alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECOND DIVISION

BARNES, P. J.,

GOBEIL and PIPKIN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

June 3, 2022

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A20A0879. THE STATE v. STANFORD.

PIPKIN, Judge.

In State v. Stanford, 356 Ga. App. 594 (848 SE2d 465) (2020), we affirmed the

partially suspended sentence of Appellee Antwon Rashaad Stanford. In State v. Stanford,

312 Ga. 707 (864 SE2d 448) (2021), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision

and remanded the matter for the trial court to “exercise its discretion either to resentence

Stanford entirely or merely to strike the suspension and leave the remainder of Stanford’s

sentence in place.” Id. at 711. Accordingly, we vacate our original decision, adopt the

opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia as our own, reverse the judgment of the trial

court, and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the opinion

of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction. Barnes, P. J., and Gobeil,

J., concur.
21949

#### State v. Rodrigues

Vacated
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Exports: Veterinary Biological

Products

Last Modified: 

Print

We issue export permits and certificates of licensing and inspection to facilitate the

export of licensed veterinary biological products, including vaccines, bacterins,

antisera, and diagnostic kits. These permits and certifications assure that products

have been properly licensed, inspected (if inspection is required), or both.

To apply for export permits and certificates of licensing and inspection, follow these

steps:

1. Read Veterinary Services Memorandum 800.52, Export Certificates and

Certificates of Licensing and Inspection for Animal Biological Products. (543.98

KB) This policy document explains the purpose behind various application forms

and has instructions on how to submit them.

2. Create a USDA eAuthentication account, which you'll need to submit your

application forms.

3. Visit the National Centers for Animal Health (NCAH) Portal to submit your

application forms.

For more information about the NCAH portal, visit our NCAH Portal Guidance page,

where you can find user guides and training videos.
Export Permits

To apply for an export permit, we recommend using the NCAH Portal to complete

and submit APHIS Form 2017. If you prefer to submit your application by mail, use

this address: Center for Veterinary Biologics, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844,

Ames, IA 50010.

Certificates of Licensing and Inspection

(APHIS Forms 2046, 2046S, 2047, and 2047S)

Restricted forms are used when there were restrictions listed on your originally

issued product license. Unrestricted forms are used when there were no restrictions

listed on your originally issued product license. You can determine whether you need

to request a restricted form or an unrestricted form by reviewing your product

license. 

Unrestricted License Forms

APHIS Form 2046 (English) (125.84 KB) APHIS Form 2046S (Spanish) (113 KB)

Restricted License Forms

APHIS Form 2047 (English) (134.26 KB) APHIS Form 2047S (Spanish) (105.66 KB)

We recommend submitting your form via the NCAH Portal. However, if you prefer to

submit your form by mail, use this address: Center for Veterinary Biologics, 1920

Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010.

Need Help?

For CVB-related questions, including policy, evaluation, and licensing as well as

inspection and compliance:

Center for Veterinary Biologics
Email: cvb@usda.gov

Phone: 515-337-6100

To report an adverse event:

USDA Adverse Event Reporting

Mailing Address:

1920 Dayton Ave.

P.O. Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

To report an adverse event:

USDA Adverse Event Reporting
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350  as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Christopher R. Gardner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

May 17, 2010By:

/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. GARDNER Christopher R. Gardner Chief Executive Officer


I,
Richard C. Yonker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Form 10-Q"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

May 17, 2010By:

/s/ RICHARD C. YONKER Richard C. Yonker Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation and will be retained by Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
June 9, 1999

21704

#### State v. Morrow

Vacated
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John L.
Armstrong, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ John L. Armstrong, Jr.           
|John L. Armstrong, Jr.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 14, 2008                    

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# United States C ou rt of Appeals

For the Seventh Ci rcuit Chic ago, I lli nois 60604

D e c e m b e r 2 1
, 2 0 1 2 *

B e f o r e

W I L L I A M J

. B A U E R

, C ir c u it J u d

g e

J O H N D A N I E L T I N D E R
, C ir c u it J u d

g e

D A V I D F

. H A M I L T O N

, C ir c u it J u d

g e

N o

. 1 2

- 1 3 6 7

A N T O N I O I

. B R

Y A N T
, P la in t if f- A p p e ll a n t ,

v

.

