alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order issued September24 2012 

In The 

(good of Apprats 

iffiltif istritt nI Jrxas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00307-CV 

JOHN C. FLOOD OF DC, INC., JOHN C. FLOOD, INC., 

AND MELVILLE DAVIS, Appellants 

V. 

SUPERMEDIA, L.L.C., Appellee 

ORDER 

The Court has before it appellants' September 24, 2012 unopposed first motion to extend 

time for filing reply brief. The motion is GRANTED and the brief tendered by appellants on 

September 24, 2012 is ORDERED timely filed as of today's date. 

OLLY F W CIS 

JUSTICE
ex10-a.htm


Exhibit 10(a) 

 

[Hovnanian Letterhead]

 

February ___, 2015

 

[Name]

[Address]

 

Re:     Change in Control Severance Protection Agreement

 

Dear ____________:

 

Reference is made to your Change in Control Severance Protection Agreement with Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of January 18, 2012 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meanings assigned to such terms under the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 4(a)(iii) of the Agreement, in the event of your Qualifying Termination, you will be entitled to receive (among other payments and benefits) certain rights and payments with respect to the Company’s 2010 Long Term Incentive Program (the “LTIP”). This letter agreement is intended to confirm the Company’s mutual understanding and agreement with you that the provisions of Section 4(a)(iii) of the Agreement with respect to your LTIP rights shall be deemed to apply pari passu to any incentive grants awarded to you under the Company’s 2013 Long Term Incentive Program or any future similar Long Term Incentive Program that may be adopted by the Company from time to time. 

 

Very truly yours,

 

HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.

 

 

 

[Name]

[Title]

 

 

 

Acknowledged and agreed:

 

__________________________

[Name]

 

Date: _____________________
Exhibit
32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Joel Boyarski, the Principal
Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate
Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, which
this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be
retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





Dated:
      November 16, 2009
              
              /s/  Joel
      BoyarskiJoel
      BoyarskiChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
# C_2020095EN.01001502.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Eco Fox Srl v Fallimento Mythen Spa and Others

(Case C-915/19)

(2020/C 95/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eco Fox Srl.

Defendants: Fallimento Mythen Spa, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Question referred

In the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union — in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, (1) as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004, (2) and any further relevant provisions of [EU] law — does the definition of State aid, as such subject to an obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, cover a secondary regulatory instrument such as the regulation adopted by means of Ministerial Decree No 37/2015 — which is being challenged in these proceedings — which, in direct enforcement of judgments of the Council of State requiring the annulment in part of the previous regulations already notified to the Commission, has retroactively affected the procedures for application of the reduced excise duty on biodiesel by retroactively amending the criteria for distribution of the benefit thereof among the applicant companies without extending the duration of the programme of tax concessions?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32.2



NANOGEN, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE
13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, David Ludvigson,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|             |  |                                                                
|------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ DAVID LUDVIGSON                                            
|             |  | David Ludvigson                                                
|             |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  C AROLA NN A GSTER , personal representative of the Estate of Charles J. Agster, III, deceased, and as surviving parent of Charles J. Agster, III; C HARLES J. A GSTER , J R ., surviving parent of Charles J. Agster, III, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. M ARICOPA C OUNTY , a public entity; M ARICOPA C OUNTY C ORRECTIONAL H EALTH S ERVICES , a division of No. 04-15466 Maricopa County,

Defendants-Appellants, D.C. No.



#  CV-02-01686-JAT and ORDER M ARICOPA C OUNTY S HERIFF ’ S O FFICE , a division of Maricopa County; J OSEPH M. A RPAIO , Sheriff; B ETTY J. L EWIS ; J OHN D OE L EWIS , husband; B ARUCH A. R EUSCH ; J ANED OER EUSCH , wife; L EAH R. C OMPTON ; J OHN D OE C OMPTON , husband; K RISTINE K EMPER ; J AMES E. C ROUCH , husband, aka John Doe Kemper; A MANDA S. G ARRISON ; J OHN D OE G ARRISON , husband; S USAN E. F ISHER ; J OHN D OEF ISHER , husband; 

# 

11693

#  E RIC N ULPH ; J ANED OEN ULPH , wife; K ATHERINA B ROKSCHMIDT ; C HARLES B ROKSCHMIDT , husband, aka John Doe Brokschmidt; M ICHAELC. W ILKINS ; K ATHLEEN 

# 

W ILKINS , wife, aka Jane Doe Wilkins; L AURA S ODEMAN ; J OHN D OES ODEMAN , husband,

Defendants. 

# 

Filed August 29, 2005

Before: John T. Noonan, Sidney R. Thomas, and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on April 28, 2005 is hereby withdrawn. 11694 A GSTERv. M ARICOPA C OUNTYPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2005 Thomson/West.
#### McClanahan *et al., Plaintiffs in Error,*v. West et al.

SEPARATE OPINION. *

Barclay, J.

