alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,944
<SECURITIES>                                    24,318
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                       479
<INVENTORY>                                      1,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,350
<PP&E>                                           3,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,661
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,699
<SALES>                                         27,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,897
<CGS>                                            5,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    45
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (791)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,499
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,102
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,102
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 AUGUST 14, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13784

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00445-CV-FTM-29-DNF

LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MEDICAL SAVINGS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(August 14, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lee Memorial Health System (“LMHS”) appeals the district court’s denial
of its Motion for Attorney’s Fees. LMHS prevailed in its lawsuit against Medical

Savings Insurance Company (“MSIC”) and recovered a total of $246, 277.16 in

damages. LMHS then sought to recover an additional $533,798.70 in attorney’s

fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.6698. The district court denied LMHS’s motion

on the ground that Fla. Stat. § 627.6515(2) exempts MSIC from attorney’s fees that

it would otherwise be liable for under § 627.6698.

On appeal, LMHS argues that § 627.6515(2) does not exempt MSIC from

attorney’s fees because (1) MSIC did not present evidence at trial that any group

insurance policies were issued or delivered outside Florida; (2) MSIC did not

present evidence at trial that each insured was a member of an association or group

through which MSIC offered a group health insurance policy; and (3) the

certificates entered into evidence do not contain the statement required by §

627.6515(2)(b) in contrasting color.

Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the

district court did not err in specifically finding that the policies in question were

issued or delivered outside Florida, to persons enrolled in the associations, and in

compliance with the requirements of § 627.6515(2)(b). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

2
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO600-05-1040-MO] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below. 

# DATES:

The Southwest Colorado RAC meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. on October 28, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

The Southwest Colorado RAC meeting will be held at the Uncompahgre Field Office, 2505 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, Colorado. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Sharrow, Field Manager, BLM Uncompahgre Field Office, 2505 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO, telephone (970) 240-5300; or Melodie Lloyd, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Western Slope Center, 2815 H Rd., Grand Junction, CO, telephone (970) 244-3097. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public lands managed by the BLM in southwestern Colorado. All meetings are open to the public. 

The purpose of the meeting:

Field manager updates. 

Briefing on BLM sage grouse policies and strategies. 

Briefing on improved processes for lease sale notification. 

Briefing on land acquisition projects in southwestern Colorado. 

Schedule 2006 meetings. 

There will be an opportunity for the public to address the RAC at 2:30 p.m. Written comments may be submitted for the RAC's consideration. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above. 

Dated: September 1, 2005. 

Barbara Sharrow, 

Lead Designated Federal Officer and Uncompahgre Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. 05-17900 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
----

(2004/C 33 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2008/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   Fowl-pest crisis in Belgium — compensation for the damage caused to the poultry sector

In late May, the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health held a further meeting in order to discuss the fowl-pest situation in a number of European countries. The Committee decided, inter alia, to relax even further the measures taken to combat fowl pest in Belgium.

The Belgian Government decided to compensate the poultry farmers affected for (some of) the damage which they had suffered. However, it cannot be denied that the fowl-pest crisis is causing heavy losses for every section of the poultry sector. The crisis has resulted in heavy financial losses for the animal feed industry, hatcheries, poultry slaughterhouses, poultry-cutting plants, poultry wholesalers and the exporting firms in the sector. However, there is, unfortunately, no provision for them to receive any financial compensation.

Given the importance of the Belgian poultry sector for the Belgian economy and for employment, is the Commission considering paying compensation to operators in the sector other than poultry farmers? If so, for what amount? Would there be any objection to the Federal Government and/or Regional Governments in Belgium giving financial support to the operators in the sector other than poultry farmers who have suffered losses?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Belgium may obtain a financial contribution from the Community up to 50 % of the expenditure for emergency measures as detailed in Article 3 (1) of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 (1), on expenditure in the veterinary field that are provisions to eradicate and control the epidemics.

The Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2) apply to all State aids granted in connection with activities related to the production, processing and marketing of Annex I products. State aid measures relating to outbreaks of animal diseases are to be assessed under the provisions of section 11 of these guidelines.

While section 11 allows aids to compensate for damage to agricultural production or the means of agricultural production, it does not allow support to compensate processors. Where processors are in financial difficulties, however, rescue and restructuring aid may be possible provided that the relevant provisions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (3) are complied with.

Moreover, the Commission has already emphasised insurance policies as a mean to deal with indirect losses caused by large outbreaks of animal diseases.

----

(1)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2)OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.

(3)OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.

----
STACY v. MERRILL.

No. COA08-437.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (06CVS1456).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1602-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1602-DR), dated August 28, 2005, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 28, 2005:

    Collier, Franklin, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties for Public 
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-18095 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Gomez LOPEZ.

No. 175P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Jose Gomez Lopez, Pro Se.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 11th day of April 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."
Technology
Transfer Agreement

     

    Project
name: Jindelikang Propolis and Black Ants Capsule

    Transferee:
Harbin Humankind Biology Technology Co. Limited (Party A)

    Transferor:
Beijing Jindelikang Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (Party B)

    Place of
signing: Harbin City

    Date of
signing: October 12, 2007

    Period of
Validity: Long Term

    


    Both
parties negotiate and sign this agreement about transfer of ownership of
Jindelikang Propolis and Black Ants Capsule (approval number: GSJZ G20040906
).

    


    Article I
Duration, Place and Method

    Party B
shall provide to Party A with all ducuments of the product within 5 days of the
effect date of this agreement.

    


    Article
II Know-how

    The scope
of transfer includes the formula and processing technique of Jindelikang
Propolis and Black Ants Capsule.

    


    Article
III Scope of Using Nonpatented Technology

    Party B
shall not produce and sell the products without the consent of Party A and shall
not transfer the fomula and processing technique of the product to other
companies.

