alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 143A/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.143.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 143A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 532 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2010.143.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 143A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 532 June 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2010/C 143A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AST/71/08 — Assistants (AST 3) in the field of publications production — Proofreaders with Lithuanian (LT) as their main language | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2010/C 143A/01

Reserve list — Open competition EPSO/AST/71/08 — Assistants (AST 3) in the field of publications production — Proofreaders with Lithuanian (LT) as their main language

1

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | (FR) |
| --- | --- |
| 9 | |
| 19 | (FR) |
| 23 | (DE/ES/PT) |
| 28 | |
| 48 | |
| 53 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 62 | |
| 64 | |
| 66 | (BG/RO) |
| 67 | (ES) |
| 70 | (PT) |
| 73 | (FI) |
| 74 | (SV) |
| 91 | |
| 95 | |
| 104 | |
| 110 | |
| 116 | (ET) |
| 119 | |
| 129 | (EL) |
| 137 | (LT/LV/MT) |
| 138 | (BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK) |
| 143 | (DE/EN/FR) |

5

(FR)

9

19

(FR)

23

(DE/ES/PT)

28

48

53

56

57

60

61

(DE/EN/FR)

62

64

66

(BG/RO)

67

(ES)

70

(PT)

73

(FI)

74

(SV)

91

95

104

110

116

(ET)

119

129

(EL)

137

(LT/LV/MT)

138

(BG/CS/LT/PL/RO/SK)

143

(DE/EN/FR)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 2.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 143/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 143/1

---

RESERVE LIST (1)

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/71/08

ASSISTANTS (AST 3)

in the field of publications production

PROOFREADERS

WITH LITHUANIAN (LT) AS THEIR MAIN LANGUAGE

(2010/C 143 A/01)

| BAGDONIENE | Ramune |
| --- | --- |
| GRAJAUSKAITE | Egidija |
| JAKULIS | Erdvilas |
| KARGAUDAITE | Lina |
| LEONCIKIENE | Jurga |
| STASINSKIENE | Lina |
| VINCEVICIENE | Rasa |
| ZUKLYTE | Asta |

BAGDONIENE

Ramune

GRAJAUSKAITE

Egidija

JAKULIS

Erdvilas

KARGAUDAITE

Lina

LEONCIKIENE

Jurga

STASINSKIENE

Lina

VINCEVICIENE

Rasa

ZUKLYTE

Asta

The reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2011 and may be extended.

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

---
#### The FORT WORTH NATIONAL BANK, Independent Executor of the Estate of Mary Lard, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-3022.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 13, 1977.

Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael J. Roach, Atty., Gilbert F. Andrews, Act. Chief, Appellate Sec., Michael L. Paup, William S. Estabrook, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

Richard Lee Brown, Terry Gardner, Jay S. Garrett, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiffappellee.

Before GODBOLD, TJOFLAT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by the Government of a decision of the district court granting a refund to the estate of Mary Lard. The main issue in the lower court was whether the value of a remainder interest in a wasting asset given to charity was sufficiently definite to be deductible. The district court held that it was and entered judgment for the trustee. Its thorough opinion is set out at 396 F.Supp. 337 (N.D.Tex.1975).

On appeal, the Government does not challenge the finding of the district court that the value of the remainder interest was sufficiently definite. Instead, it claims that the district court in making its valuation failed to take into account the fact that the charity was not to receive a possessory interest for almost five years (according to actuarial tables). Our examination reveals, however, that the .district court correctly calculated the value of the charitable remainder interest. *See generally*26 C.F.R. §§ 20.2031-7 & 20.2031-10 (1976).

AFFIRMED.
#### STANSBURY, Etc. *v.*DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

[App. No. 61,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided February 8, 1963.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Horney and Marbury, JJ.

Per Curiam:.

In this application for leave to appeal from a finding of defective delinquency, the applicant states merely that he “disagrees with the decision of the Court.” Assuming, without deciding, that this statement is in compliance with Rule 894 a 2 (a), we have examined the report of Dr. Boslow and find the evidence legally sufficient to support the judgment.

*Application denied.*
256 La. 859

#### Peter DRAGO v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Samuel T. Recatto, Jr.

No. 50771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 236 So.2d 570.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8031 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8031

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of 
           imprisonment for rioting, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 14, 2020

Mr. Arrington (for himself, Mr. Banks, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Babin, Mr. Roy, 
   Mr. Cook, Mr. Long, Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr. Estes) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of 
           imprisonment for rioting, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``David Dorn Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR RIOTING.

    Section 2101(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 
five years, or both'' and inserting ``Shall be fined under this title, 
but in no event less than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than ten 
years, or both''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(a)

                               LETTER OF AGREEMENT

This agreement is made on April 6, 2001 between TECHNOLOGY VENTURES GROUP, INC.
and it's successors, located at 12400 S.W 134th Court, Suite 11, Miami, Florida
33186 and EQUITY HOLDING GROUP, INC.

