alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-4, PageID.358 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-4, PageID.359 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-4, PageID.360 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-4, PageID.361 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-4, PageID.362 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 5
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 Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on April 19, 2007, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

## Agenda

### Public Session

1. Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) Review and Suspense dates.

2. Composite Working Group Update.

3. Emerging Technologies for Commerce Review.

### Closed Session

4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

                    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.*

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 15, 2007, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate the implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

Dated: March 26, 2007.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-1580 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
# C_2014194EN.01002001.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Euris Consult v Parliament

(Case T-637/11) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of translation services into Maltese - Rules relating to the procedure for the submission of tenders - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Failure to comply with the rules on submission designed to ensure the confidentiality of the contents of tenders before opening - Plea of inapplicability - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 143 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002))

2014/C 194/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Malta) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and F. Poilvache, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 18 October 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the interinstitutional call for tenders MT/2011/EU, concerning translation services into Maltese

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Euris Consult Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Euris Consult Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                  MORRISON FRESH COOKING, INC.
                      SALARY DEFERRAL PLAN

      THIS  FIRST AMENDMENT is made on this 31st day of December,
1996, by MORRISON FRESH COOKING, INC. (the "Primary Sponsor"),  a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Georgia.

                      W I T N E S S E T H:

      WHEREAS,  the Primary Sponsor maintains the Morrison  Fresh
Cooking,  Inc.  Salary  Deferral Plan  (the  "Plan"),  which  was
established by indenture dated March 7, 1996;

      WHEREAS,  Ruby Tuesday, Inc. is the successor  to  Morrison
Restaurants Inc. which effected that certain plan of distribution
involving  the  distribution to its stockholders of  all  of  the
outstanding  shares  of common stock, respectively,  of  Morrison
Fresh   Cooking,  Inc.  and  Morrison  Health  Care,  Inc.   (the
"Distributions"); and

      WHEREAS,  the  Primary Sponsor desires to  amend  the  Plan
primarily  to  clarify  how the Distributions  will  affect  Plan
participation by certain former employees of Morrison Restaurants
Inc.  who  did  not continue in the employment of Morrison  Fresh
Cooking, Inc. immediately following the Distributions;

      NOW,  THEREFORE,  the  Plan  is hereby  amended,  effective
immediately, as follows:

1.   By adding a new Section 1.16A, as follows:

           "1.16A   `Distributions' means  the  distributions  by
     Morrison Restaurants Inc. to its stockholders of all of  the
     outstanding   shares  of  common  stock,  respectively,   of
     Morrison Fresh Cooking, Inc. and Morrison Health Care, Inc."

2.   By adding a new Section 1.28A, as follows:

          "1.28A  `Former Morrison Employee' means an employee of
     Morrison Restaurants Inc. at any time prior to the effective
     date of the Distributions who did not continue in the employ
     of  Morrison  Fresh  Cooking,  Inc.  immediately  after  the
     Distributions,  but  who  subsequently  has  been  hired  by
     Morrison Fresh Cooking, Inc."

3.   By  adding  a  new  final clause to the  final  sentence  of
     Section 1.54, as follows:

     ";  provided,  however, with respect to any Former  Morrison
     Employee, any Year of Service with Morrison Restaurants Inc.
     or  any  of  its  affiliates completed on or  prior  to  the
     effective date of the Distributions shall be disregarded."

     Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain
in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.

      IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, the Primary Sponsor has  caused  this
First Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above
written.


                              MORRISON FRESH COOKING, INC.



                              By:  /s/ Ronnie L. Tatum
                                     Ronnie L. Tatum
                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:



/s/ Mitchell S. Block
 Mitchell S. Block
Title:  Secretary

     [CORPORATE SEAL]
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Mike L. Wilhelms, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Triad FinancialCorporation, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triad Financial Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the company’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.              /s/ Mike L. Wilhelms   Mike L. Wilhelms   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   Dated: November 13, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1496]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Code Committee Meeting

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the forthcoming public meeting of the 
Code Committee established by Article 146(a), Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, 10 U.S.C. 946(a), to be held at the Courthouse of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20442-0001, at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2007. The 
agenda for this meeting will include consideration of proposed changes 
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-
Martial, United States, and other matters relating to the operation of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice throughout the Armed Forces.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William A. DeCicco, Clerk of Court, 
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20442-0001, telephone (202) 761-1448.

    Dated: March 20, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DOD.
[FR Doc. 07-1496 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
§ 167.43-1 Application. ( a ) Provisions of this subpart shall apply to all vessels inspected and certificated in accordance with this subchapter.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. JULIUS GREGORY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted October 13, 1928

Decided March 7, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchabd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the plaintiff in error, *Robert Newton Crane..*

Eor the defendant in error, *Abe J. David,*prosecutor of the pleas, and *Walter C. Tenney,*assistant prosecutor of the pleas.

*239Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter in the Union County Quarter Sessions Court, and after sentence, he sued out this writ of error.

