alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013018EN.01000401.xml

| 22.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/4

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2013/C 18/05

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by France

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by France

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country: France

Subject of commemoration: 50th anniversary of the signing of the Élysée Treaty

Description of the design: The coin, which was designed by Yves Sampo of the Monnaie de Paris, Stefanie Lindner of the Berlin State Mint, Alina Hoyer (Berlin) and Sneschana Russewa-Hoyer (Berlin), depicts stylised portraits of the Élysée Treaty’s signatories (the then-Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer and the former President of the French Republic Charles de Gaulle), their signatures and the words ‘50 ANS JAHRE’ with the year ‘2013’ in the centre, the words ‘TRAITÉ DE L’ÉLYSÉE’ at the top and the words ‘ÉLYSÉE-VERTRAG’ at the bottom. The right side of the inner part features the mint mark as well as the issuing country’s code ‘RF’ and the left side features the ‘fleurette’, hallmark of the engraving workshop.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued: 10 million

Date of issue: January 2013

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
#### William Charles LOWERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1303.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 4, 1978.

Steadman S. Stahl, Jr., of Varón, Stahl, Kay & Roderman, Hollywood, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for resisting arrest with violence, contrary to Section 843.01, *Florida Statutes*(1975). The determinative issue is whether the defendant had the right to forcefully resist an allegedly unlawful arrest1 by a law enforcement officer. We hold that he did not and affirm.

Defendant has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that his warrantless arrest was not lawful because: (1) the misdemeanor for which he was arrested was not committed in the officer’s presence; and (2) the arresting officer was outside of his jurisdiction. This argument misses the point. It matters not whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful because in this case the defendant resisted arrest *with violence.*

Had defendant resisted arrest *without violence,*then the legality of his arrest would be a factor since in Florida, the common-law rule that one can resist without *1326violence an unlawful arrest remains in effect. *Marshall v. State,*354 So.2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Until recently, Florida law even permitted the use of force to resist an unlawful arrest. *E. g. State v. Saunders,*339 So.2d 641, 642, n. 2 (Fla.1976). However, in 1974 the legislature modified the common-law rule by enacting Section 776.-051, *Florida Statutes*(1975) (effective July 1, 1975). This statute provides that a person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer who is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

Thus, after July 1, 1975, Section 843.01 must be read in *pari materia*with Section 776.051; the end result being that the use of force in resisting an arrest by a person reasonably known to be a law enforcement officer is unlawful notwithstanding the technical illegality of the arrest. *Marshall, supra; K. G. v. State,*338 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). And since it has not been alleged that the officer in this case used unlawful force in effectuating the arrest, it has not been necessary for us to consider the question of a defendant’s right to use force in defense of his person under Section 776.012.

The incident giving rise to the charge of resisting arrest with violence occurred on October 17, 1976, well after the effective date of Section 776.051. Therefore, defendant’s reliance on case law applying the old common-law rule is misplaced. Under our present law, except for passive nonviolent resistance, the place to contest the legality of an arrest is in court and not on the streets. The defendant had no right to resist arrest by the use of force.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.

1

. In deciding this case it is not necessary for us to actually determine the legality or illegality of the arrest.
. OFhCE.OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL dF TEXAS AUS’I’IN

HonorableJ. L. Fitts, Frosldent San Jacinto 3iver Conservationand Reolaration.Diotrlct Conroo,Texas Dear Sir: of Direotpurchasedefense bonds of the surplusfunds bo1ongin.g to th ch are not imediatelyneeded for ezpenditur 0988 for which the District is created. tody has been oxpr by the I..e.c$slature In othors. In eat oharaoterof the s nds in their cuaain public or"ficers p the Constitution suchmoneysmy be inIn every 0880 where t5e i of $ublic funds, it has

nd no provisionof law adthorizing the Foard 0 s of tho San SaointoEiver Conservation and Eeclanstio rict to investthe rurpluu funds of the District. Such an authority ia not to be l:~iplle~ from the power to nmcge t.!m affairs of the District. City of Bonham vs. Taylor, 81 TeX. 59, 16 S. H. 555. Tours very truly
#### Ruth Lipton, Individually and as Executrix of Conrad Lipton, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Lockheed Aircraft Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 10, 1953.

*George W. Ciarle*for Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, defendant.

*William A. Hyman*for plaintiffs.

