alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Re: Question as to whether their Employees are State Employees.

No. 42858.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 26, 1972.

*372PER CURIAM.

The question has been submitted to us by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners concerning whether its employees are state employees within the contemplation of state and county officers and employees retirement system (F.S. Ch. 122, F.S.A., see particularly Section 122.02(1), F.S.A.) and within the contemplation of group insurance laws affecting public employees. See Ch. 112 as amended by Ch. 72-338 and Ch. 72-399 (see particularly Section 112.075(2), F.S.A.).

We answer in the affirmative. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners is an agency established by the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to authority given it under Sections 3 and Section 23 of Article V of the State Constitution of 1885 F.S.A. as amended. In the latter section it is provided the Court “may provide for an agency to handle admissions [of attorneys] subject to its supervision.”

See rules of the Supreme Court relating to admissions to the Bar by which the Florida Board of Bar Examiners was created, pages 717 to 726, Florida Rules of Court, West’s Desk Copy.

It follows, of course, that this agency created pursuant to authority of the State Constitution is a state agency under the judicial branch of the government and its employees are state employees just as, for example, legislative employees under the legislative branch are state employees.

The regular employees of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners compensated on a fixed periodic salary basis are eligible for state retirement and state group insurance benefits. As a matter of history such employees have been participating in the state’s retirement system since approximately 1955. Even if there was no statutory basis for their participation, the State would appear to be collaterally estopped at this late date to deny these employees the right to so participate.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32286-32287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14926]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0041]


Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Addressing 
Hazardous Materials Warehouses and Gas Cylinder Sheds at Naval Station 
Norfolk and Naval Support Activity Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of availability (NOA).

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

SUMMARY: DLA announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) documenting the

[[Page 32287]]

potential environmental effects associated with the proposed action to 
construct and operate hazardous materials warehouses and gas cylinder 
sheds at Naval Station Norfolk and Naval Support Activity Norfolk Naval 
Shipyard, Virginia. The EA has been prepared as required under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DLA Regulation, 
Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency Actions.

DATES: The public comment period will end on August 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOD-2018-OS-0041, to 
one of the following:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and 
Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 
08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ira Silverberg at 571-767-0705 during 
normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. (EDT) or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1a8b3a0efb2a8adb7a4b3a3a4b3a681a5ada0efaca8ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4adb6a5eab7ada8b2a1b6a6a1b6a384a0a8a5eaa9ada8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 9, 2018.
Shelly E. Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-14926 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 10721.

#### Bogan *v.*Wagner.

Decided November 24, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.

*Mr. Thomas Beer,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. W. Wright; Mr. A. S. Leuthold*and *Messrs. Finley & Gallinger,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### George W. BODENHEIMER, Appellant, v. Edward F. WICKE, as Administrator of the Estate of Leonard C. Lewis, Jr., Deceased, and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. O-217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 1972.

R. P. Warfield, of Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellant.

*84Joe J. Harrell, of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, TJ., concur.
# C_2023007EN.01000901.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 November 2022 — ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S v European Commission

(Case C-442/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Postal sector - Compensation for the discharge of a universal service obligation - Calculation - Net avoided cost methodology - Taking into account the intangible benefits of the universal service - Use of funds granted as compensation - Guarantee covering the redundancy costs of a certain category of employee in the event of insolvency of the universal service provider - Accounting allocation of common costs between universal service activities and non-universal service activities - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market)

(2023/C 7/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S, Danske Fragtmænd A/S (represented by L. Sandberg-Mørch, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by K. Blanck, J. Carpi Badía and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents), Jørgen Jensen Distribution A/S, Dansk Distribution A/S, Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat, and subsequently by M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent, and by R. Holdgaard, advokat)

Intervener in support of the European Commission: Post Danmark (represented by O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S and Danske Fragtmænd A/S to bear, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark and Post Danmark are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark and Post Danmark are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 20.9.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 24.3

Power of Attorney

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Harris Ravine, David Kirwan and Mary Beth Wallingford the undersigned's true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power and substitution for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to
sign Fischer Imaging Corporation's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") and any or all amendments to the
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that either of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or his substitute
or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereto.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this 13th day of April, 2004.

| |  | /s/TAYLOR SIMONTONSignature
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | Taylor SimontonPrint Name: 

---

QuickLinks
# C_2022318EN.01001602.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia v Koninklijke Philips NV

(Case C-264/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘producer’ - Any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or having authorised those particulars to be put on the product, presents himself as its producer)

(2022/C 318/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

Respondent: Koninklijke Philips NV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘producer’, referred to in that provision, does not require that the person who has put his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or who has authorised those particulars to be put on the product, also present himself as the producer of that product in some other way.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
Court Reporter Status Report

Preferred Format

Cause Number:

Style:

Page Counts

Event date Event description Total Edited Proofread E-format Remarks

Totals

Guidelines

1. Each reporter must submit a separate status report

2. E-format includes proper bookmarking
Court Reporter Status Report

Example Report

Cause Number: 04-11-99123-CV

Style: Conrad v. Nelson

Page Counts

Event date Event description Total Edited Proofread E-format Remarks

8/22/2011 Daubert motions, motions in limine 45 45 45 45

8/22/2011 Pre-trial motions: motion to sever, motion to strike 87 87 87 0

8/23/2011 Voir dire 132 94 0 0

8/24/2011 Pre-trial motions: motion to compel, motion in 

limine

59 0 0 0

8/25/2011 Opening statements; testimony of Mike Conrad 210 0 0 0

8/26/2011 Testimony of Anna Dunn 285 0 0 0

8/29/2011 Testimony of Bob Nelson 315 0 0 0

8/30/2011 Testimony of Mauricio Ramirez 113 0 0 0

8/29/2011 Motions; closing arguments; return of verdict 145 0 0 0

8/30/2011 Post-verdict motions: JNOV, motion for new trial 76 0 0 0

Totals 1,467 226 132 45

Guidelines

1. Each reporter must submit a separate status report

2. E-format includes proper bookmarking
|EXHIBIT 31.1                       
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|CERTIFICATION                      
|                                   
|I, Alston D. Correll, certify that:
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   



