alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013108EN.01000502.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/5

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania)) — SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

(Case C-627/11) (1)

1

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 108/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Cancellation and recovery, in the event of improper conduct, of Community funding granted under the SAPARD programme — Eligibility of expenditure — Cases of force majeure — Justification — Notions of ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘profitability’

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Secția de contencios administrativ și fiscal (Romania), by decision of 3 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000913778
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND IV L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             478,148,369
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               478,148,369
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,089,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (29,746,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (26,656,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 8, 2011*

Decided March 11, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

   

No. 10‐2911

FARD MOHAMMED

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WISCONSIN INSURANCE SECURITY

FUND, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.                 

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 10‐CV‐551

J. P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Fard Mohammed, formerly a hall monitor employed by the Racine Unified School

District, sued the district, the Wisconsin Insurance Security Fund (WISF), and others,

alleging that school officials discriminated against him based on his Islamic faith when they

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

*

The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the

record.  After examining these materials, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 10‐2911 Page 2

required him to remove his religious head cover and “pilgrimage ring.” However,

Mohammed had already litigated–unsuccessfully–the same claim in state court, first before

the WISF (an administrative body), and later the Dane County Circuit Court and Wisconsin

Court of Appeals. The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding that it

was legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C  § 1915(e)(2). The court explained that Mohammed’s

claim had already been resolved on the merits by the WISF and the Wisconsin state courts,

and that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred him from relitigating issues that were

previously adjudicated.

On appeal Mohammed restates the grievances set forth in his complaint, but

nowhere does he develop any meaningful legal argument, with appropriate references to

the record, as to why the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(9)(A). Although we construe a pro se litigant’s brief liberally, we cannot construct

arguments when there are none. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545‐46 (7th Cir. 2001);

see Fednav. Int’l Ltd. v. Continental Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834, 842 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the

appeal is

DISMISSED.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Information Holdings Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2004 (the “Report”), I, MasonP. Slaine, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| November  3, 2004 | /s/  Mason P. Slaine                   |   |
|-------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Mason  P. Slaine                       |
|              | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original statement of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Information Holdings Inc. and will be retained byInformation Holdings Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

l0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

136506 

& (47) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136506 

 COA: 275135 

 MPSC: U-00-014547 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 

COMMISSION and CONSUMERS 

ENERGY COMPANY, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 

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. The 

miscellaneous motion is GRANTED.
cffi_Ex_10_16


		
			Exhibit 10.16
		

		
			BASE SALARIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
		

		
			OF
		

		
			C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		

		
			The following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) effective as of January 1, 2016 of the executive officers of C&F Financial Corporation: 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						Larry G. Dillon

					
					
						    

					
					
						$

					
					
						317,500 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Thomas F. Cherry

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						290,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Bryan E. McKernon

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						220,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President and Chief Executive Officer of C&F Mortgage Corporation

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						S. Dustin Crone

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						220,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President of C&F Finance Company

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						John A. Seaman, III

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						191,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Senior Vice President and Chief Credit Officer of Citizens and Farmers Bank
#### Michael J. Pronti, Doing Business as Iroquois Industries, Appellant, v Edward J. Golik et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 590]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.H.O.), entered March 8, 2006 in Chemung County, upon a decision of the court in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract to recover the balance allegedly owed for his work in remodeling a bathroom in defendants’ home. In their answer, defendants asserted that plaintiff failed to complete the work and they counterclaimed for the cost of having it completed by another contractor. In January 2005, plaintiff requested and received an adjournment of trial to obtain an attorney and move for summary judgment. In May 2005, Supreme Court denied his pro se motion for summary judgment and trial was set for July 19, 2005 before a Judicial Hearing Officer. At the start of the trial, plaintiff again requested an adjournment to obtain an attorney. When the court denied his request because of the earlier adjournment, plaintiff stated that he was not ready to proceed. *900The court then granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and they presented proof on their counterclaim. Supreme Court found in defendants’ favor and this appeal ensued.

