alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Claudette E. Lanasa, Appellant, v Louis M. Lanasa, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 889] —

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated June 8, 2011, which denied her objections to so much of an order of the same court (Grier, S.M.), dated February 8, 2011, as granted the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation so as to reduce his child support obligation to the sum of $452 per month.

Ordered that the order dated June 8, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In an order dated February 8, 2011, a Support Magistrate, inter alia, granted the father’s petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation based on the fact that one of the subject children was now residing with the father, and recalculated the father’s child support obligation pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act guidelines *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]). In an order dated June 8, 2011, the Family Court denied the mother’s objections to that portion of the Support Magistrate’s order.

The Family Court properly denied the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Support Magistrate providently exercised its discretion in imputing income to her based on her earning capacity *(see Matter of Tosques v Ponyicky,*89 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2011]; *Matter of Rohme v Burns,*79 AD3d 756, 757 [2010]; *Matter of Azrak v Azrak,*60 AD3d 937, 938 [2009]).

The mother’s remaining contention is not properly before *891this Court, as it was not raised in her objections to the Support Magistrate’s order *(see Matter of Tosques v Ponyicky,*89 AD3d at 1098; *Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang,*89 AD3d 946, 947 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 809 [2012]; *Matter of Hicks v Hicks,*87 AD3d 1143 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-138323, 333-61572, 333-57742 and 333-65673) of Young Innovations,
Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Young Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Young Innovations, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2009.
 
 
 
 /s/ Crowe
Horwath LLP
 Oak
Brook, Illinois
 March 12,
2010
# C_2019230EN.01002101.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR

(Case C-279/19)

(2019/C 230/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondent: WR

Questions referred

| 1) | Is a person (‘P’) who is in physical possession of excise goods at a point when those goods become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B, liable for that excise duty pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) in circumstances where that person:






  a) | had no legal or beneficial interest in the excise goods; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

Is a person (‘P’) who is in physical possession of excise goods at a point when those goods become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B, liable for that excise duty pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) in circumstances where that person:

a)

had no legal or beneficial interest in the excise goods;

| b) | was transporting the excise goods, for a fee, on behalf of others between Member State A and Member State B; and |
| --- | --- |

b)

was transporting the excise goods, for a fee, on behalf of others between Member State A and Member State B; and

| c) | knew that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods but did not know and did not have reason to suspect that the goods had become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B at or prior to the time that they became so chargeable? |
| --- | --- |

c)

knew that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods but did not know and did not have reason to suspect that the goods had become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B at or prior to the time that they became so chargeable?

| 2) | Is the answer to Question 1 different if P did not know that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is the answer to Question 1 different if P did not know that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009, L 9, p. 12).

---
# C_2022191EN.01002601.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — VeriGraft v Eismea

(Case T-688/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the context of the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Termination of the agreement - Misconduct - Capacity as beneficiary of the grant or as a natural person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf)

(2022/C 191/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VeriGraft AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Hansson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (represented by: A. Galea, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration of invalidity of the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) of the grant agreement concerning the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P TEV’, concluded in the context of the instrument to support innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises of Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises of the grant agreement for the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, bearing reference 778620, is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the termination by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises of the grant agreement for the project ‘Personalised Tissue Engineered Veins as the first Cure for Patients with Chronic Venous Insufficiency — P-TEV’, bearing reference 778620, is invalid;

| 2. | Orders the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15419]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11469]


Designation of Ousmane Illiassou Djibo as a Specially Designated 
Global Terrorist

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 
1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended 
by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of 
January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I 
hereby determine that the person known as Ousmane Illiassou Djibo, also 
known as Ousmane Illassou Kounou, also known as Halid Illiasou Djibo, 
also known as Djibbo Illiassou, also known as Aboubacar Chapori, also 
known as Petit Chapori, also known as Petit Tchapori, also known as 
Petit Chappori, also known as Petit Chaffori, is a leader of ISIS in 
the Greater Sahara (ISIS-GS), a group whose property and interests in 
property are blocked pursuant to a prior determination by the Secretary 
of State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.
    Authority: E.O. 13224. 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786.

    Dated: June 16, 2021.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-15419 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GRAYSON MITCHELL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 753 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER REGARDING BANKRUPTY STAY

Appellate case name: Guadalupe Zermeno and Ildefonso Zermeno v. Carolyn Stone

Appellate case number: 01-22-00723-CV

Trial court case number: 2022-33380-7

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Appellants, Guadalupe Zermeno and Ildefonso Zermeno, filed a notice of appeal 

from the trial court’s October 3, 2022 “Order Granting [Appellee Carolyn] Stone’s Motion 

to Dismiss [Appellants’] Original Petition for Bill of Review.” On December 19, 2022, 

appellant, Ildefonso Zermeno, filed a “Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy,” notifying the 

Court that on September 5, 2022, a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition had been filed on his 

behalf in the United State Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston 

Division. Appellant’s suggestion of bankruptcy states that the bankruptcy bears the case 

number 2209-32621.

Pursuant to appellant’s Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, this appeal is stayed. 

