alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S IO-J 00326-()08 

### ,'rp'r 

## Or' Ut: i.-I

!**f:;;~T.AA** . i PlltOMOl\lT TRIAD AIRPORT AUTHORlTV
­ March 12,2010

The Honorable Raymond fL LaHood 

### Secretary
. 

## O.s. D!.'tpartment ofTmnsportation l200NewJers:eyAve, 

### SE Washingl<ln, DC20590 Docket DOT-OST··20t0..;_ Dear Mr. Secrct{lry: Thank you for the opportunity Ie) express support for the application for antitrust immunity aridproposedjoinl business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alIiwtce between these lwoairUnesis 

### vital for oneworld to compete effectively with (he Star_ and SkyTeamatliance, Tbis increased intcralliance

.competition will 

### in-turn enIlnnce the benefits 

### ofthc-Depurtll1ent's Open Skies policyfirst by solidifying**U.S.~Japan** Open Skies, then by serving as Il f()ttndation {br further 

### liberalization across Asia. Afterll thorough 

### review,! encourage the 

### Department ofTransportation to**apptOvelhi~** 

### application. a$it

### would 

### e11able these uneworld atUance airlines

### to work c]oselytogether to 

### deliver highly competitive 

### air transporhltion services. Approval fbr AA/JAL alliancewiU bave a positive impact on nir trovel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and 

### will help to ensure that customers continue to bcncfitfi'oU1 having 

### three competitive air alliances to choose from. Iurge you to**q~lickly** approve this application. Sincerely. PIEDMONT TRIA OIlT AUTHOR1TY



### Edward A.-

### Johnson ExeclttiveDil'cctor
. Pledrnont 

### Triad Airport Authwity (ireensboro, North Carollna
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7721

WILLIAM F. ALLEN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EARL FRAZIER, Property Owner; ANN COBERLY, Renter, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-161) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Earl Frazier, Ann Coberly, Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William F. Allen, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Frazier , No. CA-98- 161 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 17, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### AMERICAN BRIDGE, DIVISION OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. v. HUBER, HUNT AND NICHOLS, INC., et al.

No. 54276.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. and Blount Bros. Corp., applying for Writ of Certiorari or Review.

Writ denied. The Court of Appeal is correct that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under C.C.P. Article 532.

CALOGERO, J., did not participate.
#### Joshua B. DEAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-581.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
March 14, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Incorporation of the Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides and Science 

Assessment for Nitrogen Oxides Dockets (SOx: EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0260, NOx:

EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0029) into the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145)

FROM: Ginger Tennant

Health and Environmental Impacts Division

TO: Rulemaking Docket for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

1145)

Materials contained in Dockets No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0260 and EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-

0029 (Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides and Science Assessment for Nitrogen Oxides) will 

be incorporated by reference into the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1145).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6214
In Re: JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-100-BR) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 6, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Ellerbe, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James E. Ellerbe filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina to initiate the indictment and prosecution of several individuals for alleged crimes committed in relation to Ellerbe’s prosecution for aiding and abetting a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. We have reviewed the petition and find it completely meritless. Mandamus relief is warranted only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and there are no other means available for seeking that relief. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). No citizen has an enforceable right to insist on the initiation of criminal proceedings. Linda R. S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2022198EN.01004802.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/48

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

(Case T-114/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 198/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2020 (Case R 720/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign doglover as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
FIRST AMENDMENT
                                   TO THE
                  1997 KEY EMPLOYEES INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN
                                     OF
                  GENERAL HOUSEWARES CORP AND SUBSIDIARIES


WHEREAS, General Housewares Corp. (the "Company") maintains the 1997 Key
Employees Incentive Stock Plan of General Housewares Corp. and Subsidiaries
(the "Plan"); and

WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the
Company may amend the Plan from time to time, subject to the limitations
therein; and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1. The third paragraph of Section 11 of the Plan is hereby amended to read
in its entirety as follows:

