alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SanJoaquinValley AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

# ?!uw HEALTHY

# AIR LIVINGm

November 10,2010 Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluations Section California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacraniento, CA 9581 2 Dear Mr. Guzzetta: Attached isthe Rule Action Package for Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces), which was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Governing Board on September 16,2010. We request that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) transmit Rule 4354 and the appropriate documentationto the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. Included with this Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 2. ARB APCDIAQMD Rule Evaluation Form 3. UnderlinelStrikeout of Rule 4354 4. Clean Copy of Rule 4354 5. Evidence of Public Hearing 6. Governing Board Resolution 7. Governing Board Memo 8. Staff Report, including Public Comments and District Responses. The Rule Action Package is being transniitted by e-mail to ARB staff. If you have any questions, please contact George Heinen by phone at (559) 230-581 1 or by e-mail at 

### george.heinen@valleyair.org. The District thanks you and your staff for your assistance.

/ Director, Strategies and Incentives Attachments SeyedSadredin Executive DirectorlAir Pollution Control Officer

Northern Region Central Region(Main Office) Southern Region 4800 Enterprise Way 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 34946 Flyaver Caurt Modesto, CA 95356.8718 Fresno, CA 93726.0244 Bakersfield, CA 93308-9725 Tel: (2091557.6400 FAX: (209) 557.6475 Tel: 1559)230.6000 FAX: (559) 230.6061 Tel: 661.392.5500 FAX: 661.392-5585
#### Mary Carvache, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Norman E. Joslin, J.), entered on April 19, 1990, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, is unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and the matter remanded for a new trial, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff, Mary Carvache, stood with her back to the door of the conductor’s compartment of car No. 9272 on a nine car train. As the train pulled out of the station, plaintiff was injured when she leaned back against the door and fell inside the compartment. The door was not secured or locked. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Transit Authority.

We find that the trial court erred when it allowed the defendant to call two witnesses, Rudolph Williams and James Cristodero, whose names were not exchanged with plaintiff prior to trial, in violation of the terms of a pre-trial discovery order. Rudolph Williams testified he was employed on the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift checking the condition of train cars including the doors. Records of the Transit Authority revealed he had inspected 9272. The combination of the records and his testimony allowed the jury to draw the clear inference that *42the car including the doors was fit and defect free at the time of his inspection.

CPLR 3101 (a) has been interpreted liberally in favor of disclosure "of any facts bearing on the controversy” *(Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406). In applying this principle, it is now established that a party is entitled to the names of notice witnesses to a defective condition *(see, Hoffman v Ro-San Manor,*73 AD2d 207; *Zayas v Morales,*45 AD2d 610). Here, Williams was clearly a notice witness whose identity should have been disclosed pursuant to the prior order. Further, Cristodero testified as to his temporary repair of the door after the accident. Although an objection to his use of the word "vandalism” was sustained, his testimony advanced the Transit Authority’s contention at trial that some third-party "bent” and "broke” this door. Thus, similarly, the nondisclosure of his name was both a violation of elemental fairness and prejudicial to plaintiff *(see, Hoffman v Ro-San Manor, supra).*

