alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01002201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/22

---

(2004/C 78 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject:   Air transport safety and use of passengers' mother tongue

Subject:

The safety of air passengers partly depends on the crew's ability to provide information and communicate easily for preventive purposes and also in the event of an emergency.

On international flights the crew do not always speak the languages of the two countries between which they are flying.

Furthermore, a large percentage of passengers (especially the elderly and less prosperous or less educated people) on aircraft only speak their mother tongue.

This makes it impossible for them to communicate with the crew, increases their feelings of panic and isolation in the event of an emergency and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the safety instructions for the evacuation of the aircraft.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it does not consider that this situation, caused by airlines, constitutes a serious violation of the most basic right of passengers, the right to safety; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it does not consider that this situation, caused by airlines, constitutes a serious violation of the most basic right of passengers, the right to safety;

| 2. | what steps it intends to take to guarantee the assistance required by passengers who have the misfortune not to know the languages most often used by aircrew, i.e. English and French? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps it intends to take to guarantee the assistance required by passengers who have the misfortune not to know the languages most often used by aircrew, i.e. English and French?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

(31 March 2003)

Most airlines endeavour to employ cabin staff who speak the language of the majority of the passengers they transport. Furthermore, international rules require them to equip their aircraft with cards bearing safety instructions set out in the form of pictograms which allow passengers to understand the vital steps that must be taken in an emergency regardless of their language knowledge.

The Commission does not know of any cases where passengers' lives may have been endangered when an accident occurred because they did not understand a particular language.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Lamont D. CARTER.

No. 345P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Duncan McCormick, Lillington, for Lamont Carter.

Thomas Pitman, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___; N.C.App. ___, 661 S.E.2d 895.

*342*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of July 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
# C_2023338EN.01002401.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2023 — Arysta Lifescience v EFSA

(Case T-222/23 R)

(Interim relief - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents related to the procedure for renewing the approval of an active substance - Documents originating from a third party - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Concept of ‘information relating to emissions into the environment’ - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of competing interests)

(2023/C 338/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arysta Lifescience (Noguères, France) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Z. Romata, H. Widemann and R. Spangenberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, S. Gabbi and C. Pintado, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, J. Degrooff, and E. Kairis, lawyers)

Re:

By its application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks the suspension of operation of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 17 February 2023 notifying it of the full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of Captan 80 WG submitted in the framework of the renewal of the approval of the active substance Captan.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Operation of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 17 February 2023 notifying Arysta Lifescience of the full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of Captan 80 WG submitted in the framework of the renewal of the approval of the active substance Captan is suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Operation of the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 17 February 2023 notifying Arysta Lifescience of the full disclosure of the list of co-formulants present in the formulation for representative uses of Captan 80 WG submitted in the framework of the renewal of the approval of the active substance Captan is suspended.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

| 3. | The order of 8 May 2023, Arysta Lifescience v EFSA (T-222/23 R) is set aside. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The order of 8 May 2023, Arysta Lifescience v EFSA (T-222/23 R) is set aside.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Chad Aaron JOHNSON.

No. 4P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Chad Aaron Johnson.

Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Transylvania County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
First Amendment to Employment Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.60.1

 1st Amendment to Employment Agreement 

This 1st Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is executed this 11th day of November 2010 by and between Kirk A. Benson (the
“Executive”) and Headwaters Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 
 RECITALS

 Headwaters and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement effective 1 April 2010 (the “Employment
Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms and conditions of section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement, Headwaters granted to Executive certain base salary compensation. 
 Headwaters and Executive wish to modify the base salary compensation as set forth herein. 
 AGREEMENT 
 1. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Headwaters and Executive agree to change the base salary adjustment date of section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement from October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011. Accordingly, section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended
and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 Base Salary. The Company shall pay the Executive as compensation for his
services an annual base salary at the rate of $650,000 per year until October 1, 2011, and thereafter a minimum annual base salary of $700,000, in accordance with standard Company payroll procedures, subject to normal payroll deductions and
deductions authorized by the Executive. Such base salary shall be subject to annual review by the Compensation Committee of the board of Directors (the Compensation Committee”). 

2. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms of Employment Agreement remain unchanged. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED 
  

							
	/s/ Steven G. Stewart	  		 	/s/ Kirk A. Benson	 	
	Name: Steven G. Stewart	  		 	Kirk A. Benson	 	
	Title: Chief Financial Officer
FIEL v. WEIL.