Plaintiff contends that his motion for summary judgment was improperly denied because, among other things, defendants failed to give timely written notice of their counterclaim as required under the contract. The contract, however, clearly provides that written notice is required only “after completion of the work involved” and defendants provided evidence that, at the time plaintiff allegedly completed the work, the bathroom had no sink, medicine cabinet, vanity, light fixture, baseboard or window molding, and there were problems with the toilet and linoleum that had been installed. The contractor who completed the remodeling corroborated this evidence and also established the cost to repair and complete the work. Contraiy to plaintiffs contention, this evidence was sufficient to raise triable questions of fact as to plaintiffs defense of lack of notice and to warrant denial of summary judgment *(see e.g. Matzen Constr. v Schultz,*257 AD2d 724, 726 [1999]).

Plaintiff also contends that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying his request for adjournment of the trial. However, in light of the previous adjournment, the ample time provided for plaintiff to obtain an attorney and his unexcused failure to do so, we cannot agree *(see Brusco v Davis-Klages,*302 AD2d 674, 674 [2003]; *Barnaby v Barnaby,*259 AD2d 870, 871 [1999]; *Rosato v Macier,*222 AD2d 865, 866 [1995]). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to have no merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
# C_2012250EN.01000601.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

(Case C-84/11) (1)

1

(Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies - Establishment of branch pharmacies - Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy - University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services)

2012/C 250/09

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala

Intervening party Helsingin yliopiston apteekki

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 106(2) TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — National law providing for a licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies with conditions which are more favourable for University pharmacies than for private pharmacies — University Pharmacy having specific responsibilities relating to pharmacy teaching and to the supply of medicines

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a licensing scheme for the operation of branch pharmacies specific to the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki which is more favourable than that applicable to private pharmacies, provided that — which is for the referring court to verify — the branches of the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki actually participate in the accomplishment of the specific tasks relating to the teaching of pharmacy students, research on pharmaceutical services and the manufacture of rare pharmaceutical preparations conferred on the latter by national law

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN FORM 10-K OF WHICH THIS SCHEDULE FORMS A PART
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,085,591
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       8,478
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,255,090
<CASH>                                           3,234
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             421,021
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           6,484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,881,824
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,057,414
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            146,395
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 16,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                     314,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,881,824
<PREMIUMS>                                      49,179
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             21,479
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                (29)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,242
<BENEFITS>                                      47,770
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             9,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,725
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,854
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,854
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 647,188
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             47,770
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                 627
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                57,938
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                636,393
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Macromedia, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-98495, 333-67960, 333-77040, 333-57708, 333-44016, 333-92233, 333-89247, 333-64141, 333-39285, 333-24713 and 333-08435) on Form S-8 of Macromedia, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated June 14,2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Macromedia, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flowsfor each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005, which reports appear in the March 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Macromedia, Inc. 

 

Our report dated June 14, 2005, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that Macromedia, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2005 because of theeffect of a material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company’s policies and procedures did not include adequate management oversight and review ofthe Company’s accounting for income taxes. This lack of adequate management oversight and review resulted in errors in the Company’s income tax expense and the corresponding deferred tax assets and liabilities. Because of this deficiency,there is more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement in the Company’s annual or interim consolidated financial statements would not be prevented or detected. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

June 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5266]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of 
Upcoming Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is issuing this 
notice to cancel the March 17, 2011, public meeting scheduled to be 
held in Room 5A06A, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 
E Street, NW., Washington, DC. The original Federal Register notice 
announcing this meeting was published Monday, December 6, 2010, at 75 
FR 75706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeline Gonzalez, 202-606-2838; e-
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2959485004594c5b4f465b4448474a4c04594645404a5069465944074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfbfaeb6e2bfaabda9a0bda2aea1acaae2bfa0a3a6acb68fa0bfa2e1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>; or FAX: (202) 606-4264.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Sheldon Friedman,
Chairman, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-5266 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-49-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 – Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission**

**(Case T-225/10)**

Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision
prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme
but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22-23)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision
prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Capacity as beneficiary of the aid scheme — Absence — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth
para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2011/5) (see paras 26-27)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision
prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No
clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 28-31)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA is ordered to pay the costs. |