We have examined the remaining contentions by plaintiff and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 p.m.), under its 
previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, August 2, 
2012, at 9 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CLAY:
       H.R. 6304.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
```
**Exhibit      10.1**

**HANA      BIOSCIENCES, INC.**

**NON-EMPLOYEE      DIRECTOR **

**COMPENSATION      ARRANGEMENTS **

**(Effective      April 18, 2007) **

| 1. | The                non-executive Chair of the Board is entitled to receive an annual                cash                retainer of $50,000, plus a per meeting fee of                $4,000. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Each                non-employee director (other than the Chair) is entitled to receive                an                annual retainer fee of $20,000, plus a per meeting fee of $2,500. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | The                non-Executive Chair of the Board and each other non-employee director                is                also entitled to an annual stock option to purchase 75,000 and 40,000                shares of the Company’s common stock, respectively, which options would                vest upon the first anniversary of the grant and would accelerate                upon a                change of control of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The                Chair of the Audit Committee of the Board is entitled to receive,                in                addition to his or her other Board compensation, an annual restricted                stock grant of 10,000 shares, which would vest on the first anniversary                of                the grant. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
# C_2020077EN.01000701.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — AT v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Case C-32/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 17(1)(a) - Right of permanent residence - Acquisition before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence - Workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age for entitlement to an old age pension)

(2020/C 77/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AT

Defendant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of acquiring the right of permanent residence in the host Member State before completion of a continuous period of 5 years of residence, the conditions that a person must have been working in that Member State at least for the preceding 12 months and must have resided in that Member State continuously for more than 3 years apply to workers who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age laid down by the law of that Member State for entitlement to an old age pension.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

128521 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. RIVER CITY CONSTRUCTION, INC., Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 128521 COA: 250721 Oakland CC: 2001-034304-CK ABC PAVING COMPANY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/ Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant,

v

COMMERCE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Third-Party Defendant and Cross-Defendant/Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
# C_2008051EN.01004701.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/47

---

Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EFSA

(Case T-457/07)

(2008/C 51/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of EFSA to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of EFSA to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

| — | order EFSA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EFSA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the provision of IT consultancy assistance (OJ 2007/S 97-118626). The applicant contests the defendant's decision of 1 October 2007 to reject the applicant's bid and to award the contract to another tenderer.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that EFSA failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and, in particular, inform the applicant of the relative merits of the successful tenderer. According to the applicant, EFSA mixed selection criteria with award criteria when evaluating the bids and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that EFSA committed manifest errors of assessment.

---
#### Laura Baum, Plaintiff, *v.*Sidney Nussenbaum, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

November 7, 1958.

*Ludwig Schiffer*for plaintiff.

*Russell B. Greaves (O’Hagan, Reilly & Beasley*of counsel), for defendant.

Joseph M. Conroy, J.

Motion by plaintiff for a discovery and inspection of the records and report of a physical examination made of the plaintiff by the defendant’s doctor. The physical examination was had on plaintiff’s consent and without the necessity for a court order.

*475In this Department, it has long been the custom to require a copy of the doctor’s report to be furnished to the party examined where the examination was made pursuant to a court order *(Di Salvo*v. *Di*Giacomo, 2 Misc 2d 1068), but not when the examination was granted voluntarily *(Andrews*v. *Ghikas,*278 App. Div. 658). More recently, however, there has been a trend toward full disclosure of each side’s case with a view to preventing surprise and expediting the trial. *(Del Ra*v. Vaughan, 2 A D 2d 156; *Wilhelm*v. *Abel,*1 A D 2d 55.) In line with this change of policy, there appears to be no reason for penalizing a plaintiff who consents to an examination without putting his adversary to the trouble of making a motion therefor *(Martin*v. *La Fonte,*53 N. Y. S. 2d 415), and this policy has recently been adopted even in the First Department which formerly did not require service of a copy of the report on the party examined *(Totoritus*v. Stefan, 10 Misc 2d 881, affd. 6 A D 2d 123).

The motion is accordingly granted.

Submit order.
G i v e n t h e s i ze o f t h e F W S a t t a c h m e n t , I w a s af r a i d t h a t m y e m a il w ou l d bou n c e . Th a nks f o r l e tti ng m e k no w you re c e i v e d it

.
D a ve

O n Tu e , O c t16, 2012 a t10 : 48 A M, G er a r do Ri o s < R i os. G e ra r do@ e p a m a i l

. e p a .gov > w r o t e: Hi D a v i d,

T h i s i s t o a ck n o w l e d g e r e c e i p t o f y o u r a pp li c a t i o n a d d en d u m.

G e r a r d o C

. Ri os C h i e f, P e rm i t s Of