         "In the event of a Change of Control (a) all restrictions on
         restricted stock previously awarded to participants under the Plan
         shall be cancelled, the shares awarded thereupon to become fully
         vested, and (b) all stock options and related stock appreciation
         rights which are outstanding shall become immediately exercisable
         in full without regard to any limitations of time or amount
         otherwise contained in the Plan or in any agreement. In the
         alternative, the Board of Directors shall have the power to cancel
         all outstanding options or any outstanding related stock
         appreciation rights, upon or after the effectiveness of any Change
         in Control and, in connection with therewith, to determine the
         amount, if any, that each participant shall be entitled to receive
         in settlement of the outstanding options or any outstanding
         related stock appreciation rights held by him on the date of such
         cancellation; provided, however, that the value of the cash or
         property received with respect to each optioned share or with
         respect to each related stock appreciation right shall not exceed
         the per share value received or to be received by the holders of
         the outstanding Common Stock of the Company as the result of such
         merger or consolidation and shall not be less than the difference
         between the per share value of the outstanding Common Stock of the
         Company and the exercise price for each optioned share or related
         stock appreciation right."

This First Amendment shall be effective as of August 2, 1999, the date of
its adoption by the Committee.

                                            GENERAL HOUSEWARES CORP.



                                            By /s/ Raymond J. Kulla
                                               _____________________________
                                            Name:  Raymond J. Kulla
                                            Title: Vice President, General
                                                   Counsel and Secretary
#### OCALA STAR-BANNER COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and Loyal Phillips, individually, Appellants, v. Leonard DAMRON, Appellee.

No. 38658.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 21, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1970.

Harold B. Wahl, of Loftin & Wahl, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Wallace Dunn, Ocala, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Review having been sought by direct appeal from the District Court of Appeal, *823First District, and argument having been heard and the record having been examined, it is our opinion and we hold that the cause sub judice is not within the orbit of the jurisdiction of this court as set forth by Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution • of Florida, F.S.A. Therefore the cause is dismissed ex mero motu.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### WOOLSEY B. POLITE *vs.*PAYNTER JEFFERSON.

After levy and appraisement by a constable, he has such a special property as will maintain replevin, though the property levied on be left in defendant’s custody.

If the levy be lost, its contents may be proved by paroi.

Action of trover. Plaintiff, as a constable, levied on a pair of oxen, the property of Elijah Adkins, at the suit of N. Conoway. Jefferson claimed the oxen, and refused to give them up.

Plaintiff pioved the judgment and execution, and proposed to prove the levy by paroi.

*Mr. Cullen*

made the point, that no evidence of the levy could be given, but the record itself. There was no levy on file, and no entry of the levy on the record.

*The Court*

said it was the duty of the justice to file the inventory, and endorse the levy and amount on his record. In the absence of this entry, the presumption would be, that no levy was made; but the negligence of the officer would not prevent a party from proving a levy. The best evidence of that is the inventory itself; if its existence and loss are proved, its contents may be proved.

This evidence was put in.

*389
      *Layton,*for plaintiff.

*Cullen,*for defendant.

*Mr. Cullen*moved a nonsuit for want of proof of an *appraisement,*following the levy. *Digest,*339, requires an appraisement to be made. Execution does not bind until appraisement. *[Code,*347.) The fi. fa. and the levy had been returned. The only process Polite had was a venditioni exponas. That process gave no custody of the goods to the officers. It gives no authority to *take*the property; only to *sell.*A venditioni gives no property. ( *Watson Sheriff,*137-8; *Law Lib.)*The officer must continue in possession of the property. Leaving it in the defendant’s possession, he gave him the power to commit a fraud on the defendant, by selling the oxen. And this plaintiff is the same officer. He cannot now take advantage of his own wrong. (14 *Wend. Rep.,*123; 2 *Saund. Rep.,*47, *b. n. e.;*5 *Denio Rep.,*138; 9 *Pick. Rep.,*360.)

*The Court*refused the nonsuit.

Harrington, Judge.

The English practice is as stated. But it has been regarded as the law of this State, that a valid levy might be made, without actual seizure and removal of the goods. An inventory and appraisement regularly made, is a good levy. And the special property of the officer making the levy continues, though he leave the property in defendant’s possession, and return his writ. A limitation of the lien of such levy is made by the new code. The appraisement is made by the officer himself, under his official oath. (3 *Harr. Rep.,*514; 1 *Ibid,*107; *Code,*347.) As to the proof of the appraisement, we shall leave it to the jury on the testimony.

