alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006224EN.01000601.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2006 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi

(Case C-406/04) (1)

1

(Freedom to move and reside within the territory of the European Union - Unemployment allowances - Requirement actually to reside in national territory)

(2006/C 224/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gérald De Cuyper

Applicant:

Defendant: Office national de l'emploi

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 18 EC establishing European citizenship — Provision of national law that makes the granting of unemployment benefits conditional on actual residence in the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Freedom of movement and residence, conferred on every citizen of the Union by Article 18 EC, does not preclude a residence clause, such as that applied in the case in the main proceedings, which is imposed on an unemployed person over 50 years of age who is exempt from the requirement of proving that he is available for work, as a condition for the retention of his entitlement to unemployment benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

1

---
Document

Exhibit 4.7

Description of the Company’s Warrants to Purchase Common Shares
Registered Under Section 12 of the Exchange Act of 1934
The following description of the warrants (the “Warrants”) of Valaris Limited (“Valaris” or the “Company”) summarizes certain provisions of the Warrant Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2021, with Computershare Inc. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the “Warrant Agreement”), which has been filed as Exhibit 4.3 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K. 
On April 30, 2021, pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, the Company issued 5,645,161 Warrants exercisable for 5,645,161 common shares of par value of $0.01 each of the Company (the “Common Shares”).
The Warrants are exercisable from the date of issuance until 5:01 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 29, 2028, at which time all unexercised Warrants will expire and the rights of the holders of such Warrants to purchase Common Shares will terminate. The Warrants are initially exercisable for one Common Share per Warrant at an initial exercise price of $131.88 per Warrant (the “Exercise Price”).
Pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, no holder of a Warrant, by virtue of holding or having a beneficial interest in a Warrant, has the right to vote, receive dividends, receive notice as shareholders with respect to any meeting of shareholders for the election of Valaris’ directors or any other matter, or exercise any rights whatsoever as a shareholder of Valaris unless, until and only to the extent such holders become holders of record of shares of Common Shares issued upon settlement of Warrants.
The number of Common Shares for which a Warrant is exercisable, and the Exercise Price, are subject to adjustment from time to time upon the occurrence of certain events, such as: (1) share splits, reverse share splits, share dividends or share repurchases to holders of Common Shares or (2) a reclassification in respect of Common Shares.
Utility Water Act Group© 

October 27,2009 

Mr. Ronald P. Jordan 

U. S. EPA Headquarters 

Engineering & Analysis Division 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 4303T 

Washington, DC 20460 

Mr. Joshua Hall 

U. S. EPA Headquarters 

Engineering & Analysis Division 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 4303T 

Washington, DC 20460 

Steering/Audit Coml1littee 

Angela M, Grooms, 

Ch m~n 

C, Richard Bozek 

Rayburn l , Butts 

Alan E, G,mlkt,l 

M, R, (Mick) OI'et,lSOn 

Dav id M. l et,l 

James f , Slim, 

John 0. Yulel'i, Esq. 

Kerry M. Wh\llan 

Judson White 

f ILE NO : 29142 07031 2 

EPA's Study of Collision Cell Technology for Measuring Metals 

Gentlemen: 

r am writing on behalf of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) to support EPA's effort 

to determine a reliable method of measuring metals in electric power plant effluents, in particular 

a method using collision cell technology (CC) for rCP-MS. 

You have said that EPA will be taking samples from nine power generating facilities, 

with samples of the influent to and effluent from the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) treatment 

system, plus samples from points intermediate to the treatment system at two of the nine 

facilities. These samples are to determine the effect of matrix changes during the treatment 

process that may influence the measured concentrations of metals. The samples may be useful 

for assessing collision cell technology but should not be used to evaluate FGD treatment 

technology. 

It is important that the samples be used only to assess analytical procedures and not to 

evaluate treatment system performance. Because these samples are single, unpaired grab 

samples collected by plant personnel using standard sampling procedures, the data will not be 

appropriate for evaluating treatment performance. Also, we will not know if the plant was 

Hunton & Williams LLp· Counsel to UWAG· 1900 K Street, N.W.· Washington, D.C. 20006 
Mr. Ronald P. Jordan 

Mr. Joshua Hall 

October 27, 2009 

Page 2 

operating under normal conditions when the samples were collected, nor will we know the 

variability of the treatment system performance over a longer period of time. 

For these reasons I ask that you confirm that the samples of the FGD treatment stream are 

not to be used to assess treatment performance but only to assess collision cell technology. 

UW AG wants to support EPA's search for reliable analytical methods and, budget permitting, 

would like to help with the study of CC technology. 

