alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01067901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/679 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/679

---

(2004/C 88 E/0697)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Missing NGO legal framework in Malta

Subject:

Malta, which will become a member of the EU on 1 May next, has no legal framework for the regulation of non-governmental organisations. This is hindering established NGOs, including non-governmental development organisations with an excellent track record, from developing their full capacities. Such a framework would enable them to participate meaningfully in partnerships with other European NGOs.

Should not the Commission put pressure on the Maltese government to set up the necessary legal framework without further delay? This would be a step in the right direction in recognising the expertise and mandate of all established NGOs, including NGDOs working in the international development field, and offering all the necessary support for NGOs and NGDOs to continue and further their global solidarity work.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

(25 February 2004)

Community legislation does not oblige Member States to set up a legal framework for Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). This is left to the discretion of Member States. This is, therefore, not an issue where the Commission is entitled to ‘put pressure on the Maltese Government’.

The Commission has, throughout the pre-accession period, and whenever relevant and possible insisted that Community-funded projects include participation from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In the framework of its support for NGOs, the Commission is prepared to consider specific projects related to the implementation of Community legislation and policies in Malta.

---
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 38 4 . UNI ON I NSURANCE COMPANY v . W ARE.

Ou r affi rm an ce i n Cas e N o

. A2 1 A1 29 8 ren d ers m o o t t h e i s s u es rai s ed i n t h i s

cro s s -ap p eal ; acco rd in gl y , th is cas e i s d i s m i s sed

. See Ca rs o n v. B ro wn , 3 5 8 Ga. Ap p. 6 1 9 , 6 2 4 (2 ) (8 5 6 SE2 d 5 ) (2 0 21 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## March 02, 2022

03/02/2022
Exhibit 10.2


 


[Date]


 


 


[Name]


[Street Address]


[City, State, Zip Code]


 


 


Dear [Name]:


 


Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company’s 1999 Long-Term
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the 2008 Executive Performance Incentive
Program (the “Program”), on August 5, 2008, the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of Equitable Resources, Inc. (the “Committee”)
granted you «NumberUnits»
Target Share Units (the “Award”), the value of which is determined by
reference to the Company’s common stock. 
The terms and conditions of the Award, including, without limitation,
vesting and distribution, shall be governed by the provisions of the Program
document attached hereto as Exhibit A, provided that the Award is also
subject to the terms and limits included within the Plan, and the Committee
retains the discretion to distribute the Award in cash, Company stock or any
combination thereof.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Kimberly L. Sachse

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  For the Compensation
  Committee

  	
   

  



 


 


The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt
of this award granted on the date shown above, the terms of which are subject
to the terms and conditions referenced above, and receipt of a copy of the
Program document, and agrees to be bound by all the provisions hereof and
thereof.


 


 


	
  Signature:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  [Name]
DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

97-2648.

#### Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha.

On July 30, 1999, this court found respondent in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s August 12,1998 order of disbarment, to wit, failure to file an affidavit of compliance and surrender his certificate of admission on or before September 11,1998, and failure to pay board costs on or before November 10, 1998. It has come to the attention of this court that respondent surrendered his certificate of admission on July 8, 1994, in *Cleveland Bar Association and Cuyahoga Bar Association v. Nwabueze Okocha,*Supreme Court case No. 93-2102. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*effective September 9, 1999, that this court’s order of *1480July 30, 1999, in Supreme Court case No. 97-2648, be modified to the extent that respondent be, and hereby is, found in contempt for failure to pay board costs on or before November 10, 1998.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON, INC. (the ‘‘Corporation’’) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the ‘‘Form 10-K’’) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 13th day of March,  2007.

|        |  |  |                |
|--------|--|--|----------------|
| /S/    |  |  | MEYER FELDBERG |
|   |  |  | MEYER FELDBERG |
|        |

----
#### Anonymous.

When a Defendant in ejectment dies, the suit will abate, and cannot be revived by *sci. fa.*against the heirs.

Ejectment. The Defendant died pending the action, and a *sci.*fa.,issued against his heirs, who came in and pleaded the death of the Defendant in abatement. *Btper curiam*— Wiihams and Haywood, Justices. — The acts-for continuing suits on the death of either party, extends only to such cases, where before the act, the executors by a new suit might sue, or be sued after the abatement of the former action, not to those cases where after the abatement by death, no new suit could be maintained by or against them. The intent of the act was to save the expences of an abatement, and the delay consequent upon it; and as ejectment before the act, abated by the death of the Defendant, and could riot be supported against executors or heirs, for the ouster in the lifetime of the deceased, it will abate since the act in the sanie manner as before. The act never meant to subject executors or heirs to actions, which they were not liable to before the act. So the action abated.

Note. — This is altered by the act of *1799, Rev. c.*532.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6015

EDDIE JAMES HARVEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-99-910-3-22BC)

Submitted: July 25, 2000 Decided: August 22, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie James Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment and order are marked

as “filed” on November 10, 1999, the district court’s record shows

that the judgment and order were entered on the docket sheet on

November 12, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order

was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date

of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Eddie James Harvey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We originally dismissed the appeal as untimely. After consideration of Harvey’s petition for rehearing we

vacated the March 3, 2000, order dismissing the appeal. Although

we now find the appeal to be timely, we find it to be without

merit. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Harvey v. South Carolina, No. CA-99-910-3-22BC (D.S.C.

