alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136620 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136620 

 COA: 277301 

Wayne CC: 06-000364

DEANGELO DIXON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 15, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hr. II. A. Hodges 

County Auditor I 

Williamson county .' 

Georgetown, Texzs 

Dear Sir: 

cpinion no. O-404 

Re: Sheriff's and 

misdemeanor examining trYa%?. 

Your request for opinion 

*Would the sheriff 

FrocedureV 

cr attaching witnesses in the county where case is 

pdnding. Prcvided nc sheriff cr constable shell receive 

from the State any additicnal mileage for any subsequent 

arrest of 3 defendant in the same case, or in any ether 

case in an exanining court or in any district ccurt 

bssed upon the same charge cr upon the same criminal 

act, or growing out cf the same criminal transaction, 

whether the arrest is made with or without 3 warrant, 

or before or after indictment, and in no event shall 
Mr. LT. A. Hodges, Xarch 8, 1939, Page 2. 

he be allowea to duplicate his fees for mileage for 

making arrests, with or without warrant, or when two 

or more warrants 0r arrest or caplases are served or 

could have been served on the same aerendant on any 

one day." 

Article 1072 of the Code Or Criminal Procedure of Texas reads 

as r0ii0ws: 

"Sheriffs and constables serving process and 

attending any examining court in the examlnation or a 

misdemeanor case shall be entitled to such fees as are 

allowed by law for similar services in the trial of 

such cases, not to exceed three dollars in any one *ase, 

to be paid by the defendant in uase of final conviciion.w 

You will note that paragraph 2 of Article 1020 of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure provides a manner in which sheriffs and 

constables on the fee system may collect mileage In felony examining trial cases from the State of Texas. You will also 'note that 

Article 1072 of the'COde Or Criminal Procedure prescribes the amount 

or $3.00 as the limit of fees which the sheriff and constable may 

receive in misdemeanor examining trial cases. It will be further 

noted that there is no provision whatever made in Article 1072 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the payment of any mileage 

to the sheriff and constable. It will be noted further that the 

fees charged in Article 1072, Code Or Criminal Procedure, are 

charged against the defendant and not against the State of Texas, 

as in Article 1020. 

YOU are, therefore, ~respectfully advised that it is 

the opinion of this Department that the sheriff or constable 

would not be allowed mileage in an examining trial in a misdemeanor 

~390 in eadition to the sum of $3.00 or an amount less than $3.00, 

as set out under Article 1072 of the Code or crImIna1 Procedure. 

It, is the opinion of this Department that the sheriff or constable 

cannot charge or collect more than $3.00 as his fees in a'n examining 

trial in a misdemeanor case. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEXCZNERAI. OF TEXAS 

BY (Signed) 

wm. J. Fanning 

Assistant
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4163

_____________________________

DENIS ROCHESTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

June 24, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Denis Rochester, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2008128EN.01000701.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Deutsche Telekom AG

(Case C-306/06) (1)

1

(Directive 2000/35/EC - Combating of late payment in commercial transactions - Article 3(1)(c)(ii) - Late payment - Bank transfer - Date on which payment is to be regarded as having been made)

(2008/C 128/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 01051 Telecom GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Whether a creditor may claim default interest — ‘Receipt’ by the creditor of the amount due — National rule under which the time of payment is considered to be the time when the debtor gives the transfer order to the bank and not the time when the creditor's account is credited

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.

1

---
EX-10.26



 EXHIBIT 10.26 
  

					
		  	 NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC
  

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
  

Effective as of January 1, 2014
  

EXHIBIT A (Schedule of Participants)
	  	                EXHIBIT A

  

					
	 Level
	  	 Contribution rate, as percentage of annual base
compensation
(not including bonus)
	  	 Name

	Executive Chair	  	13%	  	Edward M. Murphy
			
	Chief Executive Officer and President	  	13%	  	Bruce F. Nardella
			
	Chief Financial Officer	  	11%	  	Denis M. Holler
			
	 All other Executive Officers
 (as defined in
SEC regulations)
	  	9%	  	 Jeffrey M. Cohen (effective November 9, 2011)

Linda DeRenzo
 Kathleen P. Federico

Robert M. Melia
 David M. Petersen

Dwight D. Robson (effective
 March 4, 2011)

			
	 Former Chairman of the Board of Directors
  

Former Senior Vice President
	  	*	  	 Gregory T. Torres
  

John J. Green


  

	*	Mr. Torres and Mr. Green are not credited with contributions under the Plan but the amounts previously credited to their Accounts are eligible to earn a return under the Plan on the same basis as other
Participants.
# C_2023127EN.01005602.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/56

---

Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Medela v EUIPO (THE SCIENCE OF CARE)

(Case T-97/23)

(2023/C 127/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann, S. Fröhlich and H. Lerchl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘THE SCIENCE OF CARE’ — International Registration No 1 635 852 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2022 in Case R 1163/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision concerning the refusal in part of the application for the extension of protection under international registration No 1 635 852 THE SCIENCE OF CARE, in so far as the Board of Appeal therein refused to grant protection for the mark for the Class 44 services ‘rental of breast pumps and vacuum pumps; advisory and information services for medical products; consultancy in the field of medical apparatus and instruments’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision concerning the refusal in part of the application for the extension of protection under international registration No 1 635 852 THE SCIENCE OF CARE, in so far as the Board of Appeal therein refused to grant protection for the mark for the Class 44 services ‘rental of breast pumps and vacuum pumps; advisory and information services for medical products; consultancy in the field of medical apparatus and instruments’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 7 0 00 87