G E N E R A L P A C K

A G I N G P R O D U C T S

, a D e l a w a r e c o r p o r a ti o n

, e t a l.
, D e fe n d a n t s

- A p p e ll e e s

. A p p e a l f r o m th e U n i te d S ta te s D i s tr i c t C o u r t f o r th e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c t o f I l l i n o i s , E a s te r n D i v i s i o n

.

N o

. 1 : 0 6

- c v

- 0 0 1 1 4

E l a i n e E

. B u c k l o , J u d g e

.

O R D E R

O n c o n s i d e r a ti o n o f th e p e ti ti o n f o r r e h e a r i n g an d r e h e a r i n g e n b a n c, f i l e d o n D e c e m b e r 5
, 2 0 1 2
, n o j u d g e i n a c ti v e s e r v i c e h a s r e q u e s te d a v o te , a n d a l l o f th e j u d g e s o n the o rig in a l
p a n e l h a v e v o te d to D E N Y th e p e ti ti o n f o r r e h e a r i n g

. A c c o r d i n g l y , th e p e ti ti o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s D E N I E D

.

T h e f i n a l tw o s e n te n c e s o f th e o r d e r i s s u e d b y th e C o u r t i n th i s c a s e o n N o v e m

b e r 2 0
, 2 0 1 2
, a r e h e r e b y a m e n d e d to r e a d a s f o l l o w s , w i th d e l e ti o n s s tr u c k th r o u g h a n d a d d i ti o n s i n b o l d :

Judge Joel M. Flaum di d not partici pat e i n the consi derat i on of the petiti on for

* rehear i ng

.M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f B r o w

n B r y a n t h a d a r ti c u l a te d a n a r g u m e n t u n d e r R

u l e 6 0 ( b )
, a p o s tj u d g m e n t m o tio n u n d e r e v e n th e “ c a tc h a l l ” p r o v i s i o n o f th a t r u l e c a n n o t b e g r a n te d u n l e s s i t i s f i l e d w i th i n a r e a s o n a b l e ti m e a f te r th e j u d g m e n t. F E D

. R

. C I V

. P

. 6 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; A r r i e ta v

. B a tt a g l i a , 4 6 1 F

. 3 d 8 6 1
, 8 6 5 ( 7 th C i r

. 2 0 0 6 ) ; I n g r a m v

. M e r r i l l L yn c h
, P i e r c e , F e n

n e r , & S m i th
, I n c

. , 3 7 1 F

. 3 d 9 5 0
, 9 5 2 ( 7 th C i r

. 2 0 0 4 )

. B r o w

n B r y a n t h a s n o t

e v e n a tt e m p te d to e x p l a i n h o w h i s m o ti o n w a s f i l e d i n a r e a s o n a b l e ti m e w

h e n i t c a m e

m o r e th a n f o u r y e a r s a f te r th e j u d g m e n t a n d h i s p r e v i o u s m o ti o n a ttack i n g th e

s e tt l e m e n t o n a d i f f e r e n t g r o u n d

.

A n a m e n d e d o r d e r s h a l l b e i s s u e d a c c o r d i n g l y

.
17721

#### Petramala v. Hawaii Government Employees Ass’n

Affirmed
Annex 6. Item 6.3. – Article 1.1.5. of Chapter 1.1. Notification of diseases and provision of epidemiological information

CHAPTER 1.1.

NOTIFICATION OF DISEASES, AND PROVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL INFORMATION

[...]

Article 1.1.5.

1)	The Competent Authority of a country in which an infected zone or compartment is located shall inform the Headquarters when this country, zone or compartment becomes free from the disease.

2)	A country, zone or compartment may be considered to have regained freedom from a specific disease when all relevant conditions given in the Aquatic Code have been fulfilled.

3)	The Competent Authority of a Member Country which establishes one or several free zones or free compartments shall inform the Headquarters, giving necessary details, including the criteria on which the free status is based, the requirements for maintaining the status and indicating clearly the location of the zones or compartments on a map of the territory of the Member Country.

