alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008310EN.01001301.xml

| 5.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5333 — Bell/Zimbo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 310/03)

On 28 November 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5333. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5333. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# L_2016103DE.01005001.xml

| 19.4.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 103/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 103/50

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 708/2008 der Kommission vom 24. Juli 2008 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1266/2007 hinsichtlich der Bedingungen für die Ausnahme bestimmter Tiere empfänglicher Arten vom Verbringungsverbot gemäß der Richtlinie 2000/75/EG des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 197 vom 25. Juli 2008
  )

Seite 19, Artikel 1 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a zur Änderung von Artikel 8 Absatz 4 Buchstabe b der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1266/2007:

Anstatt:

„Absatz 4 Buchstabe b erhält folgende Fassung:

| ‚b) | die Tiere






  — | innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Eintreffen unter tierärztlicher Überwachung zum Bestimmungsschlachthof verbracht werden, in dem sie geschlachtet werden sollen, und |
| --- | --- | --- |

‚b)

—

innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Eintreffen unter tierärztlicher Überwachung zum Bestimmungsschlachthof verbracht werden, in dem sie geschlachtet werden sollen, und

| — | diese Verbringung unmittelbar erfolgt, es sein denn, eine Ruhepause gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 (*1) wird an einer Kontrollstelle in derselben Sperrzone eingelegt. |
| --- | --- |

—

diese Verbringung unmittelbar erfolgt, es sein denn, eine Ruhepause gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 (*1) wird an einer Kontrollstelle in derselben Sperrzone eingelegt.

muss es heißen:

„Absatz 4 Buchstabe b erhält folgende Fassung:

| ‚b) | die Tiere






  — | unter tierärztlicher Überwachung zum Bestimmungsschlachthof verbracht werden, in dem sie innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Eintreffen geschlachtet werden sollen, und |
| --- | --- | --- |

‚b)

—

unter tierärztlicher Überwachung zum Bestimmungsschlachthof verbracht werden, in dem sie innerhalb von 24 Stunden nach Eintreffen geschlachtet werden sollen, und

| — | diese Verbringung unmittelbar erfolgt, es sei denn, eine Ruhepause gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 (*2) wird an einer Kontrollstelle in derselben Sperrzone eingelegt. |
| --- | --- |

—

diese Verbringung unmittelbar erfolgt, es sei denn, eine Ruhepause gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 (*2) wird an einer Kontrollstelle in derselben Sperrzone eingelegt.

---

(*1)  
  ABl. L 3 vom 5.1.2005, S. 1.‘
  “

*1

(*2)  
  ABl. L 3 vom 5.1.2005, S. 1.‘
  “

*2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wyatt H. Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered November 1, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence in the record before us is sufficient in quality and quantity to sustain the verdict convicting defendant of murder in the second degree in connection with the beating to death of a two-year-old child *(cf. People v Poplis,*30 NY2d 85). Moreover, we perceive no basis to overturn the determination that the defendant’s statements were voluntarily made and were not obtained in violation of any of his constitutional rights *(People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726).

The remaining contentions have been considered, to the extent preserved, and have been determined to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2107 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2107

 To amend Public Law 104-329 to modify authorities for the use of the 
 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2005

    Mr. Saxton (for himself, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. Duncan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend Public Law 104-329 to modify authorities for the use of the 
 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Law Enforcement Officers 
Memorial Maintenance Fund Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              MEMORIAL MAINTENANCE FUND.

