alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019328EN.01003301.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another) v The Food Standards Agency

(Case C-579/19)

(2019/C 328/36)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: R (on the application of Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and another)

Respondent: The Food Standards Agency

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Regulations (EC) Nos 854 (1) and 882 (2) preclude a procedure whereby pursuant to section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 a Justice of the Peace decides on the merits of the case and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Regulations (EC) Nos 854 (1) and 882 (2) preclude a procedure whereby pursuant to section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990 a Justice of the Peace decides on the merits of the case and on the basis of the evidence of experts called by each side whether a carcass fails to comply with food safety requirements?

| 2. | Does Regulation (EC) No 882 mandate a right of appeal in relation to a decision of an Official Veterinarian under article 5.2 of Regulation (EC) No 854 that the meat of a carcass was unfit for human consumption and, if it does, what approach should be applied in reviewing the merits of the decision taken by the Official Veterinarian on an appeal in such a case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Regulation (EC) No 882 mandate a right of appeal in relation to a decision of an Official Veterinarian under article 5.2 of Regulation (EC) No 854 that the meat of a carcass was unfit for human consumption and, if it does, what approach should be applied in reviewing the merits of the decision taken by the Official Veterinarian on an appeal in such a case?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004, L 139, p. 206).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004, L 165, p. 1).

---
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00203

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV

- 2021

- 01861

- JP
Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### B RADLEY 

### H ULSTEIN 

### , Appellant

V



### . D AVID 

### V

ANINGEN 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On August 30, 2021, we notified appellant Bradley Hulstein that the trial

- court clerk responsible for p reparing the record in this appeal ha d informed us that he ha d not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3 (a)(2). W e warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecu tion unless Huls tein arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided us with proof of payment within ten days

. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 44.3

. Because Hulstein has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record,

we dismiss his appeal for w ant of p rosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Hulstein must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Per Curiam
Deli vered : October 7, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Rose Hills Company and
subsidiaries, for the nine months ended September 30, 2000 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,279
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,080
<PP&E>                                          59,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,424
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,725
<SALES>                                         61,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,000
<CGS>                                           40,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       

<S>                                            <C>                   <C>                   
                                                                     RESTATED 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998            JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998           JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                                          1,321                 2,976 
<SECURITIES>                                   20,958                18,045
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,867                 6,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                      165                   150
<INVENTORY>                                         0                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,827                28,206
<PP&E>                                          6,543                 5,205 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,471                 1,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,133                31,747 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,129                 6,438
<BONDS>                                             0                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                     0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                     0
<COMMON>                                           91                    84
<OTHER-SE>                                     31,913                25,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,133                31,747
<SALES>                                             0                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,625                21,009 
<CGS>                                               0                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,326                10,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                9,296                 8,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (475)                  103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (522)                2,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (100)                  810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (422)                1,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (422)                1,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)                 0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)                 0.19
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      68,280,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,050,851
<PP&E>                                       9,125,670
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,987,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,731,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,760,239
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,813
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,795,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,731,948
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,864,224
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,454,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (943,491)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,257,237)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,257,237)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,257,237)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neal Falkenstein, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 17, 1984, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant agreed to a trial by the court pursuant to his signing of a written waiver of a jury trial. Following the complainant’s testimony, he interrupted the trial to enter a plea of guilty. At that time, the court informed him of the ramifications of his plea and the sentence he would receive.

Five months prior to the instant crime, on a plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree, the defendant had received a probationary sentence with the provision that he attend Columbia Presbyterian Hospital for psychiatric treatment. He failed to abide by the lenient terms of his probation. In view of the defendant’s prior history, the sentence herein cannot be considered excessive. Nor was there an abuse of discretion in denying his application to withdraw his plea. We find that the other arguments raised by defendant are without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Railroad Retirement Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., July 21, 2021.

# PLACE: 

Members of the public wishing to attend the open portion of the meeting must submit a written request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting to receive dial-in information. All requests must be sent to *SecretarytotheBoard@rrb.gov.*

# STATUS: 

The initial part of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.

## Portions Open to the Public

(1) Budget Briefing

(2) Enterprise Risk Management

(3) Legislative Briefing

(4) Status of Appeals

(5) Agency Operations

## Portions Closed to the Public

(1) Personnel Matter

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, (312) 751-4920.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: July 2, 2021.