    


    Article
IV Payment

    Total
transfer price: RMB 350,000.


    
      
         


      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Article V
Settlements to Disputes

    During
the period of the agreement is executed, both parties agree to solve the
disputes by negotiation. If both parties do not want to solve by negotiation or
can not come to a conclusion by negotiation, both parties agree to solve such
problem by legal procedures.

    


    Transferee
(Party A): Harbin Humankind Biology Technology Co. Limited (Seal)

    Telephone
Number: 0451-88100166

    Address:
Jinxing Industrial Park, Songbei District, Harbin

    Zip
Code:

    Representative:
Kai Sun

    


    Transferor
(Party B): Beijing Jindelikang Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (Seal)

    Telephone
Number: 15678666666

    Address:
Yudai Township, Daxing District, Beijing City

    Zip
Code:

    Representative:
Haiyang Yu


    
      
         


      

      
        2
STATE v. Harry James FOWLER.

No. 584P99-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of July 2008 by Defendant for Constitutional Question N.C.G.S. Sec. 132-1 to 132-9:

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion

filed November 3 , 2015.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO S . 14

- 15

- 00903

- CR , 14

- 15

- 00905

- CR , 14

- 15

- 0 0906

- CR , and 14

- 15

- 00907

- CR

IN RE OVERILLE DENTO N THOMPSON , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1445929 , 1445930, 1446657, and 1468823

.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 26, 2015, relator Overille Denton Thompson filed a petition for writ of habeas c orpus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to hold the Honorable Susan Brown, presiding judge of the 185th District Court of Harris County in contempt

.2

This court, as an intermediate court of appeals, is not authorized to grant the relief relator seeks. In criminal matters, an intermediate court of appeals has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) . The courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, distri ct courts, and county courts. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (West 2015).
Therefore, we dismiss relator’ s petition for writ of habeas for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost, and Justices Christopher and Donovan

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
exv10w16






Exhibit 10.16




Management Incentive Plan (MIP)

Fiscal Year 2011



The Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) applies to designated Executive Officers of the Company
and is designed to link a portion of a participant’s cash compensation to demonstrated performance.
A participant has an opportunity to earn incentive awards based on Company Performance, Unit or
Work Team Performance and Personal Performance results during the fiscal year. This document is
the sole document which governs the administration of MIP awards.



Incentive Awards made pursuant to the MIP are determined and distributed annually following
completion of the Company’s fiscal year. The Committee may elect to issue interim awards in
conjunction with the Company’s mid-year performance review process. Incentive Awards may be
prorated to account for partial Plan Year participation. Incentive awards will generally be
distributed to participants within 90 calendar days following the end of the fiscal year.



Incentive awards under the MIP are determined based upon funding availability for the award pool,
the performance of each Participant’s assigned Business Unit or Work Team and Personal Performance
against established performance goals. In general, annual incentive awards under the MIP target
fifty percent of base salary at the time of determination and cumulative annual awards to any
Participant will not exceed that Participant’s annual base salary received during the relevant Plan
Year.



Company performance is defined as the extent to which the Company attains established Incentive
Plan Funding Goals tied to the achievement of both revenue and net income targets as established by
the Committee at the beginning of the fiscal year. Business unit or work team performance is
defined as the extent to which a participant’s assigned business unit or work team achieves
targeted results while adhering to budgeted resources.



All Incentive Awards under the MIP are in the form of cash payments, less applicable tax
withholding, as determined by the Committee.



Financial results associated with business acquisitions, divestitures, share repurchase activity,
changes in the economy or markets served by the Company which substantially impact results attained
during the Plan Year may be excluded from the results used to calculate Incentive Awards. The
Committee will determine, in its sole discretion, whether such events have occurred and the extent
to which, if at all, goals should be adjusted.



The MIP is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”).
The Committee has the authority to interpret and administer all provisions and to make any rules
and regulations or take any action it deems necessary including amendments or revocation. All
awards issued under the MIP are at the sole discretion of the Committee.
Angela G. KENION, Employee, Plaintiff v. MAPLE VIEW FARM, INC., (Non-Insured), Employer and Maple View Milk Company, LLC and The Hartford Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 438P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, for Kenion.

Robin H. Terry, Meredith Taylor Berard, Raleigh, for Maple View Milk Co. & Ins. Co.

Jeffrey A. Doyle, Susan J. Vanderweert, Raleigh, for Maple View Farm, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 29th day of September 2008 by Defendant (Maple View Farm) 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
# C_2023235EN.01001001.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 21 March 2023 — Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (Credidam) v Guvernul României, Ministerul Finanțelor

(Case C-179/23, Credidam)

(2023/C 235/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation — Defendants: Guvernul României, Ministerul Finanțelor

Respondent in cassation — Applicant: Centrul Român pentru Administrarea Drepturilor Artiștilor Interpreți (Credidam)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the collection, distribution and payment of remuneration by collective management organisations, in return for a fee, constitute a supply of services, within the meaning of Article 24(1) and Article 25(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (the VAT directive), to copyright holders and holders of related rights? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the collection, distribution and payment of remuneration by collective management organisations, in return for a fee, constitute a supply of services, within the meaning of Article 24(1) and Article 25(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) (the VAT directive), to copyright holders and holders of related rights?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the work that collective management organisations do for rights holders constitute a supply of services within the meaning of the VAT directive even if the rights holders, on whose behalf collective management organisations collect remuneration, are not deemed to be providing a service to the users who are required to pay that remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the work that collective management organisations do for rights holders constitute a supply of services within the meaning of the VAT directive even if the rights holders, on whose behalf collective management organisations collect remuneration, are not deemed to be providing a service to the users who are required to pay that remuneration?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---