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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following 
prayer:
  We give You thanks, O God, for giving us another day.
  As the Members of the people's House return to the Capitol, call them 
as well with Your gentling voice of collegiality.
  When a sense of alienation shadows all of our souls, we find our 
differences difficult to bear; we move away from each other. Insofar as 
the spirit of alienation has descended upon this House, help each 
Member to overcome unnecessary divisions that hamper productive work on 
behalf of our Nation.
  Bring them to a deeper level of awareness of Your Spirit, and make us 
one Nation. Give the Members listening hearts, willing to give to each 
other time and attention and ready to respond to Your spirit living in 
each one.
  And may all that is done within the people's House this day be for 
Your greater honor and glory.
  Amen.

                          ____________________
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 1012** 

ELISABETH LENES; STEVEN LENES , Plaintiffs

- Appellees ,

v.

LORAL LANGEMEIER ,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dis trict of South Carolina , at Charleston

. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv
- 00316

- CWH )

Submitted : July 25, 2011 Decided: July 29, 2011

Before KING and DAVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un publis hed per curiam opinion

.

G. Mark Phillips, William C. Wood, Jr., Erin R. Stuckey, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH. LLP, Columbia, South Carolina ; J. Mitchell Little, SCHEEF & STONE, LLP, Frisco, Texas , for Appellant. Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Colem an, JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP, Tampa, Florida; James C. Bradley, Nina H. Fields, RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM:
Loral Langemeier appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion to compel arbitration in the underlying
diversity action. We have reviewed the record included on
appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no error in the

dist rict court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm. See Am. Recovery Corp. v. Computerized Thermal Imaging , 96 F.3d 88, 92
(4th Cir. 1996) (noting that “w hether a party has agreed to
arbitrate an issue is a matter of contract interpretation: ‘[A]
party cannot b e required to submit to arbitration any dispute
which he has not agreed so to submit.’” ) (citations omitted).

W e deny the Appellees’ motion to file a sur

- reply brief and to
schedule oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately pres ented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:GRA International, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
# C_2008008EN.01002901.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/29

---

Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)

(Case T-424/07)

(2008/C 8/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (Johnston, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2007 in Case R 288/2007-2 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 893 053 ‘OPTIMUM’ be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2007 in Case R 288/2007-2 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 893 053 ‘OPTIMUM’ be annulled;

| — | defendant pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMUM’ for goods in class 1 — application No 4 893 053

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c), 7(2), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 by not taking into consideration the fact that the goods in question address a specialised public and by not supporting the decision on evidence of use of the trade mark applied for.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2019328EN.01004801.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-285/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted with regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation on the Council to check that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 328/53)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and R. Pekař, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka’s name was maintained on the list of person, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka’s name was maintained on the list of person, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28214]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD581]


Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) Seminar 
Series presentation via webinar.

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

SUMMARY: The Council will host a presentation on wind energy 
development in the South Atlantic region on January 9, 2024.

DATES: The webinar presentation will be held on Tuesday, January 9, 
2024 from 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The presentation will be provided via 
webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Information, 
including a link to webinar registration will be posted on the 
Council's website at: https://safmc.net/safmc-seminar-series/ as it 
becomes available.
    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information 
Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8439 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; 
fax: (843) 769-4520; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#244f4d490a4d524156574b4a6457454249470a4a4150"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0507034007180b1c1d01002e1d0f08030d40000b1a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will host a presentation on wind 
energy development in the South Atlantic region. The presentation will 
provide information on three wind energy projects planned in the South 
Atlantic region and potential impacts of the projects. A question-and-
answer session will follow the presentation. Members of the public will 
have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The presentation 
is for informational purposes only and no management actions will be 
taken.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office 
(see ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are 
subject to change.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 18, 2023.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-28214 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 10.59****Trustee Compensation Policy**Annual Trustee compensation for 2006 shall be as follows:     **Non-Employee Trustees** **2006**Annual Retainer — Board Members $22,500 Annual Retainer — Audit Committee Chairman $15,000 Annual Retainer — Executive Compensation Committee Chairman $7,500 Annual Retainer — Executive Committee Chairman $7,500 Annual Retainer — Governance Committee Chairman $7,500 Annual Retainer — Lead Trustee $15,000      Per Board Meeting Attended in Person $1,750*Per Board Meeting Attended by Telephone $1,000      *Committee Members (other than Chairman):*    Per Committee Meeting Attended in Person $1,250*Per Committee Meeting Attended by Telephone $1,000      *Committee Chairman:*    Per Committee Meeting Attended in Person or by Telephone $1,750* * Plus out of pocket expenses.     Non-employee trustees can elect to receive common shares in lieu of all or a portion of annualboard and committee fees pursuant to the Company’s Non-Employee Trustee Share Plan. Common sharesreceived in lieu of fees under such plan shall have a fair market value equal to 125% of the amountof fees foregone.     Non-employee trustees shall also receive an option to purchase 5,000 common shares uponelection to the board, and an additional option to purchase 5,000 common shares following eachannual election of trustees that occurs after the trustee has completed at least one year ofservice. These options will be issued under the Company’s Second Amended and Restated EmployeeShare Option and Restricted Share Plan. The options are to vest in one year after the date ofgrant, at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the day of the grant.     Non-employee trustees shall further receive a grant of $10,000 of restricted stock followingeach annual election of trustees that occurs after the trustee has completed at least one year ofservice. This restricted stock will be issued under the Company’s Second Amended and RestatedEmployee Share Option and Restricted Share Plan. The restricted stock will be valued based on thefair market value on the day of the grant and will vest one year after the date of grant.     Employee trustees are not entitled to any additional compensation for their service astrustees.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed October 2, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0395

