alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012065EN.01000601.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2011 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-30/03 RENV: 3F formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v European Commission

(Case C-646/11 P)

2012/C 65/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: P. Torbøl, advokat, V. Edwards)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,

| — | Give final judgment on the matter, |
| --- | --- |

—

Give final judgment on the matter,

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law related to the assessment of the length of a preliminary examination under Article 108(3) TFEU.

| — | The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of the case-law on the meaning of ‘serious difficulties’ and the determination of whether such difficulties exist.

| — | The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in law by failing to respond to the Appellant's plea relating to infringement of the principle of good administration; in the alternative the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying the case-law on the principle of good administration.

---
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.15 Petition for a special permit. ( a ) Each shipper who wishes to ship a bulk solid material not listed in Table 148.10 of this part must determine whether the material meets the definition of any hazard class, or the definition of a PDM, as those terms are defined in § 148.3 of this part.
( b ) If the material meets any of the definitions described in paragraph (a) of this section, the shipper then must submit a petition in writing to the Commandant (CG-ENG-5) for authorization to ship any hazardous material or PDM not listed in Table 148.10 of this part.
( c ) If the Commandant (CG-ENG-5) approves a petition for authorization, the Commandant (CG-ENG-5) issues the petitioner a Coast Guard special permit. The permit allows the material to be transported in bulk by vessel and outlines requirements for this transport.
( d ) A tripartite agreement developed in conjunction with the United States and in accordance with the IMSBC Code (incorporated by reference, see § 148.8) may be used in lieu of a special permit.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WESTERN MORTGAGE & REALTY 

COMPANY, a Washington corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

a national banking association and 

KEYCORP CAPITAL, INC., an Ohio 

corporation, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35821 

D.C. No. 

1:13-cv-00216-EJL-REB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 28, 2017

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN,** District 

Judge.

Western Mortgage & Realty Co. appeals the district court’s order granting 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, United States District Judge 

for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

FILED

SEP 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35821 

summary judgment to KeyBank National Association and KeyCorp Capital, Inc. 

(collectively, “KeyBank”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

affirm.

On May 23, 2007, Western Mortgage entered into a contract for the 

purchase of certain debts believed to be owned by KeyBank. On August 3, 2010, 

the parties agreed to amend the purchase price for the contract. Western Mortgage 

filed this action on April 9, 2013, alleging that KeyBank failed to transfer good 

title to one of the debts enumerated in the original contract.

The district court correctly ruled that Western Mortgage’s breach of contract 

and breach of warranties claims are barred by Idaho’s five year statute of 

limitations. See Idaho Code § 5-216. The relevant warranties were agreed to in a 

contract that closed on May 23, 2007, which started the statute of limitations. 

Western Mortgage did not file its complaint until nearly six years later. The statute 

of limitations was not restarted when the parties amended the purchase price of the 

contract because that amendment concerned a discrete matter independent of the 

warranties. The statute of limitations also was not restarted by Idaho Code § 5-238 

because that section is inapplicable to the facts here, where a debtor did not 

promise to pay a debt. See Mahas v. Kasiska, 276 P. 315, 317 (Idaho 1928). 

The district court correctly dismissed Western Mortgage’s fraud claims. The 

district court properly concluded that Western Mortgage could have discovered the 
3 15-35821 

alleged fraud by reasonable diligence before April 9, 2010. Thus, Western 

Mortgage’s claim is barred by Idaho’s three year statute of limitations for fraud. 

See Idaho Code § 5-218(4). An email sent by KeyBank’s Vice President did not 

constitute fraud because, in context, the email was one of opinion and not of fact. 

See Nelson v. Hoff, 218 P.2d 345, 349 (Idaho 1950). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 11.1


                        Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                For the Nine Months         For the Three Months
                                                 Ended September 30          Ended September 30
                                              ------------------------   --------------------------
                                                 2004          2003         2004          2003
                                                 ----          ----         ----          ----
<S>                                           <C>          <C>           <C>           <C>
Net (loss)                                    $  (60,978)  $   (11,180)  $   (31,522)  $    (13,852)
                                              ==========   ===========   ===========   ============

BASIC EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding                                   12,599,644    11,435,500    14,902,891     11,435,500
                                              ==========   ===========   ===========   ============

Basic earnings (loss) per common share        $      .00   $       .00   $       .00   $        .00
                                              ==========   ===========   ===========   ============


DILUTED EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding                                   12,599,644    11,435,500    14,902,891     11,435,500
Assumed exercise of stock options                   --            --            --             --
                                              ==========   ===========   ===========   ============


Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding, as adjusted                      12,599,644    11,435,500    14,902,891     11,435,500
                                              ==========   ===========   ===========   ============


Diluted earnings (loss) per common shares     $      .00   $       .00   $       .00   $        .00
                                              ==========   ===========   ===========   ============
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT (4)(l)


                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                              M&T CAPITAL TRUST VI

        THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of M&T Capital Trust VI (the "Trust") is being
duly executed and filed by The Bank of New York (Delaware), a Delaware banking
corporation, as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.).