*693Benvenga, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. The complaint is sufficient as it sets forth the substance and effect of the law of Egypt. The death action which arose as a result of a wrong committed outside the State of New York is not barred by section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law. Order signed.
# C_2013343EN.01001601.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7069 — Ares/OTPP/CPG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 343/04

On 11 November 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7069. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7069. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
No. 11023.

#### Wagenhals *v.*The United States Building Co. et al.

Decided December 21, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. Cyrus Hiding*and *Mr. J. M. Sheets,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John J. Lents; Mr. John D. Karns; Mr. S. C. Jones*and *Mr. James M. Hengst,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Si-iauck' and Price, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases2010 CensusPress Kits

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Operational Press Briefings

Explore 2010 Census Operational Press Briefings files on the Census Bureau's archives by selecting for folder for the specific briefing materials.
                              -    August 25, 2011
                              -    June 27, 2011
                              -    March 24, 2011
                              -    February 2, 2011
                              -    January 31, 2011
                              -    January 12, 2011
                              -    November 1, 2010
                              -    September 22, 2010
                              -    August 10, 2010
                              -    July 7, 2010
                              -    June 2, 2010
                              -    May 3, 2010
                              -    April 28, 2010
                              -    March 24, 2010
                              -    March 1, 2010
                              -    December 14, 2009
                              -    Background Materials for All Briefings

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
EXHIBIT 2.3

                          AGREEMENT TO FUND SUBSIDIARY

     This Agreement is made this 1st day of September 1998, by and between
Dynamic Health Products, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Parent"), Incredible
Products of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Subsidiary") and Gary A.
Shawkey ("Shawkey").  

Background Statements:

     I.   Subsidiary is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

     II.  Subsidiary is, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement,
entering into an Employment Agreement with Shawkey.

     III. Shawkey desires assurance that Subsidiary will be capitalized by
Parent in the amount of $160,000.

     In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, together with
other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy, sufficiency and receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the
parties agree as follows:

     1. BACKGROUND STATEMENTS. The background statements set forth above are
true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

     2. AGREEMENT TO CONTRIBUTE CAPITAL. Parent agrees to contribute to
Subsidiary $160,000 in capital to be used by Subsidiary as follows:

         /bullet/ $10,000 per month for six months to cover the salary of
                  Shawkey.

         /bullet/ $100,000 for start-up expenses and operating expenses approved
                  in advance by Parent, on an as-needed basis.

     3. THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY. Shawkey is an intended third-party beneficiary
of this Agreement with respect to his salary.

     4. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION. This Agreement supersedes all prior
agreements between the parties with respect to its subject matter and
constitutes a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement
between the parties with respect to its subject matter. This Agreement may not
be amended except by a written agreement executed by the party to be charged
with the amendment.


<PAGE>


SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT TO FUND SUBSIDIARY BETWEEN DYNAMIC HEALTH PRODUCTS,
INC., INCREDIBLE PRODUCTS OF FLORIDA, INC. AND GARY A. SHAWKEY.

                                        Dynamic Health Products, Inc.

                                        By: /s/ JUGAL K. TANEJA
                                           ----------------------------
                                               as Chairman

                                        Incredible Products of Florida, Inc.

                                        By: /s/ JUGAL K. TANEJA
                                           ----------------------------
                                               as Vice President

                                        /s/ GARY A. SHAWKEY
                                        -----------------------
                                        Gary A. Shawkey

                                       2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        80,622,249
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       20,245,783
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         20,397,039
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                   4,770,277
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             114,926,605
<CASH>                                         279,742
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           2,027,229
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      26,790,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             148,824,187
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             98,255,076
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,602,775
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,311,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               148,824,187
<PREMIUMS>                                  15,400,543
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          7,565,768
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             106,945
<OTHER-INCOME>                               1,785,761
<BENEFITS>                                  11,023,740
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  2,421,587
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         5,290,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,123,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,290,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,832,577
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CR.41 **Contact:**  Jennifer Smits
Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010 Media Advisory — 2010 Census Road Tour Comes to International Institute in St. Louis Traveling for a total of 1,547 days and more than 150,000 miles across the country, 13 road tour vehicles will provide the public with an educational, engaging and interactive experience that brings the 2010 Census to life. At each event across the country, attendees will have the opportunity to learn about the 2010 Census and understand the benefits a complete count can bring to communities everywhere; view a sample 2010 Census form and learn how the collected information is used; and contribute stories and photos to the Portrait of America project to explain why “I count!” and view messages from other road tour participants.
    