See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (automatic stay in bankruptcy). Until the parties notify the Court 

that the bankruptcy proceedings have concluded and move to reinstate the appeal, the Court 

will take no further action other than to receive and hold any documents submitted to the 

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2 (providing bankruptcy “suspends the appeal 

and all periods in these rules from the date when the bankruptcy petition is filed until the 

appellate court reinstates or severs the appeal in accordance with federal law”); see also 

Budzyn v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., No. 01-08-00211-CV, 2010 WL 2044628, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 19, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (staying “entire appeal” 

pending bankruptcy proceedings).

Accordingly, this appeal is stayed and will be removed from the Court’s active 

docket until a party successfully moves to reinstate the appeal or sever the appeal with 

respect to the bankrupt party. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ April Farris_________

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 5, 2023_____
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15312]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute Of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel: Mechanism for Time-Sensitive 
Research Opportunities in Environmental Health Sciences (R21).
    Date: August 12, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
Keystone Building, 530 Davis Drive, Durham, NC 27709 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Alfonso R. Latoni, Ph.D., Chief and Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Research and Training, National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 984-287-3279, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27464b4148495448094b465348494e67494e4f09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98f9f4fef7f6ebf7b6f4f9ecf7f6f1d8f6f1f0b6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 14, 2021.
David W Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15312 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 11.1
              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
                     TB Wood's Corporation and Subsidiaries

                                December 29, 2000
                     (in thousands except per share amounts)


                                                   2000         1999      1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net income                                        $6,145      $5,367     $7,890

Basic:
Net income per common share                        $1.12       $0.91      $1.34

Weighted average shares of common stock and
       equivalents outstanding                     5,468       5,896      5,874

Diluted:
Net income per common share                        $1.12       $0.91      $1.33

Weighted average shares of common stock and
       equivalents outstanding                     5,473       5,910      5,932







                                       52
# C_2019288EN.01002202.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 15 May 2019 — SC Banca E S.A. v G.D.

(Case C-381/19)

(2019/C 288/29)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Banca E S.A.

Respondent: G.D.

Question referred

Given the primacy of EU law, must the principles of legal certainty and effectiveness be interpreted as precluding, in disputes concerning the protection of consumer rights, the alteration of the procedural rules, after the consumer has brought an action before the courts, by means of a binding decision of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court), to which effect is given in a law amending the Codul de procedură civilă (Code of Civil Procedure), which institutes a new means of appeal, one that can be used by the trader, with the result that the duration of the proceedings is extended and the costs of resolving the dispute are increased?

---
Description of Verigy's 2009 Pay-For-Results Program



 Exhibit 10.9.1 
 Description of Verigy’s Pay-for-Results Program 
 Fiscal Year 2009 
 General 
 The following is summary of the key provisions of Verigy’s Pay-for-Results program as in effect during fiscal 2009. There is no formal plan document related to this program. 
 The Pay-for-Results program is designed to link the cash compensation for designated executives and other key contributors directly to
business performance. The program provides for the payment of cash bonuses if pre-determined business performance measures are met and/or exceeded. 
 Administration 
 The Compensation Committee of the Board administers the program as it related to
executives, and approves bonus attainment levels for all participants. 
 Participation and Eligibility 
 All executives and certain other key contributors designated by the executive officers are eligible to participate in the program during
fiscal 2009. To be eligible for payment for a bonus period, participants have to be employed on the last day of that bonus period. Payouts for individuals who join the company and become eligible for participation in the program after the start of a
bonus period will be pro rated. 
 Plan Operation 
 The program is administered in six-month performance periods that coincide with each half of Verigy’s fiscal year. Each participant’s target bonus is an amount, equal to a stated percentage of
the participant’s base salary. The stated percentage includes, in each case, a target of 15% of the participant’s base salary that is tied to the same performance measures as apply to all employees under Verigy’s company-wide
“Verigy Results Bonus” or “VRB” program. (The VRB program pays bonuses based on achievement of operating profit targets set in relation to a multi-year profitability model.) 
 In addition to the 15% of a participant’s base salary that is tied to the VRB program, another percentage of the participant’s
base salary is based on achievement to short-term operating profit margin objectives set for each fiscal half year. For certain individuals, the program provides weighting for the financial results associated with the product family with which they
are primarily associated while other participant targets are based entirely on overall company-wide results. Executive Officers are also measured against relative total shareholder return compared to a peer group of semiconductor equipment
companies. Certain other individuals may also have a performance objective relating to sales results. 
 The overall
Pay-for-Results target percentage of a participant’s base salary is based on the position level within the company and competitive practice. There are minimum performance levels that must be attained before paying a bonus. Pay-for-Results
bonuses are paid if the minimum performance threshold is met or exceeded in the performance period. The maximum bonus represents 200% of the target bonus if meeting the maximum performance level.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Monty MARSHALL, a/k/a Mustafa, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7363.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.

Monty Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Monty Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 706, as modified by Amendment 711, and Amendment 715 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Marshall,*
      *826No. 4:02-cr-0002-RGD-TEM-l (E.D.Va. July 14, 2008). In addition, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
# C_2021310EN.01001901.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2021 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion)

(Case T-281/19 and T-351/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 - Earlier national certification word marks ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ HALLOUMI - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for invalidity - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 310/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 (Case R 2298/2017-4) and 9 April 2019 (Case R 2297/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and Filotas Bellas & Yios.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
#### COURSEY, Appellant, v. COE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by Stephen Coursey against W. Nelson Coe, impleaded, etc,

No opinion. Motion denied.