        1.      Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is "M&T
Capital Trust VI".

        2.      Delaware Trustee. The name and address of the trustee of the
Trust in the State of Delaware are The Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay
Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.

        3.      Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective on
July 7, 2003.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the sole trustee of the
Trust, has executed this Certificate of Trust.

                                  The Bank of New York (Delaware), not in
                                  its individual capacity, but solely as trustee

                                  By:    /s/ Michael Santino
                                         -----------------------------
                                  Name:  Michael Santino
                                  Title: Senior Vice President
§ 185.510 Emergency instructions. ( a ) The master and crew of a vessel will be familiar with the content of and have mounted at the operating station, emergency instructions containing the actions to be taken in the event of fire, heavy weather, or man overboard conditions.
( b ) Except when in the judgment of the cognizant OCMI the operation of a vessel does not present one of the hazards listed, the emergency instruction placard should contain at least the applicable portions of the “Emergency Instructions” listed in § 185.512. The emergency instructions must be designed to address the particular equipment, arrangement, and operation of each individual vessel.
( c ) If the cognizant OCMI determines that there is no suitable mounting surface aboard the vessel, the emergency instructions need not be posted but must be carried aboard the vessel and be available to the crew for familiarization.
SUPREME COURT.

#### John Romain, as continuing partner, &c., appellant, agt. David J. Garth, executor, &c., respondent.

*New Yorli General*Term, *First*Department,

October, 1874.

*Mode of proceeding to discharge the entry upon the docket of the release of a judgment.*

Where the release of a judgment has been duly entered on the docket of a judgment, it cannot be attacked collaterally by motion in another action; the entry can only be avoided by a direct proceeding or action for that purpose.

The plaintiff should not be precluded by the laches of his attorney from setting up in his complaint that the release was for any reason null and void, or that it was fraudulently made.

Appeal from an order of the special term denying a motion made by plaintiff for a cancellation of an entry that the judgment upon which the plaintiff sues had been released, such entry being made by the clerk of the county of Few York, on the docket of the judgment.

Also an appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying ■leave to amend the complaint in this action, by inserting allegations as to the invalidity of said release, and claiming that the defendant be enjoined from giving said release in evidence on the trial of this action, and that said release be given up to be canceled.

*George W*Lord, for appellant.

*Saclcett*& Lang, for respondent. •

*62Lawrence, *J*.

I am of opinion that the first motion was properly denied. It would be anomalous for the court on a* mere motion, in this action, to- adjudge that an entry — on its face duly made by the clerk of the county on the docket of a judgment nr another action,' that said judgment had been-released — was void for the reason that the release was invalid, or that the entry had been fraudulently made.

The release cannot be attacked, nor the entry avoided, save in a' direct proceeding or suit for that purpose.

Second. I am, however, of the opinion that the second motion should have been granted; although it appears that the attorney for the appellant knew of the existence of the release at the time this action was commenced. ' I do not think that the plaintiff should be precluded, by the laches of his attorney, from setting up in his complaint that the release was for any reason null and void, "or that it was fraudulently made, and I do not think that so much time had elapsed, before the motion was made, as to justify the court in holding that the plaintiff should be barred from showing the invalidity of the release, if it is, in fact, invalid.

The court has the power to allow the amendment which is asked for, and on proper terms it should be granted *(Gray agt. Brown,*15 How., *p.*556; *Code, sec.*113).

Upon payment of all the costs in the action, and disbursements up to the present time, and costs of motion, the plaintiff may have leave to amend his complaint as moved for. On these conditions the second order appealed from should be reversed without costs.

The first order appealed from is affirmed with costs.

