alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DAYTON
SUPERIOR CORPORATION
 AMENDED
OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM
 Company Outside Directors
 1.
    
    Each Outside Director shall be paid a $60,000 annual
retainer fee for each calendar year during which the Outside Director
serves as an Outside Director, to be paid in cash in four equal
quarterly installments. The annual retainer fee shall be prorated for
service of less than a full calendar year.2.
    
    Each Outside Director who serves as a member of the
Audit Committee shall be paid an additional $16,000 fee for each
calendar year during which the Outside Director serves as a member of
the Audit Committee, to be paid in cash in four equal quarterly
installments. The annual fee for membership on the Audit Committee
shall be prorated for membership on the Audit Committee of less than a
full calendar year.3.
    
    The Outside Director who serves as Chair of the Audit
Committee shall be paid an additional $15,000 fee for each calendar
year during which the Outside Director serves as Chair of the Audit
Committee, to be paid in cash in four equal quarterly installments.
The fee for serving as Chair of the Audit Committee shall be prorated
for service of less than a full calendar year.4.
    
    Each Outside Director is encouraged to own at least
25,000 shares of the Companys common stock.5.
    
    Outside Directors shall receive no additional fee for
attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors or of the committees
of the Board of Directors existing at the time this program is adopted
or for service on any of those committees, other than the Audit
Committee. Directors of the Company who are not Outside Directors
shall receive no separate compensation from the Company for their
service on the Board of Directors or any of its committees.
# C_2019432EN.01004502.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Biasotto v EUIPO — Oofos (OO)

(Case T-454/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark OO - Earlier EU figurative mark OO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by F. Le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Oofos, Inc. (Reno, Nevada, United States) (represented by J. Klink, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2018 (Case R 1281/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Oofos and Mr Biasotto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alessandro Biasotto to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alessandro Biasotto to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018

---
EXHIBIT 32
 CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2008 (the
Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Joseph T. DunsmoreJoseph T. DunsmorePresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Director/s/ Subramanian KrishnanSubramanian KrishnanSenior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer
and Treasurer
June 28, 2000

22031

#### Pacariem v. State

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

More Information About NVAP

Last Modified: 

Print

This page offers more information about the National Veterinary Accreditation

Program (NVAP) and useful resources for veterinarians.

Categories of Animals

9 CFR 160-162

Frequently Asked Questions

History of the Program

National Accreditation Number

NVAP Reference Guide

State Animal Health Officials

State Regulations for Importing Animals

State Veterinary Regulatory Boards

Tasks of Accredited Veterinarians

Video: What Is the National Veterinary Accreditation Program?

Why Should I Become Accredited in the National Veterinary Accreditation

Program?

Your Thoughts on the NVAP Reference Guide?

Contact Us
NVAP Coordinators

For questions about NVAP, contact your local NVAP Coordinator by selecting your

State or Territory from the dropdown menu below or visit More Information About

NVAP.

- Select a State - ▾

Loading...

All Contacts

Export requirements frequently change. Obtain current export requirements for live

animals or animal products before each shipment.
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 23
                              Consent of Auditors

<PAGE>
 
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") of
our report dated February 6, 1998, included in the 1997 annual report to
stockholders of the Company, which is incorporated by reference in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                     /s/ Radics & Co., LLC
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Radics & Co., LLC


March 30, 1998
--------------
Pine Brook, New Jersey
# C_2019122EN.01001802.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)

(Case T-231/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Djili - Earlier national word mark GILLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 122/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by C.-R. Romițan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by D. Gája and D. Walicka, and subsequently by D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 (Case R 1902/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lupu and Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


               LETTER OF QUALITY ASSURANCE BY ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

April 1, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), our independent public accountant, has
represented to us that its audit of our consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2001, was subject to Andersen's quality control system for its
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
appropriate availability of national office consultation. The availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to our audit, and,
thus, we received no assurance from Andersen regarding such availability.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Alan F. McIlroy
Alan F. McIlroy
Chief Financial Officer
Dayton Superior Corporation
#### Grossman’s Estate

January 4, 1919:

(No. 2).

Per Curiam,

It is agreed by counsel that the questions here involved are the same as in 12, October Term, 1918, between the same parties, and that a like decree must follow in each case. The decree is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Superior Court in the earlier case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              63 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    63     
<PP&E>                                               0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     238     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,245)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       238   
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,332)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
20998

#### State v. Ung

Affirmed
##### 



EXHIBIT 23 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We have issued our report dated November 12, 2004, accompanying the
financial statements included in the Annual Report of XATA Corporation on Form
10-KSB, for the year ended September 30, 2004. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
XATA Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-113025, 333-85584, 333-59214,
333-28337, 333-03670, 33-94006, 33-89222 and 33-74148) and Form S-3 and
amendments (File Nos. 333-113016, 333-111797, 333-113016, 333-111798,
333-111797 and 333-82905). /s/ Grant Thornton LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 15, 2004
January 28, 1998

20219

#### State v. Kaululaau

Affirmed
Guidance for containment evaluation of arthropod/snail permit applications when containment is

required.

Type Movement Evaluation

1.Unknown and/or 

unidentified regulated 

organisms (actual or suspected) 

Importation Full

2.Field‐collected regulated

organisms

Importation Full

3. Not established

species/subspecies of

invertebrate regulated

organisms.

Importation Full

4.Pure cultures of not

established species/subspecies

of large invertebrates where

intended use does not include

rearing or propagation, and the

organisms must be killed within

a short period of time following

receipt.