No. COA08-125.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Duplin (07CVS80).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
STATE v. POTTS

No. COA06-811.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Macon (05CRS2098).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
#### Robert Bianco, Respondent, v Andrea Bianco, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 338]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 19, 1996, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated January 5, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion to resettle a qualified domestic relations order dated October 23, 1998, so as to conform it to the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to determine the intention of the parties with regard to those portions of the stipulation of settlement which provided for the division of the plaintiffs pension benefits, and thereafter for a de novo determination of the plaintiffs motion to resettle the qualified domestic relations order dated October 23, 1998.

There are two recognized methods for the distribution of pension benefits, whether or not those benefits have vested *(see Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481 [1984]; *Neumark v Neumark,*189 AD2d 863 [1993]; *Kyle v Kyle,*156 AD2d 508 [1989]; *Buzzeo v Buzzeo,*141 AD2d 490 [1988]). Generally, the nonemployee spouse either will be given a lump sum payment discounted for present value or, in the alternative, a deferred distributive award consisting of a specific share of the periodic pension benefits which the employee spouse will receive in the *919future *(see Majauskas v Majauskas,*supra;*Neumark v Neumark, supra; Kyle v Kyle, supra; Buzzeo v Buzzeo, supra).*Here, while some portions of the open-court stipulation entered into by the parties in 1994 appear to indicate that the defendant was to receive a specified amount of the 1994 value of the plaintiffs pension benefits, other portions indicate that she was to receive a 40% share of the benefits. Moreover, the stipulation also provided for the division of the pension benefits, to be effectuated through a qualified domestic relations order, suggesting an intent to utilize the deferred distributive award method which would ordinarily entitle the nonemployee spouse to a specified share of future benefits. Under these circumstances, the portions of the stipulation relating to the division of the plaintiffs pension benefits are ambiguous, and the court may consider extrinsic evidence concerning the intent of the parties to interpret them *(see Sterling-Andrean v Andrean,*15 AD3d 644 [2005]; *Laing v Laing,*282 AD2d 655 [2001]; *Tirella v Tirella,*249 AD2d 294 [1998]; *Derasmo v Derasmo,*190 AD2d 655 [1993]). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing to determine the parties’ intention with regard to those portions of the stipulation which provided for division of the pension benefits, and thereafter for a de novo determination of the plaintiffs motion to resettle the qualified domestic relations order dated October 23, 1998. Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
IN RE J.M.

No. COA07-1246.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Rockingham (07JA31, 07JA32, 07JA33, 07JA34, 07JA35, 04JA39).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
# CE2004078EN.01070702.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/707

---

(2004/C 78 E/0756)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1237/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject:   EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU

Subject:

Will the Commission confirm the timetable for consultation with the European Parliament in respect of the conclusion and ratification of the EEA Agreement with the acceding States on enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

(25 April 2003)

As a consequence of the Union enlargement, the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), which extends the internal market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, must also be enlarged. This has to be negotiated with these three EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. As the EEA Agreement is a mixed agreement, the Commission has obtained a mandate, adopted by the 9 December 2002 General Affairs Council, to negotiate on behalf of the Community and the current Member States. The negotiations were launched on 9 January 2003.

Much progress has been achieved in the very difficult negotiations over recent weeks, and a set of extremely finely balanced elements for an agreement is now there, which the Commission believes will enable to conclude rapidly the negociations. The Commission has had several exchanges of views with the Parliament on the subject of these negotiations.

The Commission hopes to conclude the negotiations with the EEA EFTA countries and the Acceding Countries on the enlargement of the EEA Agreement in the near future. Once the negotiations are concluded, the draft EEA enlargement instrument will be transmitted to the Parliament. As for the timetable, it is expected that the EEA enlargement instrument will be ratified in parallel to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. As for the involvement of the Parliament it shall give its assent in accordance with Article 300 (3) second subparagraph of the EC Treaty, since the EEA Agreement belongs to the category of agreements concluded by the Community in accordance with Article 310 of the Treaty.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2021

NO. 03-21-00487-CV

Darrell J. Harper, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

DISMISSED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, 

the Court dismisses the appeal. No costs of appeal shall be assessed in this Court or in the 

court below.
STATE of North Carolina v. Abraham Bernard McFADDEN.

No. 60P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Abraham Bernard McFadden.