Yours very truly, 

~;1~4-

Donna B. Hill 

Chair, Effluent Guidelines Committee 

29142.0703 12 EMF_US 28825245v 1
IN the INTEREST OF J.S.M., a child.

M.M., Appellant, v. D.R.J. and E.F.C., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1417

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
ex10-8.htm








Exhibit 10.8


 




	
Incentive Summary

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 
	
Minimum Criteria to Receive Incentive Pay-out:

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Net Income

	 	 	 	
Actual

	 	  	 
	  	
2010

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	$	504,479.01	 	 	 	$	-	 	  	 
	  	
Bank must receive a 2 Regulatory Rating

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
% of

	 	 	 	 	 	
% of

	 	 	 	 	
% of

	
Extra Revenue


	  	
Budget

	 	 	
Bank Income Budget

	
Minimum

	 	 	
Salary

	 	 	
Maximum

	 	
Salary

	 	
Actual

	 	
Salary

	With Maximum
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 
	
President

	$	15,570.50	 	 	$	504,479.01	$	15,570.50	 	 	 	9.50	%	 	$	45,072.50	 	27.50	%	 	 	 	  	$	-
	
Sr. Lender

	$	15,750.00	 	 	$	504,479.01	$	15,750.00	 	 	 	15.75	%	 	$	30,500.00	 	30.50	%	 	 	 	  	$	-
	
CFO

	$	14,475.00	 	 	$	504,479.01	$	14,475.00	 	 	 	15.00	%	 	$	30,156.25	 	31.25	%	 	 	 	  	$	-
	
Marketing Director

	$	6,697.50	 	 	$	504,479.01	$	6,697.50	 	 	 	11.75	%	 	$	13,680.00	 	24.00	%	 	 	 	  	$	-
	
HR Manager

	$	7,650.00	 	 	$	504,479.01	$	7,650.00	 	 	 	9.00	%	 	$	16,150.00	 	19.00	%	 	 	 	  	$	-
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
Total

	$	60,143.00	 	 	$	504,479.01	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	$	135,558.75	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	$	-
	
Net Additional to Bank

	$	-	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	$	-	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
2010 Special Bonus

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
Targets

	
Net Income

	 	1.75	$	882,838.27	$	378,359.26	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	2	$	1,008,958.02	$	504,479.01	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
Participants

	
2010 Incentive Pay-Out %

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
President

	 	35	%	 	$	15,775.38	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	75	%	 	$	33,804.38	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
Senior Lender

	 	35	%	 	$	10,675.00	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	75	%	 	$	22,875.00	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
CFO

	 	35	%	 	$	10,554.69	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	75	%	 	$	22,617.19	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
HR Manager

	 	35	%	 	$	5,652.50	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	75	%	 	$	12,112.50	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	  	 	 	 	 	
Management Pay-Out

	
Bank Revenue

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
Special Pay-out @ 1.75 is 35% of 2009 Incentive earned

	 	$	42,657.56	$	335,701.69	 	 	 	13	%	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	 	 
	
Special Pay-out @ 2.00 is 75 % of 2009 Incentive earned

	 	$	91,409.06	$	413,069.95	 	 	 	22	%
IN the INTEREST OF A.K., a child.

T.K., Appellant, v. J.M., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-726

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Timothy James BRADSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2493

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 4, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Gerber, C.J.

The defendant appeals his thirty-month concurrent sentences for giving false information to a pawnbroker and dealing in stolen property, arguing that the circuit court improperly considered the defendant's later arrest for possession of cocaine for which the defendant was not convicted because the state nolle prossed that charge. We agree with the defendant's argument, and therefore vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing before a different judge. *See**Norvil v. State* , 191 So.3d 406, 410 (Fla. 2016) ("[A] trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense.");

*34*Smith v. State* , 232 So.3d 430, 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("In light of *Norvil* , we have since vacated a defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing when a court considered subsequent crimes, even though the sentence was within the statutory limits."); *Hillary v. State* , 232 So.3d 3, 4-5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (vacating sentences for primary offenses and remanding for resentencing before a different judge where court considered defendant's later arrest without conviction).

*Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing.*

May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       68,759
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,268,803
<ALLOWANCES>                               (47,109)
<INVENTORY>                               2,820,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5,622,775
<PP&E>                                    6,714,426
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,731,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            9,954,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,799,625
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     52,467
<OTHER-SE>                                1,901,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              9,954,987
<SALES>                                   3,418,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          3,418,073
<CGS>                                     2,169,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             3,904,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            325,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          157,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (812,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (812,678)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                              (812,678)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.17)



</TABLE>
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0139 

 ) 

for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) 

(Bahamas-U.S. charters) ) 

__________________________________________) 

APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. 

 FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

John R. Mietus, Jr. 

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 

 (202) 747-5212 

 (240) 396-5362 fax 

john@mietuslaw.com 

 Counsel for PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. 

 

NOTICE: Any person may support or oppose this application by filing an answer 

and serving a copy of the answer on counsel for Performance Air and upon 

persons served with this application no later than October 10, 2011. 

September 21, 2011
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Application of ) 

 ) 

PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0139 

 ) September 21, 2011 

for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 ) 

(Bahamas-U.S. charters) ) 

__________________________________________) 

APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE AIR LTD. 

FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION

 Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109(c), Performance Air Ltd. ("Performance Air") 

respectfully requests renewal of the above-captioned exemption, granted by Notice of 

Action Taken dated September 23, 2010 (the “Notice”), for an additional, one-year 

period. The Notice permits Performance Air to engage in charter foreign air 

transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the Bahamas 

and a point or points in the United States, and other charters pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212 

of the Department’s regulations, using small aircraft. Performance Air intends to invoke 

the automatic extension provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) and Part 377 of the Department's 

Special Regulations. In support of this application, it states as follows: 

 1. Performance Air is a Bahamian flag carrier and intends to operate BahamasU.S. charter service under the above-captioned charter authority. It remains licensed by 

the Bahamian Department of Civil Aviation to perform charter air transportation, and 

Bahamas-U.S. charter operations remain governed by principles of comity and reciprocity 

that support the Department’s continued grant of authority. See, e.g., Inter Island Charters 

Ltd., Notice of Action Taken dated April 12, 2010 in Docket OST-2009-0039.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 18, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2443

Lower Tribunal No. 20-17923

________________

Sukkah Miami Beach Acquisitions, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

Zurich American Insurance Company, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Thomas, Judge.

Reed Smith LLP, and R. Hugh Lumpkin, Christopher T. Kuleba, and 

Garrett S. Nemeroff, for appellant.

Akerman LLP, and Gerald B. Cope, Jr., and Kristen M. Fiore 

(Tallahassee); and Clyde & Co US LLP, and Patrick Hofer (Washington, 

D.C.), for appellee Zurich American Insurance Company.

Zelle LLP, and Christine M. Renella, for appellees Everest Indemnity 

Insurance Company and Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
2

Carlton Fields, P.A., and Steven J. Brodie, Joseph H. Lang Jr., Heidi 

Hudson Raschke, and Andrew K. Daechsel, for appellee Westchester 

Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass LLP, and Perry R. Goodman 

(Fort Lauderdale); Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, and Tracy A. Jurgus; 

Wiggin and Dana LLP, and Jonathan M. Freiman (New Haven, CT), for 

appellees HDI Global Specialty SE, Western World Insurance Company, 

General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona, Evanston Insurance 

Company, Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, and Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyds of London. 

Before HENDON, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Commodore, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 

London, 342 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 17524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8490]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy Board

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice.

ACTION: Meeting Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the meeting of the 
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board 
(APB). The CJIS APB is a Federal advisory committee established 
pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This meeting 
announcement is being published as required by section 10 of the FACA.
    The CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and 
appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs 
administered by the FBI's CJIS Division, and thereafter, making 
appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs 
administered by the CJIS Division are the Integrated Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System, the Interstate Identification Index, 
Law Enforcement Online, National Crime Information Center, the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System, the National Incident-Based 
Reporting System, Law Enforcement National Data Exchange, and Uniform 
Crime Reporting.
    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-
seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written 
statement concerning the CJIS Division programs or wishing to address 
this session should notify Senior CJIS Advisor Roy G. Weise at (304) 
625-2730 at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The 
notification should contain the requestor's name, corporate 
designation, and consumer affiliation or government designation along 
with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the 
time needed for the presentation. A requestor will ordinarily be 
allowed no more than 15 minutes to present a topic.

DATES AND TIMES: The APB will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. until 
5 p.m., on June 4-5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Gaylord National, 201 
Waterfront Street, National Harbor, Maryland, (301) 965-2300.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. Lori 
A. Kemp, Management and Program Analyst, Advisory Groups Management 
Unit, Liaison, Advisory, Training and Statistics Section, FBI CJIS 
Division; Module C3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 
26306-0149; telephone (304) 625-2619; facsimile (304) 625-5090.

    Dated: April 1, 2009.
Roy G. Weise,
Senior CJIS Advisor, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
 [FR Doc. E9-8490 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Jennifer A. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of Winland Electronics, Inc.,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Winland Electronics, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuerand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’smost recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee ofsmall business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 16, 2004 /s/ Jennifer A. Thompson Jennifer A. Thompson Chief Financial Officer