alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
608 S.E.2d 484

#### Melvin G. PERRY, Appellant, v. Tom DELISLE, t/a R & T Construction and Uninsured Employers’ Fund, Appellees.

Record No. 0439-04-1.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb. 1, 2005.

Before Chief Judge FITZPATRICK, Judges BENTON, ELDER, ANNUNZIATA *, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS, FELTON, KELSEY and McCLANAHAN.

*

 Judge Rosemarie Annunziata participated in the consideration of this case prior to the effective date of her retirement on December 31, 2004.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing En Banc

On December 14, 2004 came appellee Tom Delisle, Va R & T Construction, by counsel, and on December 17, 2004 came appellee Uninsured Employers’ Fund, by counsel, and filed petitions praying that the Court set aside the judgment ren*17dered herein on November 30, 2004, and grant a rehearing *en banc*thereof.

On consideration whereof, the petitions for rehearing *en banc*are granted, the mandate entered herein on November 30, 2004 is stayed pending the decision of the Court *en banc,*and the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court.

The parties shall file briefs in compliance with Rule 5A:35. Each appellee shall attach as an addendum to their respective opening brief upon rehearing *en banc*a copy of the opinion previously rendered by the Court in this matter. It is further ordered that each appellee shall file with the clerk of this Court six additional copies of the appendix previously filed in this case. Should the appellant file an answering brief, he shall file one brief that addresses all issues raised by each appellee in their respective pleadings.
A99A0157.

#### KEOWN v. THE STATE.

(512 SE2d 391)

Blackburn, Judge.

Wesley Hugh Keown appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, of two counts of battery and one count of simple battery. Keown raises three enumerations of error, all concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. However, Keown has failed to include a copy of the trial transcript, a stipulation of the record or an order of findings of fact entered by the trial judge with the record on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-41 (g). Therefore, we are unable to review Keown’s assertions of error. See *Sherman v. State,*142 Ga. App. 691, 692 (237 SE2d 5) (1977) (“enumerations of error going to the sufficiency of the evidence . . . cannot be considered due to the lack of a transcript or other record of these proceedings”).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beasley, P. J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur.*

*518Decided February 17, 1999.

*Jane K. Mitchell,*for appellant.

*Leslie C. Abernathy, Solicitor,*for appellee.
#### Edward BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-1784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 28, 1998.

Edward Bell, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

No response filed on behalf of appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Anderson v. Singletary,*688 So.2d 462, 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); *Ho-warth v. State,*673 So.2d 580, 582 (Fla. 5th DCA), *rev. denied,*680 So.2d 422 (Fla.1996).

GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Case No. 6,995.

#### The ICONIUN.

[5 Adm. Rec. 287.]

District Court, S. D. Florida.

Oct. 30, 1854.

Salvage.

[Five vessels, carrying 54 men, in nearly two days of almost incessant labor succeeded in floating a ship in ballast aground on Loo-Key Shoals, by discharging 130 tons of ballast, carrying out anchors, and straining on the cables. *Held,*that one third of the net value of the vessel, estimated at $14,500, was a reasonable allowance.]

[This was a libel in rem by John T. Lowe and others against the ship Iconiun for salvage.]

Winer Bethel, for libelants.

Wm. R. Hackley, for respondent.

MARVIN, District Judge.

This ship, Turner, master, bound on a voyage from New York to New Orleans, in ballast, got aground on Loo-Key Shoals, on the evening of the 24th of October. The master, believing that the ship might be drove over the shoal, and in order also to keep her more steady, kept all sails standing for several hours, and until he discovered that the tide had begun to fall. He then took in his sails. He also threw overboard about thirty tons of ballast during the night. In the morning the wrecking vessels Relámpago, Hawkins, Jane Eliza, Lavinia, and Olivia, carrying in all fifty-four men, arrived at the ship. The master employed them to assist him in getting the ship off. They carried out the Re-lampago’s anchor astern, backed by an anchor from the Lavinia and Hawkins, with a good scope of chain, and commenced discharging ballast. The master, with his own crew, too, took down and sent on board the fore, main, and mizzen topgallant masts, with their sails and rigging, and all the yards, except the main topsail yard. The ship lay in 9% feet and 7 feet water, she drawing 12 and 11 feet. The wreckers discharged ballast throughout the day and until twelve o’clock at night. The next morning they carried out the ship’s best bower anchor, and continued throughout the day to lighten the ship by heaving overboard ballast. At about twelve o’cIock at night of the second day they heaved the ship off by repeated heavy strains. About one hundred and thirty tons of ballast were discharged in all. The ship may be estimated in her present condition at the value of $14.-500. In its chief features of merit, the case is like the cases of The John and Albert [Case No. 7,333], The Ella Hand [Id. 4,360], and The Abellino [unreported], and a similar compensation should be allowed. I think one third of the net value is a reasonable salvage to be allowed.