Nov. 12, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Abbas Mohaddes, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ ABBAS  MOHADDES |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Abbas  Mohaddes          |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | February 2,  2010   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or any other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and Cytec Industries, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and Order 8114A Modification No.2

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Cytec Industries, Inc. ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order 8114A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: 1. All references to May 1, 2009 with respectto the authorization to use emissions reductioncredit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are hereby replaced with May 1,2010. 2. Any references to October 1st with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009. 3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and retirement ofnon-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31, 2010. 4. All references to September 1,2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1, 2009. 5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and Order 8114A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of the Regulations.
6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order 81l4A, as modified, shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/dep An Equal Opportunity EmployerCytec Industries, Inc. 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8114A Modification No.2

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Orderwithout further notice.

### C~ec**IndUS~** SIgnature:

_ Name: 

## LAU'-( b. CST

### It-J(-f..f-J1-
Title: 

### 1:>I\¥=c..:rpt2.- MArJ 

### vfAc:n)(2,,-{k 

### t=b

## g-r;-- /";;vA l. NOS
Date:

## ~\-=D_q~ 

# _
Issued as a modification ofa Trading Agreement and Order.

# Gary~ ,d.
Director Engineering and Enforcement Division Bureau ofAir Management Date
Exhibit 99

            WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                           FORM 10-QSB MARCH 31, 2006

Supplementary Information Required Pursuant to Section 9.4 of the Partnership
Agreement

1.    Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the three months ended
      March 31, 2006

      Net income                                                    $ 1,176,000
      Less: Cash to reserves                                           (176,000)
                                                                    -----------

      Cash Available for Distribution                               $ 1,000,000
                                                                    ===========

      Distributions allocated to General Partners                   $        --
                                                                    ===========

      Distributions allocated to Limited Partners                   $ 1,000,000
                                                                    ===========

2.    Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
      General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended March
      31, 2006:

      Entity Receiving                      Form of
        Compensation                      Compensation                 Amount
------------------------------    ------------------------------    ------------

Winthrop Financial Corporation    Interest in cash available for     $ 4,180.00
                                          Distribution


                                    18 of 18
•• 24 

USCIB: 29.1/30 HANDT.E VIA CODII.m CllAl!DJm..S (111,T 

24 January 1955 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE Ml!MBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

Reference: 

Change in Membership on the USCIB Ad Hoc Committee 

and Combined Working Group tor the Improvement of 

NATO Communications Seclirit7. 

USCIB 29.1/3 of 5 October 1953. 

1. The National Securit7 Agency member of USCIB has notified this 

office of the following changes in representation on the Committee 

described in the reference: 

Delete: Mr. Frank C. Austin 

Add: Mr. Francis A. Raven - Altemate 

Mr. J8m.es H. Douglas - Altepiate 

2. The Chairman of the U.S. Ad Hoc Committee and Combined Working 

Group has been notified of these changes. 

USCIB 

USCIB: 29.1/30 

eclassified and a ursuant to E. 0. 1352 

.... 

%'
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

            Carver Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") is the holding company for
Carver Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank"), a federally chartered stock savings
bank. The Bank, in turn, wholly owns two subsidiaries: CSFB Credit Corp. and
CSFB Realty Corp., both incorporated in the State of New York. In addition, the
Bank owns a majority interest in Carver Asset Corp., which is incorporated in
the State of Delaware.

            The Company is the sole stockholder of Alhambra Holding Corp.
("Alhambra") and Carver Statutory Trust I (the "Trust"), both incorporated in
the state of Delaware. Alhambra owns 80% of the common stock and 100% of the
preferred stock of Alhambra Realty Corp., a Delaware corporation.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

ALLISON R. MAHONY,

Appellant. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) No. 37754

- 7

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

L AWRENCE

- B ERREY

, J.

— Allison Mahony requests res entencing so her offender

score can be re calculated to exclude her four prior convictions for possession of a

controlled substance. The State correctly concedes that resentencing is required now that

those convictions are void. See State v. Blake , 197 Wn .2d 170, 195, 481 P.3d 521 (2021).

We reverse and remand for this purpose.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________ Lawrence

- Berrey , J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________ Siddoway, A.C.J. Fearing, J. 

### FILED

NOVEMBER 16 , 2021

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Edward Anchel certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ocean Bio-Chem,
Inc. as of and for the periods ended June 30, 2004;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a - 15(e) and 15d - 15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures , as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


                                                    OCEAN BIO-CHEM, INC.

         Date: August 11, 2004                       /s/ Edward Anchel
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Edward Anchel
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01095302.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/953 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/953

---

(2004/C 78 E/1008)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0454/04

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Unemployment benefits in Greece

Subject:

The main opposition party in Greece alleges that the Greek authorities only grant unemployment benefits to those persons who remain unemployed for 12 months, and that they take benefits away from those who go over this period, even if only by one day. It also alleges that unemployment benefits in Greece amount to barely 60 % of the Community average.

Is this practice by the Greek authorities compatible with Community regulations on the unemployed and long-term unemployment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Commission has no direct competence in the field of unemployment insurance. It is therefore up to each Member State to organise its own unemployment benefit systems. Community legislation that applies to unemployment benefit schemes only concerns the rights of migrant workers and equal treatment of men and women. It does not harmonise benefit levels or the design of such schemes in the Member States. It should also be noted that benefit levels often reflect national earning levels.

Information on unemployment benefit schemes in other Member States is available in the Mutual Information System on Social Protection (Missoc) on the Commission's web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employmentsocial/missoc/indexen.html).

The EU currently encourages Member States in their efforts to modernise labour markets through the European Employment Strategy, in particular by making unemployment insurance schemes more supportive of active and preventive measures for the unemployed. The aim is to prevent inflow into long-term unemployment and to promote the sustainable integration into employment of unemployed and inactive people.

---