alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Critical Area Planting, Dam, Dike, Diversion, Integrated Pest Management, Land Smoothing, Nutrient Management, Open Channel, Pond, Precision Land Forming.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# Maine State Office

967 Illinois AveBangorME04401-2700

207-990-9100

967 Illinois AveBangorME04401-2700

Maine

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  Maine 
-  Maine State Office 

The mission of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Maine is to provide technical assistance to help people conserve, improve and sustain our natural resources. 

## Welcome to NRCS in Maine!

### Matt Walker, State Conservationist

NRCS, led by our State Conservationist and our State Leadership Team, XXXX

##   Employee Directory
#### J. J. McELRATH & AL. *vs.*THOMAS BUTLER.

Where a judgment was rendered in October 1838 by a magistrate, upon a return of the constable on the warrant *“*executed,” but not having the name of the constable signed to the return ; *Held,*that this judgment waB not *void,*for the want of the signature of the constable to the return on the warrant.

And, *held further,*that the defendant in that judgment, against whom a ■ magistrate, at a subsequent time, had rendered judgment upon the former judgment, could not be relieved from the last judgment by writ of *recor-dari,*without first having the prior judgment reversed.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of *Burke*County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.

The defendant, Butler, issued a warrant against Hugh McElrath and several others, in a plea of debt for the sum of One Hundred Dollars, due by note; and the constable returned the warrant, “ executed,” but did not sign his name thereto, and afterwards he died. On the 15th of October, 1838, R. C. Pearson, a Justice of the Peace, entered judgment against the said Hugh for #100 principal, interest and costs. On the 4th day of September, 1843, Butler issued another warrant against Hugh Mc-Elrath, in a plea of debt due by former judgment, in the sum of #100. This warrant was executed and a judg-dered on it, by Thomas Walton, a Justice of the Peace. Hugh McElrath obtained a writ of *recordari*to issue to Walton to record, the proceedings had before him, and send them into the Superior Court of Burke County: which was done accordingly. The ground of the .motion for the *recordari*was, that the first warrant, on which Pearson gave a judgment against him, had never been executed on him, nor had he any notice of the same. The Judge, on the hearing in the Superior Court, ordered that the judgments, heretofore given by R. C. Pearson *401and Thomas Walton, Esquires, be vacated. From this order, the defendant, Butler, appealed-to the Supreme Coui't.

No counsel for the plaintiffs.

*Avery,*for the defendant.

Daniel, J.

It seems to us that the Judge erred in reversing the first judgment, given against Hugh McEl-rath by R. C. Pearson ; for there was no petition nor prayer by Hugh McElrath, that it should be vacated. It was not before the Court. *Secondly.*Hugh McElreath insisted, that the judgment rendered against him by Walton was erroneous, because he, Walton, had rendered it on the former judgment, which Hugh alleged was *void,*as having been rendered against him without notice. The Judge, we think, erred in reversing this judgment. The warrant, on which the first judgment was rendered against Hugh McElrath, was returned executed on him by the constable, but the constable neglected to sign his name to his return. We do not think that the judgment rendered by Pearson was *void.*If it was erroneous, until it was reversed for error, it was good evidence, for Walton to render the second judgment on. We think that the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed, and judgment on the *recordari*entered for the original plaintiff, Butler.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.
#### Sukow, Administrator, Respondent, vs. Radke and another, Appellants: Hintz, Interpleaded Respondent.

For the appellants: *John W. O’Leary*and *Elbert Joyce,*both of Neenah.

For the respondent: *F. J. Smith*of Merrill.

For the interpleaded respondent: *Schmitt & Schnabel*of Merrill.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF 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, Philip
McDermott, 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 AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2009, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents
in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
AltiGen Communications, Inc.





Date:
      February 10, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Philip M. McDermottName:
              Philip
      M. McDermottTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer
# C_2004179EN.01000601.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome) by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte against Roberto Meloni

(Case C-202/04)

(2004/C 179/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome) (Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 6 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte against Roberto Meloni on the following question:

Do Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 and 81 EC) preclude a Member State from adopting a law or regulation which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of members of the Bar, a tariff fixing minimum and maximum fees for members of the profession in respect of services rendered in connection with activities (so-called non-court work) that are not reserved to members of the Bar but may be performed by anyone?

---
# C_2004321EN.01000201.xml

| 28.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 December 2004

(2004/C 321/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3542 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4406 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70330 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0350 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5458 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,79 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2815 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,57870 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,433 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6936 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4337 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0757 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 700 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,7800 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,830 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 854 638 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7587 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6631 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5412 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8908 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,2203 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 419,13 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6377 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3542

JPY

Japanese yen

140,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4406

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70330

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0350

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5458

ISK

Iceland króna

83,79

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2815

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,57870

CZK

Czech koruna

30,433

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6936

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4337

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0757

ROL

Romanian leu

38 700

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,7800

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,830

TRL

Turkish lira

1 854 638

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7587

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6631

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5412

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8908

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,2203

KRW

South Korean won

1 419,13

ZAR

South African rand

7,6377

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   Exhibit 11
                         RISCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Statement Re. Computation of Per Share Earnings
               For the three months ended March 31, 1998 and 1997
               (in thousands, except share and per share amounts)


                                                                                            1998                   1997
                                                                                       ---------------        ----------------
                                                                                         (Unaudited)            (Unaudited)

