alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARCIAL S. *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 33499)

Gruendel, Alvord and Keller, Js.

Submitted on briefs March 22

officially released April 16, 2013

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
# C_2022326EN.01001701.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/17

---

Appeal brought on 12 July 2022 by Airoldi Metalli SpA against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 May 2022 in Case T-328/21, Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case C-467/22 P)

(2022/C 326/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Campa, M. Pirovano, V. Villante, D. Rovetta, avvocati, and P. Gjørtler, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Airoldi Metalli SpA admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Airoldi Metalli SpA admissible;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli SpA’s action; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for examining the substance of Airoldi Metalli SpA’s action;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two main grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal. Error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) TFEU and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures. Wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.

Second ground of appeal. Error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’. Wrong qualification of facts.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13612-13613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7220]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5800-4]


National Drinking Water Advisory Council Occurrence & Contaminant 
Selection Working Group; Notice of Open Meeting

    Under Section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-423, ``The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given that a meeting of the 
Occurrence & Contaminant Selection Working Group of the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council established under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. S300f et seq.), will be held on April 
3-4, 1997, from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM (approximate), in the Mount 
Vernon Room (EPA) of the Sheraton City Center, 1143 New Hampshire 
Avenue, NW, Washington D.C. 20037.

[[Page 13613]]

The meeting is open to the public, but due to past experience, seating 
will be limited.
    The purpose of this meeting is to review the development of the 
first Drinking Water Candidate List. The meeting is open to the public 
to observe. The working group members are meeting to analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and draft proposed position paper for deliberation by 
the advisory council. Therefore, statements will be taken from the 
public as time allows.
    For more information, please contact, Evelyn Washington, Designated 
Federal Officer, Occurrence & Contaminant Selection Working Group, U.S. 
EPA, Office of the Ground Water and Drinking Water (4607), 401 M Street 
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The telephone number is 202-260-3029, fax 
202-260-3762, and e-mail address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f58294869d9c9b92819a9bdb908390998c9bb590859498949c99db908594db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0b7c6a786362656c7f6465256e7d6e6772654b6e7b6a666a6267256e7b6a256c647d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 18, 1997.
Charlene E. Shaw,
Designated Federal Officer, National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
[FR Doc. 97-7220 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14920-14921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7840]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under 
review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a 
copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the 
HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301)-443-1129.
    The following request has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995:

Grants for Hospital Construction and Modernization--Federal Right 
of Recovery and Waiver of Recovery (42 CFR 124, Subpart H) (OMB No. 
0915-0099)--Extension, No Change

    The regulation known as ``Federal Right of Recovery and Waiver of 
Recovery'' provides a means for the Federal Government to recover grant 
funds and a method of calculating interest when a grant-assisted 
facility under Title VI or XVI is sold or leased, or there is a change 
in use of the facility. It also allows for a waiver of the right of 
recovery under certain circumstances. Facilities are required to 
provide written notice to the Federal Government when such a change 
occurs, and to provide copies of sales contracts, lease agreements, 
estimates of current assets and liabilities, value of equipment, 
expected value of land on the new owner's books and remaining 
depreciation for all fixed assets involved in the transactions, and 
other information and documents pertinent to the change of status.
    The estimated burden is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Number of           Responses per           Hours per            Total burden 
          Regulation             respondents     x      respondent     x       response      x        hours     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124.704(b) and 707...........              20                     1                     3                    60 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14921]]

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: 
Virginia Huth, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management 
and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503.

    Dated: March 12, 1997.
J. Henry Montes,
Director, Office of Policy and Information Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-7840 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-M
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, James F. Wirth, Chief Executive Officer of InnSuites Hospitality Trust (the “Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended January 31, 2010 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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








Date: April 20, 2010
By:
/s/ James F. WirthName: James F. WirthTitle: Chief Executive Officer
Honorable T. M. l'rlmble 

First AssIstant State Superintendent of Education 

Department of Education 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6207 

Re: May the County Tax Assessor-Collector's fees from the common 

school districts be turned back 

to the local maintenance funds of 

these districts in proportion to 

the valuation of said districts 

rather than placed in the officers' 

salary fund of the county? 

This department has given careful consideration to 

your request of September 9, 1944, for the opinion of this 

department upon the captioned question. 