Article 1.1.65.

1)	Although Member Countries are only required to notify *listed diseases* and *emerging diseases*, they are encouraged to provide WOAH with other important *aquatic animal* health information.

2)	The *Headquarters* shall communicate by email or through the interface of WAHIS to *Competent Authorities*all *notifications* received as provided in Articles 1.1.2. to 1.1.~~5~~4. and other relevant information.

[...]

____________
# C_2020215EN.01003201.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-446/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 1589/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

Processing CVB Reference and Reagent Test Reports

CVB-WI-0167 02

ICWI3001.04

CVB-WI-IC

06 Jun 2022

CVB-Released
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  T HE U PPER D ECK

C OMPANY , LLC and R ICHARD P. M C W ILLIAM , No. 07-56070

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. CV-05-1945 IEG



# 

A MERICAN I NTERNATIONAL (RBB) S PECIALTY L INES I NSURANCE OPINION C OMPANY , Defendant-Appellee. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 20, 2008—Pasadena, California

Filed December 9, 2008

Before: Pamela Ann Rymer and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman,* District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

*The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

16169COUNSEL

Duke F. Wahlquist, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Peter A. Stroili, D’Amato & Lynch, LLP, New York, New York, (argued); Jeffry A. Miller, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Diego, California, for the defendant-appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises out of an insurance policy that The Upper Deck Corporation ( “Upper Deck ”), purchased from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (“AISLIC”). The policy insured a tax strategy that KPMG, anaccounting firm, developed for Upper Deck. The IRS investigated the tax strategy and determined that it constituted an improper tax shelter. Upper Deck then settled with the IRS for $80 million in back taxes and interest, and with the CaliforniaFranchise Tax Board for $17 million in back taxes and interest. 16170 T HE U PPER D ECK v. A MERICAN I NT ’ LAfter AISLIC rejected Upper Deck’s claim that the policy covered the loss incurred as a result of the settlement, Upper Deck and its Chief Executive Officer, Richard McWilliam, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the policy issued by AISLIC covered the loss. Subsequently, the district court granted AISLIC’s motion to compel arbitration.

A three-member panel of arbitrators held that Upper Deck and McWilliam were not entitled to coverage because Upper Deck had abandoned the tax strategy that AISLIC had insured. The district court confirmed the arbitration award. Upper Deck Co. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. , 495 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1104 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Upper Deck andMcWilliam appeal. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, except for itsdiscussion of the arbitrators’ reliance on the failure of McWilliam to comply with § 9(b) of the policy. Id . at 1096-1104. We do not reach that issue because we agree with the district court that the alternative grounds for the arbitrators’ award“drew [their] essence from the [p]olicy and plausibly interpreted [it]. ” Id . at 1104.

AFFIRMED. 16171

T HE U PPER D ECK

v. A MERICAN I NT ’ L
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of XATA Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge: 1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the
Report.

         /s/ Craig S. Fawcett
--------------------------------------------
Craig S. Fawcett, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 29, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to XATA Corporation and will be
retained by XATA Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1


      Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors
Financial Federal Corporation:


We   consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  registration
statements (Nos. 333-139318 and 333-50962) on Form S-8 and (No.  333-
116806)  on  Form S-3 of Financial Federal Corporation of our  report
dated  September  24, 2007, with respect to the consolidated  balance
sheets  of Financial Federal Corporation and subsidiaries as of  July
31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in  the  three-year  period  ended July 31,  2007,  which  report  is
included  in  the  Annual Report on Form 10-K  of  Financial  Federal
Corporation for the year ended July 31, 2007.



New York, New York
September 24, 2007
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

1.   Fonix Systems Corporation, a Utah corporation,  wholly owned by the Company
     (merged into Fonix Corporation effective September 1, 1999)

2.   Fonix/AcuVoice, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by the Company

3.   Fonix/Articulate,  Inc.,  a Utah  corporation,  wholly owned by the Company
     (merged into Fonix Corporation effective September 1, 1999)

4.   Fonix/Papyrus, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by the Company
Title: Special Test Requests Initiated by Inspection and Compliance Staff

Release Date: 19 Feb 2020 Author: APJWATSON Document Number: CVB-WI-0116.02

CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

Printed by: CRRYAN on 20 Feb 2020, 01:17:48 pm.