    (a) In General.--Section 201 of Public Law 104-329 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--
            ``(1) In general.--Effective on and after the date of the 
        enactment of the National Law Enforcement Memorial Maintenance 
        Fund Act of 2005, the following applies, notwithstanding other 
        provisions of this Act:
                    ``(A) The Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
                the National Park Service, shall enter into a 
                cooperative agreement with the National Law Enforcement 
                Officers Memorial Fund, Inc., a nonprofit corporation 
                incorporated under the laws of the District of 
                Columbia, to carry out the purposes of the Fund as 
                described in subsection (b).
                    ``(B) In accordance with the terms of such 
                agreement, the Secretary shall transfer all amounts in 
                the Fund to the Corporation.
            ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
                    ``(A) the term `Corporation' means the National Law 
                Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Inc; and
                    ``(B) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
                the Interior.''.
    (b) Purposes of Fund.--Section 201(b) of Public Law 104-329 is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by striking paragraphs (4), (6), and (7), and 
        redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and
            (3) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), by striking the 
        semicolon and inserting a period.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

p0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140826 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140826 

 COA: 287791 

Mason CC: 07-001878-FC 

CHRISTOPHER BRANDON LATIMER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Outreach
                        Fact Sheets
                                    Videos
                                    Seminars
                                    Careers
                    Our Lab
                        Phosphorus Removal Structures
                                    CEAP St. Joseph River Watershed
                                    WEPP Model
                                    USLE Database
                                    RUSLE
                                    
                                    Conferences
                                    Scientist Almuni
                                    Local TalksSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






USLE Databaseheadline bar Research
               USLE Data
               USLE History


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2218 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the fee for 

collecting specimens for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under the 

Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust 

the fee for collecting specimens for clinical diagnostic 

laboratory tests under the Medicare Program. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Laboratory 

5 Services Access Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2218 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT IN MEDICARE LABORATORY SPECI2 MEN COLLECTION FEE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(h) of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(h)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ‘‘in 

6 the amount specified in paragraph (8)’’ after ‘‘a 

7 nominal fee’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(8) The amount specified in this paragraph, 

11 for the nominal fee under paragraph (3)(A) for tests 

12 performed in— 

13 ‘‘(A) 2006, is $5.78; or 

14 ‘‘(B) a subsequent year, is the amount 

15 specified in this paragraph for tests performed 

16 in the preceding year adjusted by the annual 

17 percentage increase or decrease in the Con18 sumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

19 (United States city average).’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 subsection (a) shall apply to fees for tests performed on 

22 or after January 1, 2006. 

Æ
|    |                                                                                      |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Valley National Bancorp; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                            |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                            |
|                                                       |
| /s/ Alan D. Eskow                                          |
| Alan D. Eskow                                              |
| Senior Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer |
[J-40-2018] [MO: Saylor, C.J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE 

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

PETITION OF: DIOCESE OF 

HARRISBURG AND DIOCESE OF 

GREENSBURG

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 45 WM 2017

Appeal from the Order of the 

Supervising Judge of the Fortieth 

Statewide Investigating Grand Jury 

entered on 6/15/17 at Allegheny 

County No. CP-02-MD-0000571-2016

ARGUED: May 15, 2018

CONCURRING OPINION

JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: AUGUST 21, 2018

I join the erudite Majority Opinion. I write only to voice my concern with one aspect 

of its expression. Atypically, the Majority twice invokes this Court’s “supervisory authority” 

to mandate substantive modifications to the entry of appearance form under scrutiny. We 

do not often invoke our superintendence of the judiciary as justification for a sua sponte 

form change, and I have no recollection of the Court ever employing this precept to alter 

a form (or rule) within an opinion. Rather, our normal protocol is to refer the underlying

issue to the appropriate committee and permit it to consider adjustments through its 

customary process. Notably, in this regard, we presently have an ad hoc committee 

reviewing all aspects of Pennsylvania’s grand jury practice.

Be this as it may, I can abide by the Majority’s invocation of our supervisory 

authority and employment thereof in an opinion to alter the subject entry of appearance 

form in two substantive aspects so long as it is understood that the use of this 
[J-40-2018] [MO: Saylor, C.J.] - 2

methodology does not alter the inherent ability of our various committees, including the 

ad hoc grand jury study group, to modify the form as statutory changes, caselaw, or other 

superseding factors would require. While the Majority does not say this, it does not 

suggest anything to the contrary.