The purpose of the agreement is to define the services to be provided and
payment of certain expenses during the life of the agreement.

Both parties agree that the current financial resources of the company cannot
support a budget for a separate office facility and staff for TVG. Therefore
both parties agree to the acceptance of $200 per month expense allowance to
provide office space, secretarial and administrative support until such time as
both parties agree to establish a new arrangement.

This agreement is from month to month commencing on April 1st, 2001 and can be
modified at the beginning of any succeeding month.

This agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days written notice to
the addresses provided under the acknowledgement signatures.

Technology Ventures Group, Inc.              Equity Holding Group, Inc.
12400 S.W 134th Court, Ste #11               12400 S.W 134th Court, Ste 11
Miami, Florida 33186                         Miami, Florida 33186


Signed: /s/ MCIVAN A. JARRETT                Signed: /s/ JOY LEACOCK-JARRETT
       -----------------------------                ------------------------

Date:  April 6, 2001                         Date: April 6, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          27,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  340,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                    59,550
<INVENTORY>                                    172,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,042,950
<PP&E>                                         648,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                 224,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,802,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,516,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,583,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,802,875
<SALES>                                        368,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,082,456
<CGS>                                          253,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,399,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               960,003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,398
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (454,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (106,631)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (348,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (348,174)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.87)


</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8069 

To prohibit the Secretaries of Commerce and of the Interior from issuing 

grants for the conservation of a species that is listed as endangered 

under a State law that is not consistent with certain Federal standards, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 18, 2020 

Mr. COOK (for himself and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretaries of Commerce and of the Interior 

from issuing grants for the conservation of a species 

that is listed as endangered under a State law that 

is not consistent with certain Federal standards, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Conservation 

5 Funds Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8069 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON CONSERVATION GRANTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi3 sion of law, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary 

4 of the Interior may only issue a grant for the conservation 

5 of a species or the habitat of a species that is listed as 

6 threatened or endangered under State law if— 

7 (1) such listing meets the requirements de8 scribed for listing a species in section 424.11(d) of 

9 title 50, Code of Federal Regulations; or 

10 (2) such species is listed as threatened or en11 dangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

12 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

13 (b) CERTIFICATION.—The Secretary of Commerce 

14 and the Secretary of the Interior shall require the recipi15 ent of any grant subject to subsection (a) to submit a cer16 tification that such recipient will not use funds received 

17 from such grant to conserve a species or the habitat of 

18 a species if such species does not meet the requirements 

19 described in such subsection. 

20 (c) MISUSE OF FUNDS.—A grant recipient that uses 

21 funds in a manner inconsistent with the certification de22 scribed in subsection (b) shall be required to return funds 

23 used in such manner to the Federal Government. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Christopher Surjnarine, Appellant, v Denise E. Brathwaite et al., Respondents.

[738 NYS2d 579]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ritholtz, J.), dated July 17, 2000, which upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to object to that part of the jury charge that he challenges on this appeal. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (CPLR 4110-b, 4017, 5501; *see, Cavuto v Lilledah,*161 AD2d 853; *Petosa v City of New York,*52 AD2d 919). In any event, the plaintiff’s contention is without merit.

*437The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Jeffrey Allen POPE, Petitioner, v. Honorable James E. JOANAS, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit In and For Leon County, Florida, Respondent.

No. T-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 1973.

*306Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent Circuit Judge from convening the trial of a criminal case wherein petitioner is charged with the felonious sale of marijuana.

The information was filed January 26, 1973. On April 9, 1973, petitioner filed his motion to dismiss the information charging him with selling marijuana.

The ground asserted for dismissal is that the State failed to provide the defense with the identity and location of a police undercover agent who participated in and was a witness to the sale. Citing State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla.App.1971), petitioner contends that the agent-informer is a material witness and the State’s failure to disclose requires dismissal.

Thus, asserting error in a preliminary stage of the criminal proceeding, petitioner now claims that as a result the trial court cannot proceed in bringing petitioner to trial and that a writ of prohibition will lie to restrain the exercise of jurisdiction or power by the respondent.

Petitioner misapprehends the office of an action in prohibition. The tenor of the petition is that an erroneous ruling— assuming but not deciding that the ruling complained of is erroneous — forms the basis for issuance of a writ of prohibition. However, no authority is cited in support of that thesis.

The cases are legion which hold that prohibition will not lie to test the correctness of a trial court ruling. It is an action which addresses itself to the lower court’s jurisdiction or power to act, not the correctness of its rulings. Our examination of Crandall Common Law Actions, Section 473, leads us to nothing indicating that prohibition is a proper device whereby an instanter appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order in a criminal case where such order does not reach the question of jurisdiction.

Denied.

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### George W. SCHAYER, Individually, etc. v. Bernard TATE et al.