<S>                                                                                   <C>                    <C>           
Net (loss) income                                                                     $      (9,321)         $        1,479
                                                                                       =============         ==============

Weighted average common and common share equivalents outstanding:

     Average number of common shares outstanding                                         36,868,414              36,174,098
     Redemption contingency for CompSource acquisition                                           --                 502,566
     Redemption contingency for IAA acquisition                                                  --                 790,336
                                                                                   ----------------           -------------
     Weighted average common shares outstanding - (basic)                                36,868,414              37,467,000

    Common stock equivalents--assumed exercise of stock options                                  --                 308,562
          Weighted average common and common share
           equivalents outstanding - (diluted)                                           36,868,414              37,775,562
                                                                                        ===========             ===========


Net (loss) income per common share--basic                                             $       (0.25)          $        0.04
                                                                                      ==============          =============

Net (loss) income per common share--diluted                                           $       (0.25)          $        0.04
                                                                                      ==============          =============
</TABLE>


                                       30
<PAGE>
# C_2004228EN.01001102.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-118/03: Commission of the European Communities against Federal Republic of Germany (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 2000/37/EC)

(2004/C 228/21)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-118/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and H. Støvlbæk) against Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/37/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139, p. 25), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/37/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/37/EC of 5 June 2000 amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

1

---
# L_2015203EN.01000401.xml

| 31.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 203/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 203/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1313

of 24 July 2015

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Artichaut du Roussillon (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Artichaut du Roussillon’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Artichaut du Roussillon’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2).

Official Journal of the European Union

2

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Artichaut du Roussillon’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Artichaut du Roussillon’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Artichaut du Roussillon’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruits, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

3

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2015.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 92, 19.3.2015, p. 38.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 Agreement TeleTech  Grantee  Grant Date
 Grant of RSUs Plan  Award
  Rights Upon Termination of Service Disability
 Rights Upon Termination of Service For Cause
 Rights Upon Grantees Death or Disability
 Vesting
 
 Vesting ScheduleCumulativeVesting Date
    
    Percentage
  Vesting Following a Change in Control
 Accelerated Vesting
  -1-




---



##### 




    
    during the first year of employment or service  0% of the unvested restricted
shares shall be accelerated
    
    during the second year of employment or service  20% of the unvested restricted
shares shall be accelerated
    
    during the third year of employment or service  50% of the unvested restricted
shares shall be accelerated
    
    during the fourth year of employment or service and thereafter  100% of the
unvested restricted shares shall be accelerated.
  provided however
 Definition of Change in Control Change in
Control
  Disposition provided however
  provided however provided further
 Continuing Directors
 -2-




---



##### 



Other Definitions
 Cause provided however
 Termination Date
 Good Reason provided that provided however
 Termination of Service
   provided however
 -3-




---



##### 



Independent Director
 Settlement of Vested RSUs
 RSUs Not Transferable and Subject to Certain Restrictions Code
 Forfeiture
 Acceptance of Plan
 No Right to Employment
 Adjustments
 No Other Rights
 -4-




---



##### 



Confidentiality GRANTEE AGREES NOT TO DISCLOSE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO ANY
OTHER EMPLOYEE OF TELETECH AND TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY AWARDS GRANTED
TO GRANTEE, PURSUANT TO THE PLAN OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUCH AWARD AND THE RATE
OF VESTING THEREOF; PROVIDED THAT GRANTEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION TO SUCH OF
GRANTEES ADVISORS, REPRESENTATIVES OR AGENTS, OR TO SUCH OF TELETECHS OFFICERS, ADVISORS,
REPRESENTATIVES OR AGENTS (INCLUDING LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING ADVISORS), WHO HAVE A NEED TO KNOW SUCH
INFORMATION FOR LEGITIMATE TAX, FINANCIAL PLANNING OR OTHER SUCH PURPOSES
 Severability
 References
 Entire Agreement
 Amendment
 Section 409A
 Section 409A
  -5-




---



##### 



No Third Party Beneficiary
 Governing Law
  -6-




---



##### 



TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.By:Name:Title:Signature of  (Grantee)Grantees Social Security Number
 -7-
#### Gerum, Respondent, vs. Pfister and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Genrich & Genrich,*attorneys, and *Miles Lambert*of counsel, all of Wausau.

For the respondent: *C. J. Crooks*of Wausau.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004239EN.01000301.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam

(Case C-311/04)

(2004/C 239/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal, Netherlands) of 28 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Additional Note (EC) 1 to Chapter 10 of the Common Customs Tariff, as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, valid in so far as it lays down requirements in respect of the term ‘semi-milled rice’ that differ from those laid down in the Customs Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Additional Note (EC) 1 to Chapter 10 of the Common Customs Tariff, as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, valid in so far as it lays down requirements in respect of the term ‘semi-milled rice’ that differ from those laid down in the Customs Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it possible for an appellant to plead good faith pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code in a situation where the appellant was or ought to have been aware of Additional Note (EC) 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the CN but did not know or may at least have had doubts as to whether that note was valid in the light of the different description set out in the Custom Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it possible for an appellant to plead good faith pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code in a situation where the appellant was or ought to have been aware of Additional Note (EC) 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the CN but did not know or may at least have had doubts as to whether that note was valid in the light of the different description set out in the Custom Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

---