The case went to the jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for the value of the oxen, and interest, by way of increase of damages.
#### STATE ex rel. Stanley Harvey HARRIS v. Jack TURNER, one of the Judges of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida.

No. 38105.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 216 So.2d 521.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 884 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 884

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the deduction 
  limitation which applies to State legislators who reside within 50 
              miles of the capitol building of the State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 1993

   Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Zeliff) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the deduction 
  limitation which applies to State legislators who reside within 50 
              miles of the capitol building of the State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TRAVEL EXPENSES OF CERTAIN STATE LEGISLATORS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (h) of section 162 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to State legislators' travel expenses 
away from home) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
#### Max Herko, Plaintiff, *v.*Isidore Uviller, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

June 12, 1952.

*Selig Kaplan*for defendant.

*Freiman é Brecher*for plaintiff.

Keogh, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint alleges in substance that in or about the latter part of May, 1950, plaintiff’s wife was pregnant; that she consulted-with defendant (her uncle) for the purpose of aborting her pregnancy; that in opposition to plaintiff’s wishes and contrary to law, defendant performed, or caused to be performed, an abortion upon plaintiff’s wife; that said illegal abortion resulted in a termination of the pregnancy of plaintiff’s wife and that as a result of the “ illegal and tortious ” act of defendant, plaintiff was deprived of further offspring, and further deprived of the consortium and society of his wife.

The charge that defendant’s acts were illegal and tortious is merely conclusory and unsupported by any facts.

It is stated in Restatement of the Law of Torts (Vol. 3, § 693, Comment c) that: “ In order to subject one to liability to a husband for illness or bodily harm done to his wife? all the *109elements of a tort action in the wife must exist, including the tortious conduct of the actor, the resulting harm to the wife and the latter’s freedom from such fault as would bar a recovery by her, as for example, her contributory negligence (see § 494).”

The allegation in the instant complaint that plaintiff’s wife consulted with defendant for the purpose of aborting her pregnancy clearly implies that she participated in the commission of the act complained of and, therefore, she would be precluded from maintaining any cause of action arising out of that transaction. (See *Larocque*v. *Conheim,*42 Misc. 613.)

Although “ The invasion of the husband’s interests in the marriage relation is a separate tort against him, it is conditioned upon factors which also constitute a tort against the wife. * * * Unless, therefore, the actor has become liable

to the wife, he cannot be subject to liability to the husband ” (Restatement, Torts, Vol. 3, § 693, Comment d, p. 493).

Motion granted. Submit order.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 10.3
                                  ------------


                     Amendment No.1 to Employment Agreement
                                of David Seltzer

<PAGE>
                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     Amendment No.1 dated as of May 1, 2001, to the Amended and Restated
Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1999, (the "Agreement"), by
and between Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. (the "Corporation") and David S. Seltzer
("Executive"). Capitalized terms utilized herein and not defined herein shall
have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

     WHEREAS, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto have agreed to clarify the
base guaranteed bonus provision of the Agreement as set forth herein.

     NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

     Section 1. Section 4.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting it in
its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     "4.2. Guaranteed Bonus. In addition to his annual Base Salary, during each
year of employment that the Corporation's Pre-Tax Net Income (as defined in
Section 4.4) exceeds Two Million ($2,000,000) Dollars, the Executive shall
receive a guaranteed bonus ("Guaranteed Bonus") equal to three (3%) percent of
the Corporation's Pre-Tax Net Income for such year. The Guaranteed Bonus shall
be payable within thirty (30) days after the Corporation's regularly employed
independent certified public accountants ("Accountants"), in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied, determine the
Pre-Tax Net Income for such year ("Determination Date").

     Section 2. In all other respects the Agreement remains unchanged and in
full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No.1 to
the Agreement as of the date set forth above.

                          HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC.

                          By: /s/ Bernard Seltzer
                             _______________________________
                             Bernard Seltzer

                             /s/ David S. Seltzer
                             _______________________________
                             David S. Seltzer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 111 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 14

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 111

                          [Report No. 103-25]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 3, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                  House Calendar No. 14
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 111

                          [Report No. 103-25]

    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 1993

    Mr. Bonior, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-
thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to 
resolutions reported on the legislative day of March 4, 1993, providing 
for consideration of a bill relating to emergency unemployment 
compensation.
```