No. 53089.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: T. L. James & Company and National Surety Corporation applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 269 So.2d 278.

Writ denied. Under the facts found, we find no error of law.

BARHAM, J., dissents from refusal. 264 La. 2S7, 271 So.2d 260.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 684

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to deduct a children’s contribution from the amount of income applied monthly to payment for the

cost of care in an institution for an individual receiving medical assistance under a State medicaid plan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. MANZULLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to deduct

a children’s contribution from the amount of income

applied monthly to payment for the cost of care in an

institution for an individual receiving medical assistance

under a State medicaid plan.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION OF CHILDREN’S CONTRIBUTION

4 FROM MONTHLY INCOME FOR INSTITU5 TIONALIZED MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(q) of the Social

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(q)) is amended—
2

•HR 684 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘plan) a

2 monthly’’ and inserting ‘‘plan) a monthly children’s

3 contribution (as defined in paragraph (3)) and a

4 monthly’’; and

5 (2) by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(3) The ‘monthly children’s contribution’ described

8 in this paragraph is a contribution given to an individual

9 for a month by the individual’s children for clothing and

10 other personal needs of the individual, the total amount

11 of which may not exceed $50.’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(1) Except as provided in

13 paragraph (2), the amendments made by subsection (a)

14 shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after Jan15 uary 1, 1994, without regard to whether or not final regu16 lations to carry out such amendments have been promul17 gated by such date.

18 (2) In the case of a State plan for medical assistance

19 under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the Sec20 retary of Health and Human Services determines requires

21 State legislation (other than legislation appropriating

22 funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional require23 ments imposed by the amendments made by subsections

24 (a) and (b), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing

25 to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the
3

•HR 684 IH

1 basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements

2 before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning

3 after the close of the first regular session of the State leg4 islature that begins after the date of the enactment of this

5 Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case

6 of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year

7 of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular

8 session of the State legislature.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Reinstatement Petition of Harry B. DONLEY.

No. 42017.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 5, 1972.

Harry B. Donley, Stuart, in pro. per.

Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar.

PER CURIAM.

The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has filed herein its recommendation for reinstatement in The Florida Bar of Harry B. Donley, approving the favorable report and recommendations of the Grievance Committee of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, pursuant to Integration Rule 11.11 (10), 32 F.S.A.

It appears that petitioner was adjudged incompetent by order of the County Judge’s Court of Martin County, and was thereby automatically suspended from the practice of law in Florida. Integration Rule, Article II, Paragraph 5L. Subsequently, he was restored to competency and he now petitions for reinstatement.

In its investigative report, the Grievance Committee stated:

> “No judgments or actions civil, criminal or disciplinary against the Petitioner have been brought to the attention of the grievance committee and it is believed that none exist. Mr. Larry F. Buchanan, President of the Martin County Bar Association has informed the committee that he sees no reason why the petition should not be approved.”

In view of the favorable findings of the Grievance Committee and the Board of Governors, we concur in the judgment that petitioner is entitled to reinstatement.

Wherefore, it is

Ordered that petitioner Harry B. Donley be and is hereby reinstated to membership in The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
256 La. 856

#### Gloria D. FAIRFAX v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENN. et al. Eligh SMITH et al. v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENN.

No. 50761.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 236 So.2d 240; 236 So.2d 243.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment appears to be correct.

McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that the application should be granted, as he subscribes to the legal view expressed by Judge Hood in his dissenting opinion. See La. App., 236 So.2d 243.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0690 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. NATHAN PAUL KRAFT,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 22 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 2 2024

10/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0690
**EXHIBIT 10.33**

**Summary of Director Compensation Arrangements**

We currently pay each director who is not employed byus or any of our affiliates (i.e., all of our directors except for our Chairman, Frank F. Khulusi) a quarterly retainer of $6,000, $2,500 for each regular board meeting attended in person or telephonically, $1,000 for each special board meetingattended in person or telephonically, $1,000 for each committee meeting attended in person, and $500 for each committee meeting attended telephonically. We also pay the chairperson of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors an additionalannual retainer of $12,500 (paid quarterly) for serving in such capacity. Directors who are employed by us or any of our affiliates are not paid any additional compensation for their service on our Board of Directors. We reimburse each of ourdirectors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that they incur in connection with attending board or committee meetings. We have entered into indemnification agreements, a form of which is attached as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report onForm 10-K, with each of our directors. 

Our directors are also eligible to participate in our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, whichis administered by our Compensation Committee under authority delegated by our Board of Directors. The terms and conditions of option grants to our non-employee directors under our 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, are determined in thediscretion of our Compensation Committee, and must be consistent with the terms of the 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, which is filed as an exhibit to the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

The compensation arrangements we have with our directors are reviewed and may be modified from time to time by our Board of Directors.