Importation Cafe

5.Pure laboratory or

commercial cultures of not

established species/subspecies

of regulated organisms.

Importation Cafe/Full

Evaluation of each application

will be made on a case by case

basis.    

6. Subsequent movement of a

regulated organism (not

previously approved for

environmental release) that

was previously imported into

an inspected facility and

required an inspected facility

for receipt.

Interstate Full

7.Movement of a quarantine

significant regulated organism

under official control from a

quarantine area to a non

quarantine area

Interstate Full

8. Movement of a native or

established regulated organism

including geographically

isolated variants or subspecies

(not approved for

environmental release) to an

area where it does not

presently occur

Interstate Cafe/Full/

Evaluation of each application

will be made on a case by case

basis AFÉ

Evaluation of each
9. Movement of organisms that

were brought into the State

undera Federal permit that

required the facility that

initially received it to be

inspected by USDA and which

possessesa condition

statement that requiresa

Federal permit for any

subsequent movement.

Intrastate Full
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from Form 10-K for the period ended
December  31,1996  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
<CIK>                         854599
<NAME>                        THE GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                            $32,742
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      91,965
<ALLOWANCES>                        4,677
<INVENTORY>                        34,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  165,115
<PP&E>                            365,147
<DEPRECIATION>                    152,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    408,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             126,533
<BONDS>                           217,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                       (141,136)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      408,777
<SALES>                           508,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  508,620
<CGS>                             344,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     344,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 23,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    62,635
<INCOME-TAX>                       23,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                38,733
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       38,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
Fw: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172 

Susan Stone 

to: 

crabtree.tricia 

03/11/2010 08:04 PM 

Show Details 

For the docket. 

Susan Lyon Stone 

Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226 

-----Forwarded by Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US on 03/11/2010 08:03PM ----- 

To: <Susie.McKithan@bakerbotts.com> 

From: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US 

Date: 03/11/2010 08:03PM 

Subject: Re: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172 

Dear Ms. McKithan: 

 

We have received several requests for an extension of the public comment period. We are considering 

these requests. As soon as a decision is made I will let you know. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Susan Stone 

Susan Lyon Stone 

Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226 

-----<Susie.McKithan@bakerbotts.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: <Susie.McKithan@bakerbotts.com> 

Date: 03/11/2010 06:46PM 

Subject: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172 

<<TIP Request for Extension.pdf>> 

Susie McKithan

Senior Paralegal

Baker Botts L.L.P. &

910 Louisiana Street

Houston Texas 77002-4995

Phone: 713-229-2047

Fax: 713-229-7947

Mobile: 832-373-8094 

[attachment "TIP Request for Extension.pdf" removed by Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US] 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\tcrabtre\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web1218.h... 3/18/2010
70 P.3d 647

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

October 31, 2002

24592

#### State v. Lucas

Affirmed
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                                  COMPUSA INC.
                                 COMPUTATION OF
              INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                     THIRTY-NINE
                                                                       THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED          WEEKS ENDED
                                                                     ------------------------  ------------------------
<S>                                                                  <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
                                                                      MARCH 27,    MARCH 28,    MARCH 27,    MARCH 28,
                                                                        1999         1998         1999         1998
                                                                     -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Common shares issued at beginning of period........................      93,943       92,478       93,373       91,763
Weighted average number of common shares issued during the
  period...........................................................          88          421          525          645
Weighted treasury shares during the period.........................      (2,478)      (1,381)      (2,497)        (881)
                                                                     -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average common shares.....................................      91,553       91,518       91,401       91,527
Incremental shares related to assumed exercise of stock options....          --        3,174        1,410        3,711
                                                                     -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted average common shares assuming dilution...................      91,553       94,692       92,811       95,238
                                                                     -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
                                                                     -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
 
Net (loss) income..................................................   $  (4,940)   $  25,438    $  18,771    $  82,964
 
Basic (loss) earnings per share....................................   $   (0.05)   $    0.28    $    0.21    $    0.91
Diluted (loss) earnings per share..................................   $   (0.05)   $    0.27    $    0.20    $    0.87
</TABLE>
 
                                       30
#### Viers, Appellee, *v.*Hollos, Appellant.

(No. 31676

Decided February 23, 1949.)

*Messrs. Taylor, Cruey & Kelb,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Harris & Sell*and *Mr. Arthur M. Brunskill,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Tapt, JJ., concur.
[Cite as State v. Hines, 2022-Ohio-684.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

No. 110159

v. :

ANTWON M. HINES, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 10, 2022

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case No. CR-20-650683-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Sarah J. Denney, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and 

Robert B. McCaleb, Assistant Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

LISA B. FORBES, J.:

I. Facts and Procedural History

On October 7, 2020, Antwon M. Hines (“Hines”) pled guilty to 

attempted aggravated robbery, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 
and 2911.01(A)(1), with a one-year firearm specification. On November 18, 2020, 

the court sentenced Hines to two-to-three years in prison for the attempted 

aggravated robbery under the Reagan Tokes Law and one year in prison for the 

firearm specification to run consecutively.

It is from this sentence that Hines appeals, arguing that the Reagan 

Tokes Law is unconstitutional because it violates the right to trial by jury, the 

separation-of-powers doctrine, and the right to due process. 

II. Law and Analysis

Hines’s assignment of error is overruled pursuant to this court’s en 

banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR

N.B. The author of this opinion is constrained to apply Delvallie. For a full 

explanation, see State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470

(Forbes, J., dissenting).