While agreeing to the result announced in the opinion of the court and with much of the reasoning of my learned colleague by which it is reached, yet my concurrence is not given to such prior rulihgs cited as make a distinction with respect to presumptions of jurisdiction, between different classes of cases originally cognizable in the circuit courts of the state. It seems to me that the entire jurisdiction of those courts rests on positive law, constitutional and statutory. Even the common law would be no part of our jurisprudence but for a statute making it so. Hence it appears to me that no distinction should be made, regarding the presumptions attaching to the judicial acts of such courts, between so-called special statutory proceedings and proceedings authorized by more general law.
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-23-2021]

On March 15, 2021, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 7, in Canovanas, Puerto Rico.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 15642, March 24, 2021). On July 13, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: July 13, 2021.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021-15126 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 921 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 921

     To allow otherwise eligible Israeli nationals to receive E-2 
 nonimmigrant visas if similarly situated United States nationals are 
          eligible for similar nonimmigrant status in Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 9, 2011

    Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Kirk) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To allow otherwise eligible Israeli nationals to receive E-2 
 nonimmigrant visas if similarly situated United States nationals are 
          eligible for similar nonimmigrant status in Israel.

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

SECTION 1. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS FROM ISRAEL.

    Israel shall be deemed to be a foreign state described in section 
101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(E)) for purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of such section if 
the Government of Israel provides similar nonimmigrant status to 
nationals of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020077EN.01001501.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/15

---

Appeal brought on 1 August 2019 by L’Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2019 in Case T-179/16 RENV, L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot

(Case C-586/19 P)

(2020/C 77/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by T. de Haan and P. Péters, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Guinot

By order of 7 October 2019, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

         In connection with the Annual Report of Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark A. Jackson, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

March 8, 2005                    /s/ MARK A. JACKSON
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Mark A. Jackson
                                 Chief Operating Officer, Senior Vice President
                                 and Chief Financial Officer
                                 of Noble Corporation
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302

 I, Richard G. Zab, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of National City
Auto Receivables Trust 2002-A;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and
except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
under that agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the specified servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the specified servicing standards identified in the Report of
Management, as generally set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
         information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:
         Wilmington Trust Company, Bank of New York.

Date: March 30, 2004              By:
                                  /s/ Richard G. Zab
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Richard G. Zab
                                  Senior Vice President
                                  National City Bank
#### Elvira L. Fay et al., Appellants, v Chii Chung Wang et al., Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*

for personal injuries predicated upon medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated December 3, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion to quash a notice for discovery.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent St. Francis Hospital of Port Jervis.

Discovery of the material requested is prohibited under Education Law § 6527 *(see, Larsson v Mithallal,*72 AD2d 806; *Kiefer v Mather Mem. Hosp.,*93 AD2d 856). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# C_2020077EN.01001901.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2019 — CT v VINI GmbH

(Case C-805/19)

(2020/C 77/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CT

Defendant: VINI GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) (the Working Time Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of national law laid down in Paragraph 10(2) of the Urlaubsgesetz (Austrian Law on Annual Leave, ‘the UrlG’), under which a payment in lieu of annual leave in respect of the current (last) working year is not payable if the worker resigns prematurely, is not applicable?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-87-19-C) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 24, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se. Carl Horn, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion under old F ED . R. CRIM . P. 35(a). We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Little , No. CR-87-19-C (W.D.N.C. June 16, 1997). 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
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 660 

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny or delay coverage of items or services 

under Federal health care programs and to ensure that comparative 

effectiveness research accounts for advancements in personalized medicine 

and differences in patient treatment response. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COBURN, Mr. 

CRAPO, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

A BILL 

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny 

or delay coverage of items or services under Federal 

health care programs and to ensure that comparative 

effectiveness research accounts for advancements in personalized medicine and differences in patient treatment 

response. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 660 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Access to 

3 Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments 

4 and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2011’’ or the ‘‘PA5 TIENTS Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN USES OF DATA OB7 TAINED FROM COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVE8 NESS RESEARCH; ACCOUNTING FOR PERSON9 ALIZED MEDICINE AND DIFFERENCES IN PA10 TIENT TREATMENT RESPONSE. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Serv13 ices— 

14 (1) shall not use data obtained from the con15 duct of comparative effectiveness research, including 

16 such research that is conducted or supported using 

17 funds appropriated under the American Recovery 

18 and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) 

19 or authorized or appropriated under the Patient 

20 Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 

21 111–148), to deny or delay coverage of an item or 

22 service under a Federal health care program (as de23 fined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act 

24 (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(f))); and 

25 (2) shall ensure that comparative effectiveness 

26 research conducted or supported by the Federal 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 660 IS

1 Government accounts for factors contributing to dif2 ferences in the treatment response and treatment 

3 preferences of patients, including patient-reported 

4 outcomes, genomics and personalized medicine, the 

5 unique needs of health disparity populations, and in6 direct patient benefits. 

7 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec8 tion shall be construed as affecting the authority of the 

9 Commissioner of Food and Drugs under the Federal 

10 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Serv11 ice Act. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS