alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent v. Trilicia WHITE and Willie Miller, Defendants Of whom Trilicia White is the Appellant In the interest of a minor under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001782. No. 2015-UP-281.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted April 6, 2015. Decided June 5, 2015.

Melinda Inman Butler, of The Butler Law Firm, of Union, for appellant.

David E. Simpson, of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, of Rock Hill, for respondent.

Laura Kaiser Anderson, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for the Guardian ad Litem.

**Opinion**

PER CURIAM.

**57Trilicia White appeals the family court's finding that she physically neglected her two-year-old child, arguing the family court erred in finding she physically neglected the child *607by placing the child at a substantial risk of injury. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: *Simmons v. Simmons,*392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the family court, [an appellate court] reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); *Lewis v. Lewis,*392 S.C. 381, 384, 709 S.E.2d 650, 651 (2011) ("[An] appellate court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence. However, this **58broad scope of review does not require [the appellate court] to disregard the findings of the family court." (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.C.Code Ann. § 63-7-20(4)(a) (2010) (providing child abuse or neglect occurs when a child's parent "engages in acts or omissions which present a substantial risk of physical or mental injury to the child").1

**AFFIRMED.**2

1

In her brief, White also raised the issue of whether removal of the child was necessary. However, in a supplemental memorandum filed with this court, White indicated the parties had reached an agreement for her to regain custody of the child and stated the finding of physical neglect "is the reason for this appeal." Therefore, we need not address the removal issue.

2

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
BLUEBIRD CORPORATION and Anthony A. Susi v. Lois A. AUBIN.

No. 128P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Reid L. Phillips, Andrew J. Haile, Greensboro, for Susi.

G. Thompson Miller, Lexington, for Aubin.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 55.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of March 2008 by Plaintiff (Susi) 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:

*742"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/282)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Church tax compulsorily levied by the Federal Republic of Germany on unemployment benefit paid to unemployed people who do not belong to the Church

Knowing that:

Given that this arrangement runs counter:

the principle of the separation of Church and State,

can the Commission say whether it is aware of the above facts, whether it has taken any initiatives and, if so, what initiatives it has taken?

Does the Commission not take the view that the situation described contravenes the acquis communautaire?

What formal initiatives might the EU take vis-à-vis Germany if this situation cannot be resolved, in order to ensure that the principle of religious freedom is respected?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.

----
DUNHAM v. K AND S SANITATION, INC.

No. COA07-410.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CVS12413).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Jonathan Douglas RICHARDSON.

No. 272A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 3, 2015.

Paul M. Green, Durham, David Weiss, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

Gregory Butler, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of July 2015 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of August 2015."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 9th day of October 2015 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Elester WILLIAMS.

No. 453P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Robert Elester Williams, Pro Se.

J. Philip Allen, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 11th day of December 2008."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 595 

To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 

1986 to strike a provision relating to modifications in reporting frequency. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2007 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act of 1986 to strike a provision relating to 

modifications in reporting frequency. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Toxic Right-to-Know 

5 Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS IN REPORTING FREQUENCY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313 of the Emergency 

8 Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 

9 U.S.C. 11023) is amended— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 595 IS

1 (1) by striking subsection (i); and 

2 (2) by redesignating subsections (j) through (l) 

3 as subsections (i) through (k), respectively. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Sections 

5 322(h)(2) and 326(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Emergency Plan6 ning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 

7 U.S.C. 11042(h)(2), 11046(a)(1)(B)(iv)) are amended by 

8 striking ‘‘313(j)’’ each place it appears and inserting 

9 ‘‘313(i)’’. 

10 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TOXICS RELEASE IN11 VENTORY. 

12 Notwithstanding any other provision of law— 

13 (1) the Administrator of the Environmental 

14 Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the 

15 ‘‘Administrator’’) shall establish the eligibility 

16 threshold regarding the use of a form A certification 

17 statement under the Toxics Release Inventory Pro18 gram established under the Emergency Planning 

19 and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 

20 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.) at not greater than 500 

21 pounds for nonpersistent bioaccumulative and toxic 

22 chemicals; and 

23 (2) the use of a form A certification statement 

24 described in paragraph (1), or any equivalent suc25 cessor to the statement, shall be prohibited with reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:28 Feb 17, 2007 Jkt 049196 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S595.IS S595