Lower Tribunal No. 23-157867 SP

________________

Kaiya Pineiro,

Appellant,

vs.

Oscar Arano, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. 

Barket, Judge.

Kaiya Pineiro, in proper person.

Oscar Arano and Moraima Arano, in proper persons.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 

1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate 

court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude 

that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an 

alternative theory.”).
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐272/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/83/EC – Right of asylum – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative
action (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 8-9)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
(Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
**EXHIBIT23**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No’s. 333-117955, 333-09481,**** 333-36983, 333-52630,  333-62993, and 333-68324 on Form S-8,Registration No’s. 333-53918, 333-55010, 333-66104, 333-100627,333-31949,  333-89326, 333-75890,333-58353, and 333-47133 on Form S-3,  and Registration No. 333-48952 on Form S-4of our reports dated May 14, 2006, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Manugistics Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and management’sreport on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Manugistics Group, Inc.for the year ended February 28, 2006.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHELLP

McLean, VirginiaMay 14, 2006

----
# C_2008116EN.01001002.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nógrád Megyei Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on 30 January 2008 — PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

(Case C-74/08)

(2008/C 116/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Nógrád Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | On 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union, were the rules laid down in Article 38(1)(a) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 1992. évi LXXIV. Törvény (Law LXXIV of 1992 concerning turnover tax; ‘the Áfa.tv’) compatible with Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (‘the Sixth Directive’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union, were the rules laid down in Article 38(1)(a) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 1992. évi LXXIV. Törvény (Law LXXIV of 1992 concerning turnover tax; ‘the Áfa.tv’) compatible with Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (‘the Sixth Directive’)?

1

| 2. | If the answer is in the negative, may the applicant rely directly on Article 17 of the Sixth Directive when exercising the right to deduct, rather than on Article 38(1)(a) of the Áfa.tv? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the negative, may the applicant rely directly on Article 17 of the Sixth Directive when exercising the right to deduct, rather than on Article 38(1)(a) of the Áfa.tv?

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             900,408
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,071,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35,000
<INVENTORY>                                        185,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,464,670
<PP&E>                                           2,671,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,258,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,127,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,822,369
<BONDS>                                          2,711,369
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            649
<COMMON>                                            18,585
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,490,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,127,909
<SALES>                                         43,557,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,557,902
<CGS>                                           35,118,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,118,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,197,267
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    35,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 292,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,903,511
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,909,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,909,011
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.39



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Marie Trucco, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Orange County,

October 13, 1959.

*Paul R. Carr*for William Trucco, petitioner.

*Alexander Appelbaum*for Margaret Eekhardt, as administratrix of the estate of Marie Trueco, deceased.

*208W. Newcomb Calter, S.

On December 18, 1935, letters of administration were issued to the respondent herein, upon the petition of both the petitioner herein and herself. No accounting has been filed with the court, and the petitioner now requests that the administratrix be compelled to account.

The answer filed on behalf of the administratrix, alleges that on February 27, 1936, there was an informal settlement of the estate between the parties hereto, as a result of which the petitioner herein conveyed to the respondent herein, all his right, title and interest in and to certain real property, which, according to both the petition for letters of administration and the schedule filed in the tax proceeding, was the only asset of the estate.

A reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which denies that there was an informal settlement between the parties hereto, admits that the petitioner executed a deed to the real property, but alleges that he did not understand the purpose thereof.

No proof has been offered by either party as to any of the questions raised by the pleadings.

If there were a valid informal accounting, it would be as effective as a decree upon a judicial settlement of the estate. *(Matter of Janies,*173 Misc. 1042, affd. 262 App. Div. 703, affd. 287 N. Y. 645; *Matter of O’Malley,*206 Misc. 687.) It is undisputed that the petitioner conveyed to the respondent all his interest in the only asset of the estate. Upon the pleadings and the oral argument herein, I conclude that the administratrix repudiated her trust as such administratrix, to the knowledge of the petitioner herein, on February 27, 1936, and that the lCLyear Statute of Limitations is now a bar to this proceeding to compel an accounting. *(Matter of Mathewson,*264 App. Div. 939.) The petition herein is, therefore, dismissed.

Submit order accordingly.
#### Angelo Ferrari, Appellant, v Niasher Realty, Inc., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988; *see also,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Negligence.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.