f i ce A i r Di v i s i on P H O N E: ( 4 1 5 ) 9 72

- 3 9 74 F A X: ( 4 1 5 ) 947

- 35 79

F ro m : "J en k in s , D a v id " < djen k in s @ape x po w ergroup

. c om > T o : Gerardo R io s / R 9 / U SEPA / U S@EPA

, C c : J i m _Bart el@ f

w s

. gov , " F o s t er , M eli s s a A

. " < m a f o s t er@ s t oel

. c om > , S t e v e H ill < S H ill@ s ierrare s ear c h

. c om > , Gary C handler

< gr c handler @ ape x po w ergroup

. c om >
D a t e : 10 / 15 / 2012 08 : 28 PM Subje ct : Pio Pi c o PS D Appli c a t ion Addendu m

- U S FW S Biologi c al Opinion

G e r ar do,

P i o P i c o En e r gy C e n t e r , LL C ( “ A pp l i c an t ”) h e r e by a dds t h e a tt a c h e d l e tt er a s an a dd e ndu m t o it s
a pp li ca ti on f

o r a P r e v e n ti on o f S i gn i f

i c an t D e t e r i o ra ti on ( “ P S D ” ) p er mit f o r t h e P i o P i c o En e r gy C e n t er p r o j e c t

. A l so a tt ac h e d i s t h e B i o l og i c c a l O p i n i on l e tt er f r o m J i m A

. B ar t e l
, F i sh & W il d l i f e S e r v i ce , t o you d a t e d S e p t e m b er 28, 2012. A p a p e r c opy o f bo t h do c u m e n t s w ill b e s e n t t o you.

P l e a s e c a l l m e a t 317

- 431

- 1004 shou l d you h a v e any qu e s ti ons o r c o mm e n t s i n t h i s r e g ar d.

S i n c e re l y,

D a v e R e : P i o P i c o P S D A pp l i c a ti on A dd e ndu m

- U S F W S B i o l og i ca l O p i n i on J e nk i ns, D a v i d t o: G er a r do R i os 10 / 16 / 2012 07 : 58 AM H i d e D e t a il s F r o m: " J e nk i n s , D a v i d " < d j e nk i ns@ a

p e xpo w er g r oup. c o m> To : G e r a r do R i os /R 9 /

U S E P A / U S @E P A
, P a g e 1 o f 2

10/ 16/ 2012 f i l e : /// C :/ U s e r s / g r i os / A pp D a t a / Lo c a l / T e m

p / no t e s5524 D 1 /

~ w e b5927.h tmD a v i d J e nk i ns

A p e x P o w e r Gr oup, LL C [ a tt a c h m e n t " P P E C Bi o l og i c a l O p i n i on L e tt er t o G e ra r do R i os.pd f " d e l e t e d by G er a r do R i os /R 9 / U S E P A / U S ] [ a t t a c h m e n t " 10 B 0661

- 12 F 0590_ S DG

_ B O

_ P i o P i c o En e r gy C e n t e r _20120928_k a g.pd f

" d e l e t e d by G e ra r d o Ri os / R 9 / U S E P A / U S ] P a g e 2 o f 2

10/ 16/ 2012 f i l e : /// C :/ U s e r s / g r i os / A pp D a t a / Lo c a l / T e m

p / no t e s5524 D 1 /

~ w e b5927.h tm
# C_2012032EN.01000201.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-250/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of persons - Purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal residence - Calculation of a tax advantage - Registration duties - Cohesion of the tax system)

2012/C 32/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent, and by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, advocaat)

Defendant:

Intervening party in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: R. Somssich, K. Borvölgyi and M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Intervening party in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 18 EC, 43 EC and 56 EC and of Articles 31 EEA and 40 EEA — Calculation of a tax advantage upon purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal place of residence — Registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence taken into account only if that place of residence was situated in the Flemish Region

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2009205EN.01000701.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Spain) — Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

(Case C-14/08) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Preliminary references - Jurisdiction of the Court - Definition of ‘dispute’ - Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 - Service of extrajudicial documents in the absence of legal proceedings - Notarial act)

2009/C 205/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, San Javier — Interpretation of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37) — Service of extrajudicial documents exclusively by and to private persons using the physical and personal resources of courts of the European Union outside of any court proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The service of a notarial act, in the absence of legal proceedings, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2002 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A-1 (the "Report") of
Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chua Leong Hin,
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:

         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.



/s/ Chua Leong Hin
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
August 6, 2010
EXHIBIT 11.1
SYQUEST TECHNOLOGY, INC.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                Three months ended      Six months ended
                                                                March 31,               March 31,
                                                                ---------------------   ---------------------
                                                                    1997      1996          1997      1996
                                                                ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                                             <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
(Loss) before cumulative effect of cumulative preferred
   stock dividends and extraordinary credit                     ($33,719)   ($51,105)   ($40,533)   ($84,906)
 
Cumulative preferred stock dividends                                (691)         -       (1,264)         -
 
Effect of incremental yield embedded in conversions
   terms                                                              -           -       (5,300)         -
                                                                ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
Net (loss)                                                      ($34,410)   ($51,105)   ($47,097)   ($84,906)
                                                                =========   =========   =========   =========
 
Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:                                                    26,206      11,371      20,466      11,351
 
 
Net (loss) per share                                              ($1.31)     ($4.49)     ($2.30)     ($7.48)
                                                                =========   =========   =========   =========
 
</TABLE>