David Adinolfi, Assistant Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*495Prior report: 181 N.C.App. 131, 638 S.E.2d 633.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of February 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 472 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 472

  To authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of 
                 Veterans Affairs at Denver, Colorado.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

Mr. Allard (for himself and Mr. Salazar) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of 
                 Veterans Affairs at Denver, Colorado.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECT, DENVER, 
              COLORADO.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out a major medical 
facility project for a replacement facility for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, in an amount not to 
exceed $523,000,000.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF EXISTING FUNDS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may obligate and expend any 
unobligated amount in the ``Construction, Major Projects'' account of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to purchase a site for, and for the 
construction of, the Department of Veterans Affairs replacement 
facility authorized in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Warren Eugene PENNY.

No. 360P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Warren Eugene Penny, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th day of August 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40249 Summary Calendar

SAN JUANITA BUSTOS GARZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LARRY G. SPENCE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Willacy County, Texas, and County of Willacy; COUNTY OF WILLACY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CV-184

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

San Juanita Bustos Garza appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for defendants Larry Spence and County of Willacy

d ismissing her civil rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo
, applying the same standard as would the district

court. S ee Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am.

, 114

F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997).2

Garza failed to create an issue of fact tha t Spence, in his

individual capacity, was personally involved in the alleged

constitutional violation or that there was a sufficient causal

connection between Spence’s alleg ed wrongful conduct and the

alleged constitutional violation. T hompkins v. Belt

, 828 F.2d 298,

303 (5th Cir. 1987). Her official-capacity claim against Spence is

really a claim against the County of Willacy and was therefore

properly dismissed as duplicative. S ee Bennett v. Pippin

, 74 F.3d

578, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass’n

, 778

F.2d 1068, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985). She also failed to create an

issue of material fact that would impose liability upon the County

of Willacy. S ee Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs.

, 436 U.S. 658,

694-95 (1978); Bennett v. City of Slidell

, 728 F.2d 762, 767-69

(5th Cir. 1984)(en banc).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2



Schedule of Amendment to Omitted Credit Agreement


In accordance with Instruction 2 to Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K, the Credit Agreement between PDL BioPharma, Inc. (the Company) and Direct Flow Medical, Inc. (Direct Flow), dated November 5, 2013, was not filed because it is substantially similar to the form of credit agreement that was filed as Exhibit 10.56 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2014.  The Company has previously summarized as part of the same exhibit the material details in which the omitted credit agreement differed from the form of credit agreement.  On February 26, 2016 and July 15, 2016, the Company and Direct Flow amended the Credit Agreement (the Amendments).  The following schedule sets forth the material details in which the omitted Amendments further modify the form of credit agreement that was filed as Exhibit 10.56 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 3, 2014.


	
											
	Execution Date
	Borrower(s)
	Maturity Date
	Amount Previously Funded
	Additional Available Credit
	Additional Funding Conditions
	Outstanding Borrowings Interest Rate Per Annum
	Interest Only Period
	Principal Repayment Schedule
	Change in Control Fee
	Board Observer Rights

	November 5, 2013 and Amended on November 11, 2014, February 26, 2016 and July 15, 2016
	Direct Flow Medical, Inc.
	No change.
	Prior to the Amendments, $50 million.
Under the Amendments, an additional $6.5 million in loans were funded and  such loans are convertible into Direct Flow equity in the event of a qualified equity financing based on the per share price of the applicable equity.
	None
	None. 
	No change. 
	No change.
	No change.
	No change.
	No change.
# European Union (Approvals) Act 2014 (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# European Union (Approvals) Act 2014 (repealed)

# 2014 CHAPTER 3

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Act repealed (4.7.2018) by European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16), s. 25(4), **Sch. 9** (with s. 19, Sch. 8 para. 37); S.I. 2018/808, reg. 3(i)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 30, 2019

t0422

Order 

Clerk

April 30, 2019

157723

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157723

COA: 332742 

Kent CC: 15-011596-FC

JUAN ENRIQUE REYES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2018 

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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**RECKSONOPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P.**

 

**Certificationof Gregory F. Hughes, Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole generalpartner of the Registrant, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18**

**ofthe United States Code**

 

I, Gregory F.Hughes,Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of RecksonOperating Partnership, L. P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1)         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2)         The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 14,  2008 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      | By     | /s/  GREGORY F. HUGHES |
|                      |   | Gregory  F. Hughes |
|                      |   | Treasurer |
|                      |   | of  Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, |
|                      |   | the  sole general partner of the Registrant |

 

----