At the trial the testimony of witnesses for the state tended to show that the defendant drove his automobile, in which the decedent was sitting with him, through South avenue in the city of Plainfield at five p. m. on March 14th, 1928: that he was going very fast, some witnesses saying fifty miles an hour and others that he was going thirty miles an hour faster than other cars going in the same direction; that as he approached the corner of Berckman street, an intersecting street, and applied the brake, the car swerved, upset and rolled over twice, causing the death of the other occupant of the car who was hurled out against a fire plug.

Plaintiff in error argues that the trial judge erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the state’s case, upon the ground that there was no evidence of gross negligence. But we think that the question whether or not death resulted from gross negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

It is next argued that the judgment should be reversed because the trial judge overruled a question put by defendant’s counsel to a witness produced by him as follows: “Do you know what his (defendant’s) reputation is in the city of Plain-field for being a careful automobile driver?” Certainly in the circumstances the exclusion of that question was not prejudicial to the defendant, for the court recognized the right of the defendant to prove his reputation as a peaceable, orderly and law-abiding citizen and permitted him to do so. Questions as to defendant’s reputation as a peaceable, orderly and law-abiding citizen were twice put to the witness by defendant’s counsel and were twice answered that it was “very good,” and this we think in effect was a sufficient answer to the excluded question.

It is next argued that the court below erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the entire case, for the reason indicated in the like motion at the end of the *240state’s case. We think it quite plain that the motion was properly denied.

Lastly, it is argued that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. To this it is a sufficient answer to say that the contention is without merit in our opinion.

The judgment will be affirmed.
§ 185.602 Hull markings. ( a ) Each vessel must be marked as required by part 67, subpart I, of this chapter.
( b ) Paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section apply to each vessel that does not demonstrate compliance in accordance with § 178.310(c) of this chapter.
( c ) Each vessel must— ( 1 ) Have permanent draft marks at each end of the vessel; or
( 2 ) Have permanent loading marks placed on each side of the vessel forward and aft to indicate the maximum allowable trim and amidships to indicate the maximum allowable draft.
( d ) A loading mark required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be a horizontal line of at least 205 millimeters (8 inches) in length and 25 millimeters (1 inch) in height, with its upper edge passing through the point of maximum draft. The loading mark must be painted in a contrasting color to the sideshell paint.
( e ) On a vessel that has a load line, the amidships marks required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be those required by the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966.
( f ) In cases where draft marks are obscured due to operational constraints or by protrusions, the vessel must be fitted with a reliable draft indicating system from which the bow and stern drafts can be determined.
( g ) On a vessel on which the number of passengers permitted on upper decks is limited by stability criteria, as indicated by the vessel's stability letter, the maximum number of passengers allowed on an upper deck must be indicated by a durable marking of at least 25 millimeters (1 inch) numbers and letters at the entranceway to that deck.
[CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78092, Dec. 14, 2010]
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 Acquisition, Corp.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Switzerland, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Italy, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Spain, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Portugal, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRG International, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRG USA, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Scandinavia, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Holdings, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Puerto Rico, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Chile, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Europe, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaPRGX Brasil, LLC
    
    GeorgiaPRGX
India Private Limited
    
    IndiaPRGX Holdings Mexico, S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoPRGX Servicios Mexico S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoPRGX de Mexico S de RL de CV
    
    MexicoPRGX 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 KingdomEtesius Limited
    
    United KingdomPRGX Canada Corp.
    
    Canada




---



##### 



Company
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationPRG-Schultz
Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyPRGX Nederland B.V.
    
    NetherlandsPRG-Schultz Italia SRL
    
    ItalyPRG-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
# C_2011282EN.01002401.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission

(Case T-296/11 R)

(Interim relief - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 282/50

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Urraca Caviedes and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 30 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 — Cement and related products)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is rejected.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2014009EN.01002801.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/28

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 October 2013 — Loukakis and Others v Parliament

(Case F-82/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Parliament Staff Committee - Elections - Irregularities in the electoral process)

2014/C 9/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Nicolaos Loukakis and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, and, initially, D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and, subsequently, A. Duron, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners: Solidarité pour les agents et fonctionnaires européens, Syndicat general du personnel des organismes européens, Fédération de la function publique européenne and Pluralist (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

Interveners:

Re:

Re:

Application for a declaration that the elections to the Staff Committee of the Parliament, and the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process, are unlawful

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the implied decision of the European Parliament of 20 May 2011 not to censure the irregularities affecting the Staff Committee elections of November 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the implied decision of the European Parliament of 20 May 2011 not to censure the irregularities affecting the Staff Committee elections of November 2010;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicants;

| 4. | Orders the trade union organisations Solidarité pour les agents et fonctionnaires européens, Syndicat general du personnel des organismes européens, Fédération de la function publique européenne, on the one hand, and the trade union organisation Pluralist, on the other, to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the trade union organisations Solidarité pour les agents et fonctionnaires européens, Syndicat general du personnel des organismes européens, Fédération de la function publique européenne, on the one hand, and the trade union organisation Pluralist, on the other, to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 41.

1

---