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### XAVIER S. FOSTER Seaman (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Navy Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the Un ited States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Arthur L. Gaston III , JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Command ing Officer , Naval Submarine Support Command , Pearl Harbor, HI

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Lieutenant M atthew J. Budow, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant: Captain Kimberly D. Hinson , JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 5 October 2017

_________________________ Before M ARKS , J ONES , and P ETTIT , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________

________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the C ourt

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
exv4w1





Exhibit 4.1







	COMMON STOCK NUMBER SHARES FRF [ ] FORTEGRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CUSIP 34954W 104 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
THIS CERTIFIES THAT   is the owner of   FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON
STOCK PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF FORTEGRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ransferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate
properly endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State
of Delaware and to the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Corporation, in each case as from
time to time amended. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent
and Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized
officers. Dated: COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: PRESIDENT [SEAL] TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR. BY ____
___________________  — -
SECRETARY AUTHORIZED OFFICER





 









 










	The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM — as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — Custodian TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN — as joint tenants with right under Uniform Gifts to Minors of survivorship and not as tenants in common Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received,   hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECU
RITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated, ________________________ NOTICE
: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. IGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED: THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
STATE v. Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ.

No. 302A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos.

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jennifer Martin, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Patrick B. Weede, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Michael Silver, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of January 2016 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of January 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 29th day of February 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
               SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                    0
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       249,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    251,036
<PP&E>                                           10,492,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,777,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10,353,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7,063,912
<BONDS>                                             863,109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,174
<OTHER-SE>                                       14,642,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     10,353,638
<SALES>                                           1,230,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,230,916
<CGS>                                               797,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4,744,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  424,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,786,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,786,522)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      203,322
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,583,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.32)
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Project to combat coastal erosion at Marine di Ugento

The Regional Operational Programme (ROP) for Apulia envisages Community funding for a project intended to tackle the emergency caused by the erosion of the sandy coastline of Marine di Ugento (Measure 1.3. — soil conservation measures — Action 2: measures to protect the coastline).

The project receiving funding, to be carried out by the company Etacons, s.r.l., covers:

As regards this project it should be noted that:

In view of the above, does the Commission not consider that the project constitutes an inappropriate use of Community funding designed to safeguard the environment?

Does it not consider that the competent authorities should ascertain whether the project is legitimate and lawful, in view of the improper use being made of the Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

It is the responsibility of the Apulian authorities managing the regional programme to which the Honourable Member refers to select the projects to be included in it and verify that Structural Fund resources are to be used in a way that complies with the Community environmental rules in force.

These authorities have confirmed to the Commission that such a selection procedure was in fact followed for the project in question.

The Ecology Department of the Environmental Assessorate for Apulia Region gave a favourable ‘environmental impact assessment’ for the project subject to certain requirements:

Work on the project was suspended by the Public Prosecutor's Office on 10 June this year for a check to be made that the work in progress was in fact that scheduled and carried no risk of provoking more serious erosion. The suspension was lifted on 29 August.

The Commission has received a complaint covering the same points as the Honourable Member raises and the information he has given has been added to the file. The complaint is now being assessed and if the Commission concludes that Community law is being breached it will, as guardian of the EC Treaty, not hesitate to take whatever action, including infringement proceedings under Treaty Article 226, is needed to ensure observance of Community law.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Andre Rashon MOSER.

No. COA15-270.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Restitution Order Vacated and Remanded.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12-1

CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars in thousands)                                   2004           2003          2002         2001           2000
                                                     ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
                                                     (as restated) (as restated) (as restated) (as restated) (as restated)
<S>                                                   <C>          <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
EARNINGS BEFORE FIXED CHARGE:
      Income (loss) before income taxes,
        discontinued operations and cumulative
        effect of accounting change for goodwill
                                                       $ (48,013)    $  12,121     $ (85,308)    $(214,938)     $ (57,114)
      Fixed Charges                                       70,519        69,630        81,676       104,000         92,540
                                                       ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------      ---------
                                                       $  22,506     $  81,751     $  (3,632)    $(110,938)     $  35,426
                                                       =========     =========     =========     =========      =========



FIXED CHARGES:
      Interest expense                                 $  39,962     $  39,924     $  53,906     $  70,509      $  63,253
      Interest component of rent expensed (1)             30,557        29,706        27,770        33,491         29,287
                                                       ---------     ---------     ---------     ---------      ---------
                                                       $  70,519     $  69,639     $  81,676     $ 104,000      $  92,540
                                                       =========     =========     =========     =========      =========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)                        --           1.2            --            --             --
                                                       =========     =========     =========     =========      =========

</TABLE>




(1)  Calculated as one-third of total rent expense.

(2)  Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the years ended
     January 31, 2004, 2002, 2001 and 2000 by $48,013, $85,308, $214,938 and
     $57,114, respectively.