alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015213EN.01000202.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/2

---

Composition of the Grand Chamber

(2015/C 213/03)

On 13 May 2015, the General Court, considering the forthcoming entry into force on 1 July 2015 of the Rules of Procedure of 4 March 2015, decided that, for the period from 1 July 2015 to 31 August 2016, in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the fifteen Judges of which the Grand Chamber is composed are to be the President of the General Court, the Vice-President, the eight Presidents of Chambers, the two Judges sitting in the formation of three Judges initially seised of the case, the two Judges who would additionally have had to sit in the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber of five Judges, and another Judge. The latter is to be designated according to the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 25, 2015 Volume 80, Number 57, page 15798. The time and date should read as follows:                    

*Time and Date:*                         11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., April 15, 2015 (Closed).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-3585,                         *EEO6@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2015-07544 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY A. STRINGER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
LINCOLN COUNTY JAIL; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35783

D.C. No. 6:16

- cv

- 01428

- MO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE
, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges

. Anthony A. Stringer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care while he
was a pretrial detainee . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo

. Gordon v. Cou nty of Orange
, 888 F.3d 1118 , 1122 (9th Cir. 2018 ). We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not prec edent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 35783

may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond,

LLC , 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015)

. We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tam
because Stringer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

Tam’s conduct in providing medical care to Stringer was objectively unreasonable.

See Gordon
, 888 F.3d at 1124

- 25 ( setting forth objective deliberate indifference

standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims brought by
pretrial detainees).
Summary judgment for defendant Lincoln County Jail was proper because

Stringer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a policy or
custom caused him to suffer constitutional injuries

. See Castro v. County of Los
Angeles , 833 F.3d 1060, 1073

- 76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing

requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social

Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court

. See

United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not

presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Stringer’s motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 20) is

granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief submitted at Docket Entry

No. 1 8. Stringer’s request for appointment of an expert witness in video forensics
,3 18

- 35783

set forth in his opening and supplemental briefs, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
2013.03.29 Ex-10.10






Exhibit 10.10






AMENDMENT TWO
TO THE
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN


WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company (the “Company”) established The Coca-Cola Company Supplemental Pension Plan (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (“Benefits Committee”) is authorized to amend the Plan; and 
NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective April 1, 2013:
The second paragraph of Section 3.2(a)(1) will be replaced with the following language:


“The Participant must elect the annuity form no earlier than 180 days before the date the Supplemental Pension Benefit/FAE Benefit commences. A married Participant's spouse must consent in writing to the form of annuity elected.  If no timely election is made, a married Participant shall receive a Joint and 50% Contingent Annuity and an unmarried Participant shall receive a Single Life Annuity.   The election of the annuity form is irrevocable as of fifteen days prior the date benefits commence.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Committee has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized member as of this 19th day of March 2013.


THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
BENEFITS COMMITTEE




/s/ Sue Fleming_____________            
Sue Fleming
              Benefits Committee Chairperson
Exhibit 4.12

 

Schedule of Material Differences between:

 

·                  Form of Fixed Assets Loan Contract between Industrial and Commercial Bank and China, Dongcheng Branch (“ICBC”) and Bona Film Group Co., Ltd. (PRC) filed as Exhibit 10.9 to Registration on Form F-1 (File No. 333-170657) (“ICBC Loan 2009 Form”), and

 

·                  Form of Fixed Assets Loan Contract between ICBC and Bona Film Group Co., Ltd. (PRC) entered into in 2012 (“ICBC Loan 2012 Form”)

 

	
Material difference
    	
 
    	
ICBC Loan 2009 Form
    	
 
    	
ICBC Loan 2012 Form
    
	
Article 11. Other Agreements between the   Parties — Section 11.1
    	
 
    	
“The Borrower shall open with the Lender the   film shooting and production crew funds payment supervision account. After   the percentage of self-owned funds reaches 30%, the Borrower shall draw down   the loan in accordance with the shooting progress of each film based on the   principle that self-owned funds shall be put in place in advance and in the   same proportion.”
    	