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 595 IS

1 spect to any chemical identified by the Adminis2 trator as a chemical of special concern under section 

3 372.28 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or 

4 a successor regulation). 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### Rosalie Britto, Respondent, v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 828]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated March 8, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it *(see Friedenreich v Roosevelt Field Mall Mgt.,*18 AD3d 808 [2005]; *Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., Inc.,*12 AD3d 409, 410 [2004]; *Stumacher v Waldbaum,*
      *437
      *Inc.,*274 AD2d 572 [2000]; *Goldman v Waldbaum, Inc.,*248 AD2d 436, 437 [1998]). Only after the movant has satisfied this threshold burden will the court examine the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition *(see Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., supra).*“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must. . . exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; *Crawford v AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc.,*18 AD3d 798 [2005]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants failed to satisfy their initial burden. The defendants offered no evidence to establish when the area in question was last inspected or cleaned on the day of the plaintiffs accident *(see Joachim v 1824 Church Ave., supra; Jacques v Richal Enters.,*300 AD2d 45, 46 [2002]; *Van Steenburg v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*235 AD2d 1001 [1997]; *cf. Collins v Mayfair Super Mkts., Inc.,*13 AD3d 330 [2004]; *McClarren v Price Chopper Supermarkets,*226 AD2d 982 [1996]; *Maiorano v Price Chopper Operating Co.,*221 AD2d 698 [1995]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Tracy Glen SMITH.

No. 534P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5. 2008.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Smith.

*904C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ____, 668 S.E.2d 612.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of December 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of December 2008."
----

(2004/C 65 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2583/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Statute of European Schools

Does the Commission believe that the UK Government contracts for UK teachers at the European Schools in Brussels are in conformity with Article 12 of the Statute of the European schools to which all Member States are signatory?

What is the Commission's view of the recent rulings of the UK Employment Tribunal in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member knows, the European Schools are governed by a specific intergovernmental Convention, the ‘Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools’ a revised version of which entered into force on 1 October 2002. Teaching staff seconded to the schools are subject to the ‘Regulations for Members of the Seconded Staff of the European Schools’ which became applicable from 1 September 2000, but they remain employed by the authorities of the seconding Member State.

Article 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention provides that: ‘Staff shall retain promotion and retirement rights guaranteed by their national rules’ and Article 49.2(a) of the ‘Regulations’ stipulates that: ‘The competent national authorities shall pay the national emoluments to the member of staff and shall inform the Director of the amounts paid, specifying all the components taken into account for calculation purposes...’.

The United Kingdom, as the Honourable Member will know, pays a special ‘Threshold’ to teachers employed in England and Wales. In the view of British Department for Education and Skills (DFES), this is a recruitment and retention measure that is not relevant to teachers seconded to the European Schools. In the recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT/0884/02) in the United Kingdom, the Tribunal had to interpret the employment contract between certain British teachers at the European Schools and their employer, the DFES. It concluded that, under that contract, the teachers were not entitled to certain additional incremental salary increases following their appointment to the European Schools. The EAT was not, however, asked to consider whether, thus interpreted, the employment contracts were actually compatible with Article 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention, cited above.

The Commission has asked its Legal Service to examine whether the terms of the UK contract are in accordance with Article 12.4(a) of the European Schools' Convention.

The Commission will ensure that this issue is appropriately followed up and will readily respond to any further enquiry from the Honourable Member when the legal analysis is available.

----
Exhibit 24(b) SOLUTIA INC. CERTIFICATE I, Paul J. Berra, III, Senior Vice President, General
Counsel, Legal and Governmental Affairs, Assistant Secretary of Solutia Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certify that the following is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Company on February 17, 2010, at which meeting a quorum was present and acting throughout: FURTHER RESOLVED, that each officer
and director who may be required to sign and execute the 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K or any document in
connection therewith (whether for and on behalf of the Company, or as an officer or director of the Company, or
otherwise), be and hereby is authorized to execute a power of attorney appointing Paul J. Berra, III and Miriam R.
Singer, or either of them acting alone, his or her true and lawful attorney or attorneys to sign in his or her
name, place and stead in any such capacity such Annual Report on Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto and
documents in connection therewith, and to file the same with the Commission or any other governmental body, each
of said attorneys to have power to act with or without the others, and to have full power and authority to do and
perform, in the name and on behalf of each of said officers and directors, every act whatsoever which such
attorneys, or any one of them, may deem necessary, appropriate or desirable to be done in connection therewith as
fully and to all intents and purposes as such officers or directors might or could do in person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand in my
official capacity and affixed the corporate seal of the Company this 17th day of February, 2010. /s/ Paul J. Berra, III
Paul J. Berra III
Senior Vice President,
General Counsel Legal and Governmental Affairs,
Assistant Secretary SEAL
STATE v. LACEWELL.