 For more information about the 2010 Census and the Road Tour, please visit 2010census.gov and follow us on Twitter (@2010Portrait), Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2053 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to place a chair honoring American 

Prisoners of War/Missing in Action on the Capitol Grounds. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. 

MARKEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to place a chair honoring American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action on 

the Capitol Grounds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 The Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) In recent years, commemorative chairs hon6 oring American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action 

7 have been placed in prominent locations across the 

8 United States. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2053 IS

1 (2) The United States Capitol Grounds are an 

2 appropriate location to place a commemorative chair 

3 honoring American Prisoners of War/Missing in Ac4 tion. 

5 SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF A CHAIR HONORING AMERICAN 

6 PRISONERS OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION ON 

7 THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL GROUNDS. 

8 (a) OBTAINING CHAIR.—The Architect of the Capitol 

9 shall enter into an agreement to obtain a chair featuring 

10 the logo of the National League of POW/MIA Families 

11 under such terms and conditions as the Architect con12 siders appropriate and consistent with applicable law. 

13 (b) PLACEMENT.—Not later than 2 years after the 

14 date of enactment of this Act, the Architect shall place 

15 the chair obtained under subsection (a) on the United 

16 States Capitol Grounds in a suitable permanent location. 

17 SEC. 3. FUNDING. 

18 (a) DONATIONS.—The Architect of the Capitol 

19 may— 

20 (1) enter into an agreement with any organiza21 tion described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 

22 Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from taxation 

23 under section 501(a) of that Code to solicit private 

24 donations to carry out the purposes of this Act; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2053 IS

1 (2) accept donations of funds, property, and 

2 services to carry out the purposes of this Act. 

3 (b) COSTS.—All costs incurred in carrying out the 

4 purposes of this Act shall be paid for with private dona5 tions received under subsection (a). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Clyde A. SNEAD, Appellant, v. LE JEUNE ROAD HOSPITAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 66-406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 7, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1967.

Shevin, Goodman & Holtzman and Jerome H. Shevin, Miami, for appellant.

Dean, Adams, George & Wood and Anthony Reinert, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed an action sounding in tort against the appellee-hospital and the appellee, Chambers, a physician. The complaint against the physician was in the nature of medical malpractice. The complaint against the hospital was premised upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, and alleged negligence in the hospital permitting the physician to perform operations on its premises. A summary judgment was rendered in favor of the hospital. The cause against the physician is still pending in the trial court.

 Upon review, the appellant urges error in the summary judgment in favor of the hospital, contending’ that the hospital was liable under one or both of the above theories,1 and relies heavily upon the recent cases of Holl v. Talcott, Fla. 1966, 191 So.2d 40; Scanlon v. Litt, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 553; Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla. 1967, 193 So.2d 601; Hoder v. Sayet, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 205 (opinion filed January 31, 1967). We have reexamined these authorities and others cited by the appellant and, on the state of the record and briefs before us, fail to find error in the entry of the instant summary final judgment. It is apparent that the appellant did not charge the hospital with active negligence causing the alleged injury, but bottomed its case principally upon the doctrine of respondeat superior and negligence in permitting the physician to use the facilities of the hospital. No error has been made to appear in these respects. See: Barfield v. South Highland Infirmary, 191 Ala. 553, 68 So,. *18030; Mayers v. Litow, 154 Cal.App.2d 413, 316 P.2d 351; Black v. Fischer, 30 Ga.App. 109, 117 S.E. 103; Stacy v. Williams, 253 Ky. 353, 69 S.W.2d 697; Carter v. Harlan Hospital, 278 Ky. 84, 128 S.W.2d 174; Johnson v. City Hospital Co., 196 N.C. 610, 146 S.E. 573; Penland v. French Broad Hospital, Inc., 199 N.C. 314, 154 S.E. 406; Gosnell v. Southern Ry. Co., 202 N.C. 234; 162 S.E. 569; Stewart v. Crook Sanatorium, 17 Tenn.App. 589, 69 S.W.2d 259; Kuglich v. Fowle, 185 Wis. 124, 200 N.W. 648.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Appellant attempted to urge active negligence on the part of the hospital, but failed to preserve these points on appeal. See: Vaughn v. Smith, Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 143; Williams v. Williams, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 488; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 117, p. 458, u. 10.