---

|                       |                                                                                                         | b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                                                                                                         |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                       |                                                                                                         |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                       |                                                                                                         |                                                                                                                                                                              
|Date: October 28, 2004
|                       |                                                                                                         |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                       | /s/ ALSTON D. CORRELL                           
Alston D. Correll
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 481

Expressing the sense of the House regarding the case of United States

v. Knox.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 1994

Mr. DOOLITTLE (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr.

BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. WOLF,

Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. STUMP, Mr. ROHRABACHER,

Mr. CRANE, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. LINDER, Mr. BACHUS

of Alabama, Mr. EWING, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. BATEMAN,

Mr. BUYER, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. INGLIS of South

Carolina, Mr. DELAY, Mr. KIM, Mr. BLILEY, and Mr. MCKEON) introduced the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House regarding the case of

United States v. Knox.

Whereas the United States Congress has passed legislation to

protect children against the evils of child pornography,

including the Child Protection Act of 1984, and provided

for the enforcement of those laws;
2

•HRES 481 IH

Whereas on April 20, 1994, the House of Representatives, by

a vote of 425 to 3, denounced as improper the United

States Justice Department’s new, narrow interpretation

of the Federal child pornography statutes as delineated

by the Solicitor General in the case of United States v.

Knox and implored the Justice Department to enforce

properly the law and protect our Nation’s children;

Whereas on November 4, 1993, the United States Senate, by

a vote of 100 to 0, also denounced that interpretation as

improper and implored the Justice Department to enforce

properly the law and protect our Nation’s children;

Whereas on June 9, 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of United States

v. Knox rejected the Justice Department’s narrow interpretation of the Federal child pornography statutes and

reinstated the conviction of Stephen Knox; and

Whereas the June 9, 1994 decision of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States

v. Knox properly reflects the intent of Congress in enacting and amending the Protection of Children from Sexual

Exploitation Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Justice Department should accept

3 the 3rd Circuit United States Court of Appeals’ June 9,

4 1994 decision in United States v. Knox as a proper inter5 pretation of the law and as binding authority, should exer6 cise its prosecutorial discretion in accordance with that de-
3

•HRES 481 IH

1 cision, and should not aid any effort on the part of the

2 defendant in that case to overturn the decision.

Æ
Exhibit 10.7


 


Progress
Acquisition Corp.


50
Milk Street, 16th Floor


Boston,
MA 02109


 


[___],
2021


 


Progress
Capital I LLC


50
Milk Street, 16th Floor


Boston,
MA 02109


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will
confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration
statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of Progress Acquisition Corp’s (the “Company”) securities and continuing until the earlier of
(i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as
described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
Progress Partners IB, Inc.shall make available to the Company certain office space, utilities, and administrative support as may
be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 50 Milk Street, 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02109 (or any successor
location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Progress Partners IB, Inc. the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective
Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Progress Partners IB, Inc. hereby agrees that it does not have
any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust
Account”) to be established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby
waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the
Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever. 


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


	 	Very
                                         truly yours,

         

        PROGRESS
        ACQUISITION CORP.

	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	          
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:	 


 


 


	AGREED
    TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	 
	PROGRESS PARTNERS IB, INC.
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 


 


[Signature
Page to Administrative Services Agreement]
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 538

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that communities should

establish multidisciplinary team approaches to treat children who suffer

from sickle cell disease.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

Mr. CRAMER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

communities should establish multidisciplinary team approaches to treat children who suffer from sickle cell

disease.

Whereas it is estimated that more than 250,000 babies are

born worldwide with sickle cell anemia, a form of sickle

cell disease which causes red blood cells to elongate and

clog arteries;

Whereas sickle cell disease is found in people of African,

Mediterranean, Indian, and Middle Eastern heritage;

Whereas, in the United States, sickle cell disease is most

commonly observed in blacks and Hispanics from the

Caribbean, Central America, and parts of South America;
2

HRES 538 IH

Whereas it is estimated that 1 in 400 African American

newborns is afflicted with sickle cell anemia at birth;

Whereas the pain associated with a sickle-cell-induced clot

can mimic symptoms of several other diseases, making

sickle cell disease difficult to diagnose;

Whereas the recurrent and unpredictable nature of sickle cell

disease can adversely affect both school and work attendance and may reduce a patient’s sense of self-esteem;

Whereas there still exists a need to improve the quality of life

for children who suffer from sickle cell disease, notwithstanding that the life expectancy of patients with sickle

cell disease has improved considerably since 1960; and

Whereas multidisciplinary team approaches have proven successful in treating children with sickle cell disease: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—

3 (1) communities should establish multidisci4 plinary team approaches to treat effectively children

5 with sickle cell disease; and

6 (2) such approaches should incorporate the

7 early administration of prophylactic penicillin to in8 fants with sickle cell anemia, patient enrichment

9 programs, educational programs, counseling pro10 grams for children and their families, and screening

11 programs.

Æ
#### WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, a division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Appellant, v. MIDWAY SHOPPING MALL, INC., and Medallion Electric Co., Appellees.

No. 71-228.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 4, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 577 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 577

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 7, 1994.
    Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 1216) entitled the ``Crow Boundary 
Settlement Act of 1994'', in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first 
clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
United States and is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that 
such bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating 
this resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```