 
    	
“The Borrower shall open with the Lender the   film shooting and production crew funds payment supervision account. After   the percentage of self-owned funds reaches 100%, the Borrower shall draw down   the loan in accordance with the shooting progress of the film. Each drawdown   shall be made by way of entrusted payment.”
    
	
Article 11. Other Agreements between the   Parties
    	
 
    	
N/A
    	
 
    	
“If the premier of the initial supplemental   film, [x] does not occur by the time of Borrower’s final drawdown of the   loan, the Borrower is entitled, upon consent of Lender, to replace the   initial supplemental film with a new supplemental film whose premier is prior   to that of the film [financed by the loan].”
    


 

1
#### Richie v. Carson

*Lawrence C. Davis,*for plaintiff.

*R. Thomas Straver andLarrickB. Stapleton,*for original defendant.

*Alan R. Krier,*for additional defendant.

January 17, 1978

ABOOD, *J.,*

Plaintiff was injured in an accident involving original defendant on Route 22 in Cambria County on September 12, 1973. The male plaintiff was an employe of Frank Calandra, Inc., and was working in the course of his employment when injured.

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against original defendants on September 25, 1975 (Writ of Summons, August 13, 1975). Defendants joined Frank Calandra, Inc. as additional defendant by a complaint filed on October 9, 1975.

Additional defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 1, 1977.

Additional defendant asserts that the action against it is barred by the Act of December 5,1974, P.L. 782, sec. 6. The act became effective on February 5, 1975: 77 P.S. §481(b).

*526In the case of Hefferin v. Stempkowski, 247 Pa. Superior Ct. 366, 372 A. 2d 869 (1977), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the Act of December 5, 1974, which amended the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, granted an immunity from suit by a third party defendant against an employer or the right to join the employer as an additional defendant, when the original suit is brought by an employe for injuries allegedly caused by the third party defendant.

The question raised in the present case by the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by additional defendant (employer) is whether or not the Act of December 5,1974, applies when the cause of action arose on September 12, 1973.

The Statutory Construction Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1019, 46 P.S. §556, provides that: “No law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the Legislature.” There is no retroactive intention expressed by the Legislature in the amendment enacted on December 5, 1974.

The amendment changed the law substantively and this further prevents the retroactive application.

In support of the above reasoning, see: Oliner v. McBride’s Industries, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); Wesolowski v. Rhoades, 416 F. Supp. 1052 (E.D. Pa. 1976).

Accordingly, the following order is entered.

ORDER

And now, January 17, 1978, the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed on behalf of additional defendant is hereby denied.
#### Commonwealth v. Lombardo

*Thomas F. Morgan, for*Commonwealth.

*Carl A. Belin,*for defendant.

December 23, 1977

REILLY, *J.,*

On September 2, 1977, defendant above-named was involved in an accident with one Oscar Smith. The prosecuting officer investigated the accident at the scene, but did not file his citation until the following day. Defendant, on appeal from summary conviction, complains initially that under 51A(1)(a) the officer was required to issue the citation to defendant at the scene. The district attorney argues that under 51A(1)(b) the officer is not required to do so if it is not feasible.

In this case, the officer testified that an eyewitness to the accident had left the scene prior to his arrival, but, while at the scene, the officer was supplied with the witness’ name and address. The officer further testified that the information to be received from the witness was crucial in his determination of whether to cite defendant, and, therefore, he delayed filing his citation until he interviewed said witness.

*107This court is of the opinion that, under these circumstances, the officer was justified in delaying the filing of his citation. This court is further satisfied that the testimony on the merits proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant violated section 3322 of the Vehicle Code of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, 75 Pa. C.S.A. as cited, and, therefore, enters the following

ORDER

Now, December 23, 1977, it is the order of this court that the above-captioned appeal from summary conviction be and is hereby dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1




Section 1350Certificate
of Chief Executive Officer


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Summus, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary E. Ban, the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:       May 13, 2005
    /s/ Gary E.
      BanGary E. BanChief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of API Electronics Group Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Claudio Mannarino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 for the period ended May 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Claudio Mannarino  
|Claudio Mannarino      
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 28, 2005      



24
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2016

NO. 03-15-00295-CV

Gerald Kostecka, Appellant

v.

Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND SHANNON*

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on February 13, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s judgment and 

remands the cause to the district court. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, 

both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Bob E. Shannon, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0019. RONEY v. RONEY.

Vishal and Diviya Roney divorced, and the trial court entered the final divorce

decree on October 20, 2016. On Monday, November 21, 2016, VishalRoney filed this

emergency motion seeking an extension of time in which to file an application for

discretionary appeal. Under the GeorgiaConstitution of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III

(6), the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll divorce and alimony

cases.” As the underlying subject matter of this application is a final divorce decree,

this emergency motion is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition.

1

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 On or after January 1, 2017, the Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction over

“[a]ll divorce and alimony cases” pursuant to the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act

of 2016. Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 3-1 [codified as OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (5)].

11/22/2016

November 22, 2016
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2022

NO. 03-22-00180-CV

D. H., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on March 21, 2022. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
1 

### Shaun Christian

From: Timothy H. Bellas [tim@bellaslaw.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:30 PM

To: Catherine.O'toole@dot.gov

Subject: SMA Charter Agreement.

Attachments: Air Charter Agreement Signed with attachment 1 (1).pdf

Dear Ms. O’Toole:

Attached please find a fully executed Charter Agreement between the Dynasty and Star Marianas Air.

I do not draft these types of agreements often, but I have tried to ensure that it was legally sufficient for purposes of

protecting my client generally and to meet any other requirements that I was able to find with respect to contracts of

this particular nature.

Please review it and let me know if you have any questions or if there are any essential requirements that I have

overlooked.

Timothy H. Bellas

Law Offices of Timothy H. Bellas, LLC

P.O. Box 502845

Saipan, MP 96950

Tel. 670 323 2115; Fax: 670 323 2116

Local Time GMT+ 10

tim@bellaslaw.net
null

2016-12-07

541.0484

eng - Argued: 2016-12-07. Docket number: 4-16-0245
#### Morgalis’s Estate.

*Practice, O. C.*— Guardian *and ward*— Stepfather *not proper guardian.*

A stepfather should not be appointed guardian of his wife’s child by a former husband, in the absence of special circumstances.

Petition for appointment of guardian. O. C. Schuylkill Co.

*A. C. Nowakoski,*for petition.

March 6, 1922.

Wilhelm, P. J.,

This is the application of Violet Morgalis, by her next friend, Antosia Matalavage, formerly Antosia Morgalis, mother of Violet Morgalis, for the appointment of Victor Matalavage, husband of the mother of the minor, and whose relation to the minor is that of stepfather, as guardian of Violet Morgalis.

Previous to the passage of the Fiduciaries Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 447, the policy of the courts in this State was to refuse the appointment of a parent as guardian of the minor, and, in some instances, the courts declined to appoint those who stood in a parental relation to the minor. This practice of the courts was regarded as being so salutary that the Fiduciaries Act of 1917 excluded parents as being eligible as guardians for their children, because it was believed to be contrary to the policy of the law, and because near relatives are objectionable as guardians, the reason therefor being that affection and influence lead to breaches of trust and other evils.

It is possible that, in certain circumstances, one bearing a parental relation may properly be appointed a guardian, but the reason for the appointment of persons of close relationship to the minor ought to be such as would satisfy the court that the best interest of the minor would be served by such an appointment.

In the case at bar, no satisfactory reason has been presented for the appointment of a stepfather as guardian of this minor, and it should be refused.

The petition is dismissed. From M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60039

FAIRWAY TERMINAL CORPORATION Petitioner,

versus
JOHNNY J RIGGINS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefit Review Board

(97-0497)

December 7, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. Rule 47.6.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Michael Kravchenko, Chief Financial Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                       |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: October 15, 2008 |  | /s/ Michael Kravchenko       
|                       |  | Michael Kravchenko           
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                       |  | (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.