Daniels, J., and Davis, P. L, concurred.
EXHIBIT
21.1
 PRGX GLOBAL, INC.
 SUBSIDIARIES
 Company
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationPRGX USA, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Asia, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Australia, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Belgium, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Canada, LLC
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Costa Rica, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX New Zealand, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Netherlands, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Mexico, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX France, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Germany, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX South Africa, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Switzerland, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Italy, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Spain, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Portugal, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRG International, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRG USA, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Scandinavia, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Japan, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Puerto Rico, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Chile, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Europe, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Brasil, LLC
    
    GeorgiaThe Profit Recovery Group Holdings Mexico, S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoThe Profit Recovery Group Servicios Mexico S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoThe Profit Recovery Group de Mexico S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoThe Profit Recovery Group Argentina S.A.
    
    ArgentinaProfit Recovery Brasil Ltda.
    
    BrazilPRG-Schultz International PTE LTD
    
    SingaporePRG-Schultz Suzhou Co Ltd.
    
    ChinaPRG-Schultz CR s.r.o.
    
    Czech RepublicPRGFS, Inc.
    
    DelawarePRGX Texas, Inc.
    
    TexasMeridian Corporation Limited
    
    Jersey (Channel Islands)PRGX UK Holdings Ltd
    
    United KingdomPRG-Schultz Ireland LTD
    
    IrelandPRGX UK Ltd
    
    United KingdomPRGX Canada Corp.
    
    CanadaPRG-Schultz (Deutschland) GmbH
    
    Germany
 S-1




---



##### 



Company
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationPRG-Schultz Nederland B.V.
    
    NetherlandsPRG-Schultz Italia SRL
    
    ItalyPRG-Schultz Puerto Rico
    
    Puerto RicoPRG-Schultz Peru S.R.L.
    
    PeruPRG-Schultz Colombia Ltda.
    
    ColumbiaPRG-Schultz Svenska AB
    
    SwedenPRG-Schultz Venezuela S. R. L.
    
    VenezuelaPRG-Schultz Polska Sp. z o.o
    
    PolandHoward Schultz & Associates (Asia) Limited
    
    Hong KongHS&A International PTE LTD
    
    SingaporePRG-Schultz (Thailand) Limited
    
    ThailandHoward Schultz de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoPRGDS, LLC
    
    GeorgiaPRGTS, LLC
    
    Georgia
 S-2
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Devina Olsen 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

Asset Acceptance, LLC 

 Defendant. 

Case No: 2:14-cv-14650-AC-EAS 

 

Judge: 

Honorable Avern Cohn 

Magistrate Judge: 

Honorable Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

PROPOSED ORDER 

 This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice submitted by the parties; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

 s/Avern Cohn 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: June 24, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys 

of record on this date, June 24, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 

 s/Marie Verlinde for s/Sakne Chami 

 Case Manager, (313) 234-5160 

 

Case 2:14-cv-14650-AC-EAS ECF No. 13, PageID.38 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32

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


Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies
with  the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934,  as  amended,  and  the  information  contained  in such report fairly
presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of
operations  of  the  Company.

This 25th day of March, 2004.


/s/  Robert  G.  Peck
---------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/  Harle  B.  Green
---------------------
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
# C_2011194EN.01001701.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/17

---

Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Siemens v Commission

(Case T-223/11)

2011/C 194/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Risse, R. Harbst and H. Haller, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 16 114 147 plus interest at a rate of 8 percentage points above the German base rate since 20 April 2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 16 114 147 plus interest at a rate of 8 percentage points above the German base rate since 20 April 2011; and

| — | Order the defendant to reimburse the applicant, on a full indemnity basis, for attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred due to the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to reimburse the applicant, on a full indemnity basis, for attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred due to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that under the contract concluded with the defendant, the applicant is entitled to claim cost compensation for the additional costs incurred. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that under the contract concluded with the defendant, the applicant is entitled to claim cost compensation for the additional costs incurred.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that such cost compensation should be paid under German law, applicable to the contract, more specifically under Section 313 of the German Civil Code (BGB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that such cost compensation should be paid under German law, applicable to the contract, more specifically under Section 313 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending June 10, 2006

|Filer                           | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|EAST PENN FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A5         | East Penn Financial Corporation, Emmaus, PA, to acquire up to 19.9% of Berkshire Bancorp, Inc., Wyomissing, PA. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/10/2006
|Newspaper:                      | Not available
|Federal Register:               | 07/10/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.018-3 Classification. The following types of retroreflective material are approved under this specification: ( a ) Type I—Material used on flexible surfaces and rigid surfaces, except rigid surfaces that are continuously exposed.
( b ) Type II—Weather resistant material used on continuously exposed rigid surfaces.