Article 2795, V.A.C.S., dealing with the levy of common school taxes, reads In part: 

II 

. . . The tax assessor shall receive a commission 

of one-half of one per cent, for assessing such tax and 

the tax collector a commission of one-half of one per 

cent. for collecting the same. . e D +' 

Article 3912e, Section 3, V.A.C.S., pertaining to payments of salaries to officers in lieu of fees, provides In 

part: 

I, 

. . . provided, however, that the assessor and 

collector of taxes shall continue to collect and retain for the benefit of the Officers' Salary Fund or 

funds hereinafter provided for all fees and commissions which he is authorized under law to collect; 

and it shall be his duty to account for and to pay 

all such monles received by him into the fund created 

and provi$ed,for under the provisions of this Act; 

. . . . . 

Section 5 of the above article reads in part: 
Honorable T. M. Trimble, page 2 o-6207 

"It shall be the duty of all officers to charge 

and collect in the manner authorized by law all fees 

and commissions which are permitted by law to be 

assessed and collected for all official service per-' 

formed by them. As and when such fees are collected 

they shall be deposited in the Officers' Salary Fund, 

or funds provided in this Act. . . . .' 

It is evident from the foregolng statutes, and you 

are accordingly so advlsed, that the commissions the tax assessor-collector receives for the assessing and collecting of 

the common school tax must be deposited in the Officers' 

Salary Fund. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Robert 0. Koch 

Robert 0. Koch 

AssIstant 

ROK:AMM:wc 

APPROVED SEP 22, 1944 

s/Grover Sellers 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By sfBWB Chairman
Exhibit 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, William W.
Burnham, Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Acting
Chief Financial Officer, of Trudy Corporation do hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge that:


     1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended
          September 30, 2004 being filed with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
          amended; and


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

This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB/A as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.




Date: June 30, 2005

                                               /s/ WILLIAM W. BURNHAM
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               William W. Burnham
                                               Chairman of the Board, President,
                                               Chief Executive Officer, and
                                               Acting Chief Financial Officer


                                       29
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6664]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1163-DR]


Commonwealth of Kentucky; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1163-DR), dated March 4, 1997, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of March 4, 1997:

    The counties of Breckinridge, Campbell, Carroll, Christian, 
Daviess, Henry, Gallatin, Kenton, Lewis, McLean, Meade, Nelson, 
Oldham, Owen, and Trimble for Individual Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-6664 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO

 LEASE 
 This First
Amendment to Lease (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 12 day of April, 2021, by and between GROW BITTERROOT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Landlord”) and BOUNTI BITTERROOT,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant”). 
 RECITALS 

A. Landlord and Tenant entered into a certain lease (single tenant-gross) dated June 12, 2020 (the “Lease”) for
approximately 28.52 acres of land in the City of Hamilton, Ravalli County, Montana, as more particularly described therein (the “Premises”). 

B. The parties desire to amend the lease to extend the Term, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment. 

NOW THEREFORE, for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows: 
 1. The Term of the Lease is hereby extended so that the Expiration Date shall be October 22, 2040. 

2. For clarification, Basic Rent for the extended Term (after month 15) shall be as set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Basic Lease Provisions (2%
annual increases). 
 3. Except as amended hereby, the Lease remains in full force and effect as originally written. 

4. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Lease. 

5. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument. Electronically generated and delivered (pdf format or DocuSign) signatures on this Amendment shall have the same force and effect as original (wet ink) signatures. 

[Signatures on next page] 

  
 1 













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written. 
  

									
	LANDLORD:	 		 	TENANT:
			
	GROW BITTERROOT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company	 		 	BOUTI BITTERROOT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


									
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian Bigej
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Dave Vosburg



