alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lancaster City Annexation Case

(No. 4).

*544June 26, 1953:

Argued May 26, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Appeal, No. 205,

reargument refused July 21, 1953.

*Bernard M. Zimmerman,*City Solicitor, with him *John B. Rengier,*Assistant City Solicitor and *Windolph & Johnstone,*for appellant.

*William B. Arnold,*for appellees.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno,

Tract *“A”,*located in Manheim Township, is contiguous to the City of Lancaster. Tract *“B”,*also in Manheim Township, is contiguous to “A”, but not to the City of Lancaster. In such a situation the owners of Tract “B” may not successfully petition for annexation to Lancaster. But if the owners of “A” successfully petition for annexation, may the owners of “B”, while an appeal from the' “A” annexation is pending, legally seek annexation on the basis that contiguity has been gained through “A”? .Thát is.the question in .this, case, ....The Court of-Quarter Sessions of-Lancaster County decided, against, the “B” annexation.' 'If the owners of *545“B” tract, actually Elmer L. Esbenshade and Frances E. Esbenshade, had joined in with the Armstrong Cork Company, owners of the “A” tract, no question of lack of contiguity could have arisen because “A” and “B” would be connecting links of the same chain. Of course, if the petition for the annexation of the Armstrong Cork Company tract had failed for any reason at all, the Esbenshade tract could not be attached to Lancaster because it would then have lacked juxtaposition to the boundaries of the City.

The ordinance annexing the Armstrong Cork Company tract was passed on September 16, 1952, the same day that the Esbenshade petition for annexation was presented. The ordinance annexing the Esbenshade tract was passed September 23, 1952. Considering the two ordinances together, we have two pieces of unbroken land physically joined to the City of Lancaster. “While the general rule is that land cannot be annexed to a city or town unless it is contiguous thereto, it is not necessary that each and every tract of land sought to be annexed shall be contiguous to the municipality. If all of the tracts are contiguous to each other, and one of them is contiguous to or adjoins the city, that is sufficient.” (62 A.L.R. 1011, p. 1016.)

In Case No. 31 of this series of 5 cases, we affirmed the annexation of the Armstrong Cork Company tract to the City of Lancaster. The electro-magnet of inter-contiguity now firmly attaches the Esbenshade tract to Lancaster also.

The order of the court below is therefore reversed, and the ordinance annexing the Esbenshade tract to the City of Lancaster is affirmed. Costs on the appellees.

1

*Lancaster City Annexation Case (No. 3),*374 Pa. 542.
#### Raymond Arthur GENTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. FEDERAL MARSHAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-17018

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Raymond Arthur Gentile, Pro Se

Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Stockton, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Arthur Gentile appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his action brought under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review -de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Gentile consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Gentile’s action before the named defendants had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 961 

To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines raised 

in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2019 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself and Mr. BUCHANAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption 

of equines raised in the United States. 

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 ‘‘Safeguard American 

5 Food Exports Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) unlike cows, pigs, and other domesticated 

9 species, horses and other members of the equidae 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 961 IH

1 family are not raised for the purpose of human con2 sumption; 

3 (2) equines raised in the United States are fre4 quently treated with substances that are not ap5 proved for use in horses intended for human con6 sumption and equine parts are therefore unsafe 

7 within the meaning of section 409 of the Federal 

8 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; 

9 (3) equines raised in the United States are fre10 quently treated with drugs, including phenylbuta11 zone, acepromazine, boldenone undecylenate, omep12 razole, ketoprofen, xylazine, hyaluronic acid, nitrofu13 razone, polysulfated glycosaminoglycan, clenbuterol, 

14 tolazoline, and ponazuril, which are not approved for 

15 use in horses intended for human consumption and 

16 equine parts are therefore unsafe within the mean17 ing of section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

18 Cosmetic Act; and 

19 (4) consuming parts of an equine raised in the 

20 United States likely poses a serious threat to human 

21 health and the public should be protected from these 

22 unsafe products. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 961 IH

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS. 

2 Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

3 Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(fff) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

6 section— 

7 ‘‘(1) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under 

8 section 409 of this Act; 

9 ‘‘(2) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under 

10 section 512 of this Act; and 

11 ‘‘(3) the knowing sale or transport of equines or 

12 equine parts in interstate or foreign commerce for 

13 purposes of human consumption is hereby prohib14 ited.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2021481EN.01003601.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/36

---

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran)

(Case T-624/21)

(2021/C 481/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagran sp. z o.o. (Stegna, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark prımagran — Application for registration No 18 051 750

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2021 in Case R 2486/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal R 2486/2020-4 against EUIPO’s Opposition Division’s decision of 30 October 2020 ruling on EUTM application No 18 051 750 and ordered each party to bear its own costs for the opposition and the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal R 2486/2020-4 against EUIPO’s Opposition Division’s decision of 30 October 2020 ruling on EUTM application No 18 051 750 and ordered each party to bear its own costs for the opposition and the appeal proceedings;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Steven Justin VILLALONA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-15230 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed March 12, 2018