Controlled by: APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100

Title: Special Test Requests Initiated by Inspection and Compliance Staff

Release Date: 19 Feb 2020 Author: APJWATSON Document Number: CVB-WI-0116.02

CONTROLLED//PROPIN//BASIC

Printed by: CRRYAN on 20 Feb 2020, 01:17:48 pm.

Controlled by: APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics, 515-337-6100
EXHIBIT 10.15



                                       72
<PAGE>

First Union National Bank
PA5039
620 Brandywine Parkway
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
610 918-8100



March 17, 1999

Mr. Craig Carra
Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc.
   And Subsidiaries
147 Keystone Drive
Montgomeryville, PA 18936

Dear Mr. Carra:

We are pleased to inform you that First Union National Bank has reaffirmed and
extended until May 31, 1999 the $2,535,000 line of credit availability to
Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries under the terms and
conditions set forth in the letter dated November 5, 1997.

Sincerely,

/s/Stephanie S. Hanlon
---------------------------
Vice President



                                       73
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(j)(v)


FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE McDONALD’S CORPORATION
SEVERANCE PLAN
The McDonald’s Corporation Severance Plan, as most recently amended and restated effective September 30, 2015 and as subsequently amended by the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Amendments, is hereby further amended as set forth below, effective as of June 5, 2018.
I.
The following is added as the second sentence of Section 5.1:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Qualifying Employee whose termination occurs in connection with the 2018 reorganization of the U.S. business, Severance Pay and sabbatical pay, if any, shall be paid to the Qualifying Employee in a single lump sum as soon as reasonably practicable following the later of the Termination Date or the Release Date, but in no event later than December 31, 2018.
    
II.
Except as herein amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
	
					
	Executed this June 5, 2018.
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	McDONALD’S CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	/s/ David Carroll

	 
	 
	 
	David Carroll

	 
	 
	 
	Corporate Vice President, Global Total Rewards
1

Phc39.doc

Public Hearing

9th Floor Conference Room L & C Annex

401 Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243-1531 

9:30 A.M. 

February 28, 2013

Hearing Officer: Malcolm Butler

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Representatives:

Linda Bilbrey (Recording Secretary) APC

Haidar Alrawi

Other Divisions: Resources 

Management Bureau

Public Mr. Joseph Bolia Exide

Comment Summary

This public hearing has been called to consider the requirements for developing a federally enforceable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Lead (Pb) Nonattainment Area (NAA) within Sullivan County. 

Oral Comments: None presented.

Written Comments: Only one written comment submitted by 

Mr. Jerry W. Wheeler, President

Exide Community Homeowners Association

Commenter: Mr. Jerry W. Wheeler, President

Exide Community Homeowners Association 

Comment: “I am responding to the recent notice published in the Bristol Herald Courier regarding 

the February 28th hearing reference Exide Technologies (Exide), Sullivan County, 

Tennessee. Though I welcome economic advantages to the community, I urge you to 

become well aware of environmental concerns in our area, including, but not limited to, 

ambient air. We have additional concerns involving water, soil, structural fires and health. 

As you are aware, lead is a continual hazard concern. We urge you to consider our 

community in all your findings and your decisions. Your proceedings should include 

Exide’s past and current violations and/or non-compliance of laws, rules and 

regulations.”

Response: Based on the most recent 2010-2012 lead (Pb) monitoring data, the Bristol partial 

nonattainment area, which is centered around the Exide facility, has attained the lead 

NAAQS. This area is now considered attainment and hence ambient impacts of the Exide 

lead emissions are in compliance with the state and federal national standards, which 

include a margin of safety for human health considerations. Issues regarding 

Exide’s continual compliance with its permitting requirements are beyond the scope of 

this emission inventory SIP requirement and are addressed in our Division on a 

continuous basis through our permitting and enforcement programs.