It is therefore, ordered,- adjudged, and decreed that the costs and expenses of this suit, wharfage, storage, bills for labor, notary and surveyor’s fees, and all other charges upon the said ship, except for repairs and taking in ballast, and the proctor’s fee for defending this suit, be ascertained and allowed and deducted from the aforesaid $14,500, and that one third of the residue be allowed the libellants in full compensation for their services in saving said ship; and that upon the payment of said salvage, *1155■costs and expenses and charges the marshal restore said ship to the master thereof for and on account of whom it may concern.
# C_2015007EN.01000501.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

(Case C-108/13) (1)

1

((Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Plant protection products - Marketing authorisation - Parallel import - Requirement for a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC in the exporting State))

(2015/C 007/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mac GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import authorisation may not be granted for a plant protection product which does not have, in the exporting Member State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, even though that product has a parallel import authorisation and may be regarded as identical to a product covered by a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with that directive in the importing Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7412]

Determination Under Section 602(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1961, as Amended, Relating to Assistance to Antigua and Barbuda

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 620(q) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), Executive Order 
12163, as amended by Executive Order 13346, and Delegation of Authority 
245-1, I hereby determine the continued assistance to Antigua and 
Barbuda from the date upon which the restriction took effect is in the 
national interest of the United States and thereby waive the 
application of section 620(q) of the FAA for such assistance.
    This Determination shall be reported to Congress and published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 18, 2011.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2011-8722 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
```
exv10w4



 






Exhibit 10.4





LETTER AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES




ATLAS ACQUISITION HOLDINGS CORP.




January
30, 2008



Hauslein & Company, Inc.




Gentlemen:



This letter will confirm our agreement, that commencing on the consummation date (the “Closing
Date”) of the initial public offering (“IPO”) of the securities of Atlas Acquisition
Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of the consummation by the
Company of a “Business Combination” or the liquidation of the Company (each, as described
in the Company’s IPO prospectus, and such earlier date, the “Termination Date”), Hauslein &
Company, Inc. shall make available to the Company for certain administrative, technology, and
secretarial services, as well as the use of certain limited office space, in the Hobe Sound,
Florida area, as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 11450 SE Dixie
Highway, Suite 105, Hobe Sound, Florida 33455 (or any successor location) and any other locations.
In exchange therefor, the Company shall pay to Hauslein & Company, Inc. the sum of $10,000 per
month (the “Fee”) on the Closing Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the
Termination Date.




[Signatures appear on following page]




 









 





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,





ATLAS ACQUISITION HOLDINGS CORP.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
James N. Hauslein	 
	 	 	Name:  	James N. Hauslein 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:



HAUSLEIN & COMPANY, INC.

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/
James N. Hauslein	 	 
	 	Name:  	James N. Hauslein 	 	 
	 	Title:  	President
# C_2015138EN.01001401.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald

(Case C-559/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductibility of support payments made in consideration for a gift by way of anticipated succession - Exclusion of non-residents))

(2015/C 138/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna

Applicant:

Defendant: Josef Grünewald

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which does not permit a non-resident taxpayer who has received in that Member State commercial income generated by shares in a business which were transferred to him by a relative in the course of a gift by way of anticipated succession to deduct from that income the annuities which he has paid to that relative in consideration for that gift, whereas that legislation allows a resident taxpayer to make such a deduction.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
No. 54990.

#### Levantino Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159200-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Charles Happel, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7692.

Invoice dated Stoke on Trent, England, May 14, 1946.

Certified May 15, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 17, 1946.

Entry No. 768496.

(Decided March 31, 1949)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in this reappraisement are the same in all material respects-as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export value of the *438merchandise is the value found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importer by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 42127.

#### Protests 670582-G, etc., of G. Ascione, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
Exhibit 23.1 - Consent of Independent Auditors


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  333-56123)  pertaining to the  Bioanalytical  Systems,  Inc. 1997
Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No.  333-56127)  pertaining  to the 1997  Bioanalytical  Systems,  Inc.  Outside
Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated November 3, 2000 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.



                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Indianapolis, Indiana
December 28, 2000
# C_2013108EN.01001403.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 14 January 2013 — Jürgen Langenbächer and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-16/13)

2013/C 108/30

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jürgen Langenbächer, Janet Langenbächer, Jaqueline Langenbächer

Applicants:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

The case was removed from the register by order of the Court of Justice of 30 January 2013.

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20116]

[[Page 41132]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

July 24, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)

    OMB Number: 1535-0067.
    Form Number: PD F 974.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Certificate by Owner of United States Registered Securities 
Concerning Forged Requests for Payment or Assignments
    Description: Form PD F 974 is used by owners of United States 
Securities to certify that the signature was forged to a request for 
payment or an assignment.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 750 hours.

    OMB Number: 1535-0101.
    Form Number: PD F 345.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Description of Registered Securities.
    Description: This form is used to identify an owner's registered 
securities.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 1,250 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Vicki S. Thorpe (304) 480-6553, Bureau of the 
Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West VA 26106-1328.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-20116 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-40-P
```
---

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

I, Scott C. Houghton, Chief Executive Officer of August Biomedical
  Corporation certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
  on Form 10-QSB of August Biomedical Corporation, for the quarter ended November
  30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly
  Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
  condition and results of operations of August Biomedical Corporation.

| | By:    | /s/ Scott C. Houghton  
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Scott C. Houghton      
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | January 19, 2004       

---
# C_2014261EN.01000601.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA and Others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-287/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Article 59 and Annex XIII - Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure - Equal treatment))

2014/C 261/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
#### Norman G. Jensen *v.*United States

No. 5999.

Invoice dated Fraser Mill, B. C., March 11, 1941.

Certified April 24, 1941.

Entered at Noyes, Minn., March 18, 1941.

Entry No. 3211-A.

*444(Decided May 8, 1944)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel 1. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Olivee, Presiding Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to approval by the court, that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise' to the United States, the prices at which plywood, such as or similar to the plywood involved in the instant case was freely offered for sale, for home consumption, to all purchasers in the principal markets of Canada, the country from which expprted, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in .condition, packed ready for-shipment to the United States, were as follows:

> 34" x 72" and 36" x 60" Can. $39.69,

> 48" x 60" and 48" x 72" Can. 41.90, net M ft.

> 48" x 52" Can. 55.13,

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise, and that this case may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as follows:

34" x 72"'and 36" x 60" Can. $39.69,

48" x 60" and ,48" x 72" Can. 41.90, net per M sq. ft.

48" x 52" Can. 55.13,

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.