alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Acton C. Hartshorne and Charles E. Hill, appellants, *v.*George C. Boorum, respondent.

On appeal from an order advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in *Boorum*v. *Tucker, 6 Dick. Ch. Rep. 1S5.*

*Mr. Charles E. Hill,*for the appellants,

*Mr. James Fleming,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.

*For affirmance*— Abbett, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Lippincott, Reed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, Smith — 10.

*For reversal*— None.
# C_2011226EN.01002401.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Ziegler v Commission

(Case T-199/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Appreciable effect on trade - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2011/C 226/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez and J. Lodomez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ziegler SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ziegler SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60234 Summary Calendar

RONALD GLADNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-277-RR

- - - - - - - - - - October 29, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ronald Gladney appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint appealing the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits as time-barred. The Commissioner’s motion to dismiss is reviewed as a motion for summary judgment because matters outside the complaint were considered in granting the motion. Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 901 F.2d 1281, 1284 (5th Cir.No. 96-60234 - 2 - 1990); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Gladney argues that he successfully rebutted the presumption that he received notice of the Appeals Council’s decision to uphold denial of benefits by showing that the notice was sent to an incorrect address. Our review of the record reveals that Gladney did not present a material fact issue as to whether he successfully rebutted the presumption. Therefore, Gladney’s complaint filed in the district court was untimely. The district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as time-barred.
AFFIRMED.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 917

- C R
IN RE Larry Montoya CANTU Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 2, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On December 23, 2010, relator Larry Montoya Cantu filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator asserts he filed a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in which he complains he has never been “personally magistrated.” To the extent relator seeks a w rit from this court ordering that relator be released, the writ is denied. To the extent relator’s complaint is that the trial court has failed to rule on his writ of habeas corpus, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceedin g pending in the trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- CR

- 9404, styled State of Texas v. Larry Montoya Cantu , pending in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melissa Skinner presiding. However, at the time the petition was filed, the Honorable Sharon Macrae was the presiding judge of the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar Coun ty, Texas.04

- 10

- 00 917

- CR

- 2

- App. 1995 ). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule
on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8( a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4510 

To prohibit the use of official funds provided for the operations of a House 

of Congress for long-term vehicle leases, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2017 

Mr. BLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of official funds provided for the operations of a House of Congress for long-term vehicle 

leases, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Congressional Ve5 hicle Leases Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF CONGRESSIONAL FUNDS FOR 

7 LONG-TERM VEHICLE LEASES. 

8 No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 

9 during a fiscal year for the operations of a House of Con10 gress, including the official and representational expenses 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4510 IH

1 of a Member of Congress or the expenses of a committee 

2 or leadership office of a House of Congress, may be used 

3 to lease a vehicle for a period of longer than 30 consecutive 

4 days, or to lease a vehicle for a period of any length at 

5 a daily rate exceeding a maximum rate established by reg6 ulation. 

7 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

8 The Committee on House Administration of the 

9 House of Representatives (with respect to Representatives 

10 in, and Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to, the 

11 Congress) and the Committee on Rules and Administra12 tion of the Senate (with respect to Senators) shall each 

13 promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry 

14 out this Act. 

15 SEC. 4. MEMBER OF CONGRESS DEFINED. 

16 In this Act, the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means 

17 a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 

18 Commissioner to, the Congress. 

19 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

20 This Act shall apply with respect to leases entered 

21 into after the expiration of the 1-year period which begins 

22 on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2021182EN.01001101.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — RJ v Stadt Offenbach am Main

(Case C-580/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Professional firefighters - Directive 89/391/EEC - Articles 5 and 6 - Psychosocial risks - Obligation to prevent)

(2021/C 182/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RJ

Defendant: Stadt Offenbach am Main

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system, during which a worker must be able to reach the town boundary of his or her workplace within a 20 minute response time, in uniform with the service vehicle made available to him or her by his or her employer, using traffic regulations privileges and rights of priority attached to that vehicle, constitutes, in its entirety, ‘working time’, within the meaning of that provision, solely if it follows from an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the case, in particular the consequences of such a response time and, where appropriate, the average frequency of interventions during that period, that the constraints imposed on that worker during that period are of such a nature as to constrain objectively and very significantly the ability that he or she has to freely manage, during the same period, the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
#### In the Matter of George Stephen Getman.

— Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner as an attorney and counselor at law. Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ.
Riverside

County La Paz

County

Yuma

County

Imperial

County

Gila

County

Maricopa

County

Pima

County

Pinal

County

Yavapai

County

California

Arizona

USDA APHIS

3640 E. Wier Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85040

Data Source:

USDA, APHIS, PPQ

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only and is

the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/help/data-disclaimer

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

2023 Karnal Bunt Regulated Areas

State Boundary

County Boundary

Regulated Areas

0 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Date Created:

March 22, 2023

[

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Regulated Areas

 Arizona

 “Regulated Area” is an area regulated by USDA for Karnal Bunt that is a

distinct, definable, commercial wheat production area that includes at least one

field that tested positive for bunted kernels and includes the surrounding 3 miles.

Maricopa 503 19,318

Pinal 509 23,496

Total 1,012 42,814

County Fields Field Acres
Description of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.21 
  
 GENSYM CORPORATION 
  
 Description of Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors 
  
 Directors of the Company who are also Company employees receive no additional or special compensation for serving as
directors. 
  
 Following is a description of the compensation
arrangements for the Company’s non-employee directors. 
  
 The Company pays its non-employee directors $12,000 annually, plus $1,000 for physical attendance at each meeting of the board of directors or $500 for participation in a board meeting telephonically. Non-employee
directors also receive a $1,500 quarterly retainer for each committee on which the director serves. Non-employee directors are also eligible to receive stock options. 
  
 In July 2003, the Company’s board of directors approved the temporary reduction of the board’s
cash compensation by 10% in conjunction with the temporary reduction of the salaries of senior management. The salaries of the Company’s executive officers were restored in April 2004, retroactive to January 1, 2004. Also in April 2004, the
board of directors approved the restoration of the board’s cash compensation to pre-reduction levels, retroactive to January 1, 2004. 
  
 Since January 1, 2003, each of the Company’s non-employee directors must receive 10%, and may elect to receive up to 100%, of his
board compensation in shares of the Company’s common stock in lieu of cash. Each director must make his election in increments of 10% and may only change his election effective as of two specified times each year. 
  
 Prior to January 1, 2005, upon initial election as a
director, each non-employee director of the Company was entitled to receive a nonstatutory option to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and on the first day of each calendar quarter each non-employee director was entitled to
receive an option to purchase 5,000 shares. Commencing January 1, 2005, upon initial election as a director, each non-employee director of the Company will be entitled to receive a nonstatuory option to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock on and the first day of each calendar quarter each non-employee director is entitled to receive an option to purchase 2,500 shares. All options granted to directors are granted at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the
Company’s common stock on the date of the grant, are immediately exercisable and are exercisable for up to 10 years from the date of grant.
SUMMARY OF COMPANY'S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



 Exhibit 10.27 
  
 SUMMARY OF THE COMPANY’S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
  
 Non-employee directors are paid an annual retainer of $40,000 and fees of
$2,500 for each Board meeting attended, $1,000 for each committee meeting attended and $1,000 for certain telephone meetings. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Committee and the Chairman of
the Executive Compensation Committee each are paid $5,000 per annum for their services as such. Other members of the Audit Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Executive Compensation Committee each are paid $2,500 per annum for
their services as such. All directors are reimbursed for their expenses related to attendance at meetings. 
  
