatient Consultants Management, Inc.,
 a
Delaware corporation

		
	By:	 	  /s/ Adam D. Singer, M.D.

		
	Its:	 	 CEO

		 	


  

 2
#### Claire BORNE v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 98-C-0807.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re St. John the Baptist Par. Sch. Bd.;—Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 97-CA-1062; Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 6, No. 97-03343.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
---

Exhibit 99.18

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between BAK International (Tianjin) Limited (the Company) and Tianjin Branch, Bank of Dalian (the Creditor) dated November 27,
2009

Main contents

- Contract number: DLLJin 200911270025;
- Loan principal: RMB 20 million;
- Loan term: from November 27, 2009 to November 26, 2010;
- Floating interest rate: annually 5.31%, rate adjustment in one month cycle;Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;
Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.31% plus 50% *5.31%;
Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.31% *1;
- Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;
- Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.31% plus 50% *5.31%;
- Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.31% *1;
- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
- Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
- Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due to
delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; compensation for the Creditors expenses incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation,
etc.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Payment of the loan
- Insurance
- Rights and obligation of the Creditor
- Declaration and undertaking of the Company
- Interest penalty of loan
- Guarantee of the loan agreement
- Disputation settlement
- Notification

---
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

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

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report 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

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                                  /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: May 11, 2005               ____________________________________________
                                 Donald R. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
No. 44222.

#### Protest 883016-G (A) of A. Hirschberger (New York).

*298Opinion 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 protest was therefore sustained.
No. 48830.

#### Protests 80294-K, etc., of O. Hertzwig Trading Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     2,844
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,405)
<INVENTORY>                                     78,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,625
<PP&E>                                         590,876
<DEPRECIATION>                               (298,320)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,629
<BONDS>                                         23,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     432,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676,148
<SALES>                                        672,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               672,038
<CGS>                                          409,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  569,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   956
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                102,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
        

</TABLE>
33803.

#### BRYAN v. BRYAN.

Bowles, Justice.

This appeal is from a jury verdict and judgment entered thereon granting a divorce to the parties, awarding appellant custody of the parties’ minor child and $50 per month child support; and awarding certain jointly titled items of personal property to appellee.

Appellant filed for divorce on the grounds of wilful mental cruelty and alleged that the marriage was irretrievably broken. She asked that a divorce be granted, that she be given $150 per month in child support and that she be awarded certain items of jointly titled personal property. Appellee answered, denying that he was guilty of *122mental cruelty, and cross claimed for a divorce on the ground of appellant’s wilful mental cruelty to him. Appellee asked for a jury trial on the issues.

Submitted July 7, 1978

Decided September 8, 1978.

*Dennis J. Strickland, Sr.,*for appellant.

At the beginning of the trial, appellant made a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the issue of divorce. The motion was denied, and the case proceeded to a trial. At the close of the evidence the jury found for the appellee on the issue of divorce, set child support at $50 per month and awarded appellee various items of personal property. On appeal, appellant complains that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment on the pleadings; that the verdict is contrary to law, the evidence and principles of justice; that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; and that the award of child support is so inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias. We affirm.

1. We agree with appellant that it was error for the trial court to deny her motion for judgment on the pleadings, and to submit the issue of divorce to the jury. *Dickson v. Dickson,*238 Ga. 672 (235 SE2d 479) (1977); *Leachmon v. Leachmon,*239 Ga. 780 (238 SE2d 863) (1977). However, appellant has failed to show any harm which resulted. The trial court, in its judgment entered on the verdict, granted a divorce to both of the parties. Appellant has not complained of any prejudicial evidence which was admitted solely on the divorce issue. Therefore, we find the error to be harmless, and refuse to reverse the ruling of the trial court.

2. The award of jointly titled personal property to appellee was authorized by the evidence, and was not an award of alimony out of the wife’s estate.

3. We have reviewed the evidence and find the award of $50 per month child support not to be so inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*123
      *Delman L. Minchew,*for appellee.