No. COA07-657.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Cumberland (05CRS50810).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.8


 





AMENDMENT TO XL GROUP PLC


DIRECTORS STOCK & OPTION PLAN


 


(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED ON MAY 8, 2015)


 


WHEREAS, XL Group plc has petitioned the High
Court of Ireland to approve a Scheme of Arrangement under the Irish Companies Act, the effect of which would be to impose a new
holding company, incorporated in Bermuda, XL Group Ltd, as the ultimate parent holding company of the XL group of companies (the
“Redomestication”); and


 


WHEREAS, XL Group plc maintains the XL Group
plc Directors Stock & Option Plan, as amended and restated on May 8, 2015 (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Section
7(d) of the Plan, the Board of Directors of XL Group plc wishes to amend the Plan in connection with the Redomestication;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:


 


		1.	THAT, the title of the Plan shall be the “XL Group Ltd
                                         Directors Stock & Option Plan (as amended and restated on May 13, 2016).”



 


		2.	THAT, the Plan shall be amended such that each occurrence of the term “XL Group plc” shall instead refer to “XL
Group Ltd”.



 


		3.	THAT, the definition of “Company” in Section 2(c) of the Plan shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:



 


“Company” means XL Group
Ltd, a Bermuda company, or any successor company or permitted assign.


 


		4.	THAT, the foregoing amendments shall become effective, and shall be conditioned, upon the consummation of the Redomestication.



 


THAT, except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan remains in
full force and effect.
ims-ex102_371.htm



 

Exhibit 10.2

 

FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO THE

IMS HEALTH INCORPORATED EMPLOYEE PROTECTION PLAN

(as amended and restated effective January 1, 2014)

 

Effective as of the date written below, the IMS Health Incorporated Employee Protection Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated effective January 1, 2014 is amended as follows:

The definition of “Change in Control” is amended to include the following paragraph immediately after subparagraph (e):

 

“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, in no event shall the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between IMS Health Holdings, Inc. and Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc. dated May 3, 2016, as may be amended, the announcement of the potential transaction contemplated by such agreement nor the consummation of the transaction contemplated by such agreement, constitute a Change in Control for purposes of the Plan.”

In all other respects the Plan remains in full force and effect.

 

The Leadership Development and Compensation Committee of the IMS Health Holdings, Inc. Board of Directors has caused this instrument of amendment to be executed this first day of June, 2016.  

 


		
	
Very truly yours,

	
 
	
 

	
IMS HEALTH INCORPORATED

	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Harvey A. Ashman

	
 
	
Name:    Harvey A. Ashman

	
 
	
Title:    Secretary
IN RE D.K.H.

No. COA07-1003.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06J1368).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, remanded in part.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mario Dante RAMSEY.

No. 134P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

James N. Freeman, Jr., for Ramsey, Mario Dante.

David R. Brenskelle, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

David Brenskelle, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th of April 2015 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 20th of August 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
FROM  THE
STATEMENTS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1997 AND AS OF
JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000930817
<NAME> PL BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Apr-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 May-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jul-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,477
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  509,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    292,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               810,481
<PP&E>                                         798,431
<DEPRECIATION>                                 601,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          844,980
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,143
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,007,590
<SALES>                                        592,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               592,682 
<CGS>                                          486,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (10,299)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                48,290
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            48,290
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   48,290
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        


</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01031601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/316 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/316

---

(2004/C 88 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0131/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries)

Subject:

Budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries) was created under the 2002 budget procedure and was allocated EUR 30 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 14 million in payment appropriations.

According to the Commission report on the implementation of commitments and payments as at 31 December 2002, the implementation rate for the commitment appropriations was 100 % but for the payment appropriations only 14 %.

Will the Commission state the reasons for such a low rate of payment-appropriation implementation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

(4 March 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3917/02 by Mr Naranjo Escobar (1).

1

---

(1)  See page 310.

1

---