 In accordance with the Company’s 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, each non-employee director who is a director at the annual meeting of
stockholders receives an automatic grant of an option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the closing price on the date of grant. Upon becoming a director, each non-employee director is granted an option to
purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the closing price of Common Stock on the date of grant. Each such option expires ten years after the date of grant and becomes exercisable in three equal annual installments
beginning on the first day of the month of each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant. If the director ceases to be a director prior to the date the option becomes fully exercisable, the unvested portion of the option will
immediately expire. Any vested options will remain exercisable for a period of one year following cessation of service as a director of the Company. All unexercised options will become exercisable in full beginning 20 days prior to the consummation
of a merger or consolidation, acquisition, reorganization or liquidation and, to the extent not exercised, shall terminate immediately after the consummation of such merger, consolidation, acquisition, reorganization or liquidation. Except as the
Board may otherwise determine, options granted to non-employee directors are not transferable.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  CONGRATULATORY REMARKS FOR OBTAINING THE RANK OF EAGLE SCOUT--TRACY 
                                 MURPHY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SANDY ADAMS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Tracy Murphy 
for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout.
  For his Eagle Scout project, Tracy provided benches for resting on a 
local hiking trail. Throughout the history of the Boy Scouts of 
America, the rank of Eagle Scout has only been attained through 
dedication to concepts such as honor, duty, country and charity. By 
applying these concepts to daily life, Tracy has proven his true and 
complete understanding of their meanings, and thereby deserves this 
honor.
  I offer my congratulations on a job well done and best wishes for the 
future.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 10.32

                              AMNET MORTGAGE, INC.
                   EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANNUAL CASH BONUS PROGRAM

                               Performance Period
                       January 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005

                     Approved by the Compensation Committee
                          of the Board of Directors on
                                 March 31, 2005


Purpose: The goal of the program is to provide an annual incentive to the
company's executive officers to maximize the company's financial performance and
achieve specified strategic and individual goals in 2005.

Summary Description: The program sets a financial performance goal for the one
year performance period based on the Company's target income before income
taxes. In addition, other financial and or operating goals are set for each
participant.

Program Participants:  The executive officers of the company will participate
in the program.

Performance Measurements and Awards: The performance measurements and the method
of calculating awards are set forth on Exhibit A hereto. The awards will be
based on the combination of financial goals for the company and other individual
goals. The weighting of these goals will differ by position. If target goals are
met, each officer may receive a bonus equal to 80% to 90% of base salary,
depending on the individual's title. If the goals are exceeded, they may receive
up to a maximum of 120% to 135% of their base salary. If the target goals are
not met, bonuses shall be reduced or may not be awarded.

Effective Time of the Awards: All awards will be subject to final approval by
the Compensation Committee. The Committee shall determine the final awards
promptly following the completion of the annual audit of the company's financial
statements for 2005 but in all events within 2.5 months after the end of the
year. The Compensation Committee retains the discretion to reduce or increase
the awards for participants and may, in its sole discretion, exclude from the
financial calculations any extraordinary items under GAAP for the purposes of
this program.

Effect of Termination: In the event of a change of control or if a participant's
employment terminates for any reason, a bonus award shall be paid as set forth
in the participant's Executive Employment Agreement as in effect on the date of
such event.




                                       3
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 American Tax Credit Properties III L.P.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ending March 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman Housing Credits Inc., general
partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)
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 Registrant.



/s/ David Salzman
----------------------------------
David Salzman
Chief Executive Officer of Richman
Housing Credits Inc., general partner
of Richman Tax Credit Properties III
L.P., General Partner of the Company
July 13, 2004
# C_2009282EN.01004803.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/48

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Impala v Commission

(Case T-229/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentration - Sony BMG joint venture - Original decision annulled by the Court of First Instance - New decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market - Action deprived of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 282/93

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, association internationale (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby, J. Golding, Solicitors and I. Wekstein, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, F. Arbault and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Sony Corporation of America, (New York, New York, United States), (represented by N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders and T. Graf, lawyers); and Bertelsmann AG (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by P. Chappatte, J. Boyce and A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitors)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2007) 4507 of 3 October 2007 declaring compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement a concentration whereby the activities of Sony Corporation of America and Bertelsmann AG in the recorded music sector were combined into a joint venture (Case COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG), adopted following the annulment by the judgment delivered in Case T-464/04 Impala v Commission [2006] ECR II-2289 of Commission Decision 2005/188/EC of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG) (OJ 2005 L 62, p. 30).

Impala

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, association internationale) shall bear its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, association internationale) shall bear its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities.

| 3. | Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---