									
	Its:	 	 President
	 		 	Its:	 	Dave Vosburg, COO


  
 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SUN
INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND 
NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
PLEASE SEE FOOTNOTE 5 RELATING TO INFORMATION IN THIS FDS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         $33,805<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   $8,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                    $3,758
<INVENTORY>                                     $1,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               $44,522
<PP&E>                                        $210,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $552,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $52,305
<BONDS>                                       $261,543<F2>
<COMMON>                                            $0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    $193,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $552,848
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              $291,945
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 $215,998<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               $12,386<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $28,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   $263
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               $263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      $263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       $0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES NON-RESTRICTED CASH EQUIVALENTS OF $11,926 AND
    RESTRICTED CASH EQUIVALENTS OF $4,538.
<F2>INCLUDING UNAMORTIZED PREMIUMS.
<F3>EXCLUDES DEPRECIATION.
<F4>DEPRECIATION EXPENSE.
<F5>SEE NOTE 1 OF NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN SUN
    INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA, INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
    DECEMBER 31, 1996 FOR DISCUSSION OF A MERGER IN DECEMBER 1996 AND
    THE RELATED CHANGE IN BASIS OF ACCOUNTING.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
S94G1153.

#### DAYS INNS OF AMERICA, INC. v. MATT et al.

(454 SE2d 507)

Hunt, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in *Matt v. Days Inns of America,*212 Ga. App. 792 (443 SE2d 290) (1994) to determine whether, in this suit by a hotel guest for injuries resulting from an attack by an unknown assailant, the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate standard in reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Days Inns. We affirm.

In *Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins,*261 Ga. 491 (1) (405 SE2d 474) (1991), we reiterated the applicable law in this type of case. To begin with, a proprietor’s duty to invitees is to “exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” OCGA § 51-3-1.

> The proprietor is not the insurer of the invitee’s safety, [cit.], but is bound to exercise ordinary care to protect the invitee from unreasonable risks of which he or she has superior *236knowledge. [Cit.] If the proprietor has reason to anticipate a criminal act, he or she then has a “duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury from dangerous characters.” [Cit.]

Decided March 13, 1995

Reconsideration denied March 30, 1995.

*Hicks, Casey, Young & Barber, William T. Casey, Jr., Long, Aldridge & Norman, W. Stell Huie,*for appellant.

*Craig T. Jones,*for appellees.

*Samuel W. Oates, Jr., Franklin, Taulbee, Rushing & Bunce, Elizabeth F. Bunce, James D. Hollingsworth, Bauer & Deitch, Gilbert H. Deitch, Alston & Bird, James C. Grant, Stewart A. Anshell, Darrin L. McCullough, Arnold C. Young,*amici curiae.

id.

Simply put, without foreseeability that a criminal act will occur, no duty on the part of the proprietor to exercise ordinary care to prevent that act arises. *Lau’s Corp.*controls regarding the question of foreseeability in this case and proof of the prior robbery committed by force creates a triable issue as to whether Days Inns had a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard its patrons against the risks posed by similar criminal activity. Id. at 493 (1). Compare *Savannah College of Art v. Roe,*261 Ga. 764, 765 (1) (409 SE2d 848) (1991). Moreover, the record in this case, unlike in *Lau’s Corp.,*does not permit summary resolution of the issue of whether ordinary care was exercised assuming that duty arose.1

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Benham, P. J., who concurs in the judgment only.*

1

 The trial court held that there was no showing that the incident and any injuries were foreseeable and then went on to conclude there was no showing the incident could have been prevented, even if it were foreseeable. Once the trial court reassumes jurisdiction, the viability of the latter issue can be fully developed and addressed.
No. 12-5288.

#### Muthukumar *v.*Dess et al.

Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                     
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars              
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-28-1999        
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                    AUG-31-1998  
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1  
<CASH>                             2,076,327 
<SECURITIES>                               0          
<RECEIVABLES>                     12,140,340 
<ALLOWANCES>                         688,000 
<INVENTORY>                       10,735,484 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  29,810,471 
<PP&E>                            10,552,407 
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,619,474 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    41,505,998 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             10,041,142 
<BONDS>                            6,342,177 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0 
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              57,923 
<OTHER-SE>                        24,395,756       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      41,505,998           
<SALES>                           24,354,248 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  24,354,248 
<CGS>                             24,906,990 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     24,906,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   680,950 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (7,986,498)          
<INCOME-TAX>                      (2,684,303)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (5,302,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0 
<CHANGES>                                  0            
<NET-INCOME>                      (5,302,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.92) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.92)
        


</TABLE>
#### Grammar v. State

111,967

06/21/2016

Denied.

Unpublished