Accordingly, I write to clarify that I view the Majority Opinion’s modification of the 

entry of appearance form to resolve the case before us as in no way precluding or, indeed, 

discouraging, necessary variations now or in the future as recommended by any 

appropriate Court committee, including the ad hoc committee studying grand jury 

practice. This understanding would be as of course if the Court had made these 

adjustments upon a committee’s recommendation. The Majority’s invocation of our 

supervisory powers and employment of an opinion to make these alterations should not 

alter this typical process for rule and form variations.

Chief Justice Saylor and Justices Todd, Dougherty and Mundy join this concurring 

opinion.
#### ZELTNER v. IRWIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 18, 1898.)

Action by Henry Zeltner against George H. Irwin.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 45 N. Y. Supp. 1036; 46 N. Y. Supp. 852; and 49 N. Y. Supp. 337.
GGP 12.31.14 10K Exhibit 10.08




GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
2015 Non-Employee Director Compensation
(Effective January 1, 2015)


	
					
	Annual fee paid to:
	 
	 

	All non-employee Directors, including Chairman   
	 
	$    175,000 (1) 

	Chairman   
	 
	$25,000

	Audit Committee Chair   
	 
	$
	25,000
	


	Compensation Committee Chair    
	 
	$15,000

	Nominating & Governance Committee Chair    
	 
	$10,000

	Lead Director    
	 
	N/A

	 
	 
	 

	Equity Awards
	 
	 

	New Director Award   
	 
	$   75,000(2)    






		
	(1)
	Payable quarterly in arrears in cash, restricted stock of the Corporation and/or Full Value LTIP Units in the proportion elected by each non-employee Director before the end of the prior calendar year.  The number of restricted stock of the Corporation to be issued pursuant to the 2010 Plan in payment of the portion of the annual fee shall be determined using the closing price of the Corporation’s common stock on the first trading day of the calendar year, with such number of shares to be rounded to the nearest whole share. The number of Full Value LTIP Units to be issued pursuant to the 2010 Plan in payment of the portion of the annual fee shall be determined using the Duff and Phelps value on the first trading day of the calendar year, with such number of shares to be rounded to the nearest whole share.  The equity will be granted at the beginning of the year, but will vest over the calendar year 25% on the last day of each calendar quarter.  A non-employee Director, other than those designated by a significant shareholder, must elect to receive at least 2/3 of his or her annual fee in the form of restricted stock of the Corporation and/or Full Value LTIP Units if such Director does not meet the thresholds set forth in the Corporation’s Stock Ownership Guidelines for Non-Employee Directors.  If a Director is no longer a Director at the end of the calendar quarter, no cash payment for the quarter will be due to the Director and the restricted shares and/or Full Value LTIP Units scheduled to vest as of the end of that quarter and thereafter will be forfeited.  If a non-employee Director joins the board mid-year, the entire amount of their annual fee for the remainder of the year shall be made in cash.


		
	(2)
	The New Director Award, which shall be in the form of restricted stock of the Corporation, vests one-third on the grant date and one-third on each of the first and second anniversaries of the grant date, and shall be made by the Compensation Committee pursuant to the 2010 Plan as soon as practicable upon a non-employee Director’s initial election or appointment to the Board.  The number of shares to be issued in the New Director Award shall be determined based on the closing price of the Corporation’s common stock on the trading day on or after the grant date, with such number of shares to be rounded to the nearest whole share.  





M:\ORG\Teams\General Teams\LCCS\Securities\Form 10-K\Dec 31, 2014\New Exhibits\2015 Non-Employee Director Compensation FINAL_v2.docx
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             669
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         97
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,730
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,896
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,729
<SALES>                                         13,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,947
<CGS>                                            5,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     23
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 10
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        10
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
[Nos. 20389-8-II; 20640-4-II.

Division Two.

October 10, 1997.]

#### Janet (Mollendorf) Best, *Appellant,*v. Marcus A. Mollendorf, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 93-2-08475-2, Nile E. Aubrey, J., entered January 19 and March 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.