Steven Justin Villalona, Pro Se

Steven Justin Villalona, Pro Se

Colin P. McDonell, Germaine Seider, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Kara Marie Wick, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Steven Villalona, a federal prisoner, appeals pro *se*the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We issued a certifícate of appealability to address “whether Villalona was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea before the district court accepted the plea.” A defendant retains the right to withdraw his plea “for any reason or no reason” until “the [district] court accepts the plea.” *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(1). The United States concedes that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Villa-lona an evidentiary hearing because his allegations about promptly instructing his trial counsel to fíle a motion to withdraw, if true, would establish both that his counsel performed deficiently and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Because Villalona’s “motion and the files and records of the case [fail to] conclusively show that [he] is entitled to no relief,” *see*28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), we vacate the order that denied Villalona’s motion to vacate and remand for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the failure of counsel to file a motion to withdraw Villalona’s plea amounted to ineffective assistance.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
No. 11-10971.

#### Shusterman *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-11039.

#### Jones *v.*California et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10591.

#### Knight *v.*Rios, Warden.

:C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-10504.

#### Jones *v.*Bauman.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          16,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,387
<PP&E>                                         110,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 802,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,163
<BONDS>                                        505,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   802,829
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,547
<CGS>                                                0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,342)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN> 
<F1> Total costs and expenses applicable to sales and revenues are not
     separately disclosed on the condensed consolidated statement of operations
     for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 (unaudited)
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------




                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Harold's Stores,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 5, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



Date:     June 19, 2007                         /s/ Ron Staffieri
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Ron Staffieri
                                                Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2010 on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this 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 period 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 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 functions):  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.  May 13, 2010   /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-11072.

#### Ayers *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# C_2022266EN.01001201.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2022 — Fallimento Villa di Campo Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-250/22)

(2022/C 266/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Fallimento Villa di Campo Srl

Cross-appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Do Article 5(8) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) and Article 19 of Directive 2006/112/EC (2) preclude national legislation such as Article 20 of Presidential Decree No 131 of 26 April 1986, as amended by points (1) and (2) of Article 1(87)(a) of Law No 205 of 27 December 2017 and by Article 1(1084) of Law No 145 of 30 December 2018, which requires that the tax authorities classify transactions between parties solely on the basis of the textual information contained in the relevant contract and prohibits the use of extrinsic (extratextual) information (even if it objectively exists and is proven), with the result that the tax authorities are absolutely precluded from proving that an economic supply, constituting a transfer of a business, which is in itself indissociable, has in reality been artificially broken down into a number of different supplies — multiple supplies of goods — and therefore gives rise to a right to deduct VAT where the requirements laid down by EU law are not met?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
EX-10.9





 Certain identified information has been excluded from this exhibit because it is both
not material and is the type that the registrant treats as private or confidential. Information that was omitted has been noted in this document with a placeholder identified by the mark “[***]”. 

Exhibit 10.9 
 AMENDMENT
#3 to the 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement (“Amendment”), effective March 13, 2017 (the
“Amendment #3 Effective Date”), is by and between Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., with headquarters at 7100 NW 62nd Avenue, PO Box 1014, Johnston, Iowa 50131-1014, USA (“Pioneer”), and
Caribou Biosciences, Inc., located at 2929 7th St., Suite 105, Berkeley, California 94710 (“Caribou Bio”) (Caribou Bio and Pioneer, each individually a “Party”, and together the “Parties”). 

WHEREAS, the Parties have signed an Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement dated July 13, 2015 (which as of
July 13, 2015, [***] as amended by Amendment #1 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement, dated January 21, 2016 (“Amendment #1), and Amendment #2 to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement,
dated July 18, 2016. As used in this Amendment, “Agreement” refers to the Amended and Restated Collaboration and License Agreement, as amended; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Agreement to provide an update to an Appendix of the Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained in this Amendment, and for good and valuable consideration, the
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	1.	 All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



  

	2.	 Page 6 of Amendment #1 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached schedule setting forth
the patent family owned by The Regents of the University of California/University of Vienna/Emmanuelle Charpentier entitled “Methods and Compositions for RNA-Directed Target DNA Modification and for RNA-Directed Modulation of Transcription.” 


  

	3.	 All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 



 

	4.	 This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, including facsimile or scanned PDF documents.
Each such counterpart, facsimile or scanned PDF document shall be deemed an original instrument, and all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same executed Agreement. 



  
 Page 1 of 2 













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment #3 to the Amended and Restated
Collaboration and License Agreement to be executed by their respective authorized representatives. 
  

									
	Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.	  		  	Caribou Biosciences, Inc.
					
	By:	  	 /s/ Mathias L. Müller
	  		  	By:	  	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz

	Name: Mathias L. Müller	  		  	Name: Rachel E. Haurwitz
	Title: Director, Business Development	  		  	Title: President and CEO
			
	Date: May 5, 2017	  		  	Date: May 9, 2017


  
 Page 2 of 2