Stephanie Hillyard,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-14595 Filed 7-2-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
#### Luis Curcio et al., Respondents, v B. J. Builders of New Jersey, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Central Furring & Drywall, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. B. J. *686Builders of New Jersey, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v Central Furring & Drywall, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. United Artist Theatre Circuit, Inc., Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v A & A Electric, Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant. B. J. Builders of New Jersey, Inc., Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v A & A Electric, Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant. Louis Curcio et al., Plaintiffs, v Metropolitan Playhouse, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerard M. Weisberg, J.), entered on May 24,1984, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of damages and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless plaintiffs, within 20 days after service upon their attorney of a copy of the order to be entered herein, serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in favor of Louis Curcio to $350,000, and to reduce the verdict in favor of Joan Curcio to $50,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiffs Louis and Joan Curcio so stipulate, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Bloom and Ellerin, JJ.
#### STRUNSKY et al., Respondents, v. MINSKY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Maurice I. Strunsky and another against Louis Minsky.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with costs.
Exhibit 10.61 10K 2014






EXHIBIT 10.61


FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
THE WASHINGTON TRUST COMPANY
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2008


		
	A.
	WHEREAS, The Washington Trust Company (the “Company”) maintains The Washington Trust Company Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008, as subsequently amended (the “Plan”), for the benefit of its eligible employees; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan by action of its Compensation and Human Resources Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Company has authorized the following amendment to the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:
1.Effective December 16, 2014, Section 7.2(h) is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:
“(h)    All payments shall be made in cash.”
2.Effective December 16, 2014, Section 11.7 is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:
“11.7    Expenses.  All expenses incurred in the administration of the Plan that are not otherwise paid for through the revenue-sharing arrangement with the Plan’s recordkeeper shall be charged against Participants’ Accounts on a pro-rata basis.  Any excess revenue-sharing amounts shall be credited to Participants’ Accounts on a pro-rata basis.  Any investment-related expenses shall be charged directly to the subaccount within the Account for which investments were made.”
3.Effective as of January 1, 2014, Section 12.3(b) is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:
“(b)    For each Plan Year, if any nonelective contributions made by a Participating Employer under the 401(k) Plan on behalf of a 401(k) Participant are limited by the 401(k) Plan Restrictions, the Employer shall credit to an Employer Account established for such 401(k) Participant an amount equal to the Participant’s Excess Compensation for that Plan Year multiplied by a percentage equal to the nonelective contributions received by the Participant under the 401(k) Plan expressed as a percentage of the Participant’s compensation recognized under the 401(k) Plan.”
		
	B.
	In all other respects said Plan is hereby confirmed.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fifth Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 17th day of November, 2014.


THE WASHINGTON TRUST COMPANY


By:     /s/ Joseph J. MarcAurele                
Joseph J. MarcAurele
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Metropolitan Hotel Industry Stabilization Association, Inc., et al., Appellants, v New York City Rent Guidelines Board, Respondent.

Resettled order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on March 27, 1985, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Fein, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Chad A. Walters, Respondent, v Arloa West, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 845]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), dated March 31, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded custody of the parties’ children to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Charlotte A. Willson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation.





Date: June 14, 2010


By:

/s/ Charlotte A. WillsonName:

CHARLOTTE A. WILLSONTitle:

Director, Finance and Administration

(performing the functions of Principal Financial Officer)
exh10.htm


    
      

      

    

    


    Exhibit
10.6

    


    


    


    Schedule
of individual officers party to Senior executive Non-competition and
Non-disclosure Agreement dated as of April 29, 2003 (incorporated by reference
to the Company’s Report on Form 10 – K for the year ended April 30,
2003)

    


    


    William
J. Pesce

    Ellis E.
Cousens

    Stephen
A. Kippur

    Eric A.
Swanson

    Bonnie E.
Lieberman

    Stephen
M. Smith
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEONARD J. GITTER,

Respondent

v.

ELENA BELOGOLOVSKY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 150 MAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of May, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2019312EN.01000401.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2019 — Benedetti Pietro e Angelo S.S. and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

(Case C-377/19)

(2019/C 312/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Benedetti Pietro e Angelo S.S., Capparotto Giampaolo e Lorenzino S.S., Gonzo Dino S.S., Soc. Agr. Semplice F.Lli Isolan, Mantovani Giuseppe e Giorgio S.S., Azienda Agricola Padovani Luigi, Az. Agr. La Pila di Mastrotto Piergiorgio e C. S.S., Azienda Agricola Mastrotto Giuseppe

Respondent: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Question referred

In circumstances such as those described, does Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 (1) preclude a national provision, such as that laid down in Article 9 of Decree-Law No 49/2003 in conjunction with Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157 of 24 June 2004, which lays down the criterion for identifying the priority category to which a levy unduly charged is to be refunded as whether or not the purchaser has made a regular monthly payment?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 22).

---