alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017195EN.01002601.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — CC v Parliament

(Case T-446/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates - Non-contractual liability - Offers of further evidence - Material harm - Equal treatment - Distortion of the facts - Loss of an opportunity))

(2017/C 195/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini and C. Hölzer, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV, EU:F:2016:165), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal, first, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the Council of the European Union by excluding the period from 16 February 2006 to 31 August 2007, and secondly, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the other institutions and bodies of the European Union using a different method from that which it used in relation to the Council; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 21 July 2016, CC v Parliament (F-9/12 RENV), in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal, first, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the Council of the European Union by excluding the period from 16 February 2006 to 31 August 2007, and secondly, calculated the loss of opportunity for Ms CC to be recruited as a probationary official by the other institutions and bodies of the European Union using a different method from that which it used in relation to the Council;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the action to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled in the present appeal;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

1

---
AiisivA ,7&*s 727//

Ok)

RECEIVED

VMMeUM/T OCT 26 2015

BIOF.M. 2.231 ,,,„,- .„,•••

-JfhfCmrlr &se- Jl)o. //£>2%& 4k ' //0&25?^

Z2Ase\A. two uyiT appiiccttton d$ Uabte&rpas aA//^^icW/^/'^a

4e '/M&AlAriA&>uA Ar Mams Co.) Houston TeX&S.JMress b(Wndms Danielt JtAriAciaA) jAed. lW' \%MZ} by ceAAeAmAl bfile . AhrsumA k AA. lib*? s<?Adn 2>(b)i>£4ke. &Ae ACrmmAPrcc'eAare.Also

cl leUer aJoist^ Clerk <£4k> Sad h&dfdA UN sec A\d}AAU C.Cj. U/iiU JiAnAliane d.vu$ respone.or notice. Aan^ /feJ or professloMiAnd Gomikcfi CGixHesty jxe^mAbo^ we, wick^aUo AUl a. \dr\i A.MaviJums

4c sW OffuA"W Clerk to file on /k&^t\&B}Z receiJeJ by A/r-Ar$xr^y^ CeAAieJ mad^S 1090 6601 (tfVl Wl) wlticfc Zreceivej back c* Aft. Rl, '

£0\$. Clerk- has fc/W to ddmplij Am Ae y&ds &>Se AAnAnalPAc<?Jare; KAti.lWj &edion 3£e), eorrecTme AjCw wto«g XA notkneu) ndkik^ o$kou)

Ake /<£io is Gftplu! or &A(gn &RtxU&rfleit to help me vme 4his Asrvjard.. . Aho Ufa wrote ne. A(Oy H, 30fe [eturwrn back \^AopplicAldy\ because _ AAseS not Comply ujf'ft AAcle. fl.O% secfo/7 37f)*

. £A^&*r3
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20078; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-20001 Declaration of Economic Injury]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of California dated 11/06/2023. *Incident:*
                         Smith River Complex Fire. *Incident Period:*
                         08/15/2023 and continuing.
 DATES: Issued on 11/06/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/06/2024.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Del Norte. *Contiguous Counties:* California: Humboldt, Siskiyou. Oregon: Josephine, Curry The Interest Rates are: PercentBusiness and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 200780. The States which received an EIDL Declaration are California, Oregon. 
 
 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2023-24902 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
F O R P UB LICATIO NIN W EST' S HAWAII REP O RTS O R TH E P A CIF IC REP O RTER



### NO. CAAP-18-0000902 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I ANTHONY S. BARDIN; GREG ALLEN, SR.; GREG ALLEN, JR.; T HOMAS J. BROOKS; JENNIFER S. BROOKS; MICHAEL CHANDLER; KIRBY B. GUYER; MILTON SEARLES; JOHN R. HOFF TRUST; LORNA E. HOFF TRUST; MICHELE L. KAISER; TODD SCHRIM; JOHN WARK; and SHANNON WARK, Appellants-Appellants, v. PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA # I/PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA # I, KIMO KEAWE, in is official capacity as Chairperson of the Planning

Commission, Appellees-Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 17-1-0181 JKW)
SECOND ORDER OF CORRECTION ( By: Wadsworth, J., for the court 1 / 

### ) The Opinion of the Court, filed on September 29, 2023, is hereby corrected as follows:

On page 15, after the conclusion and to the left of the judges' signature lines, insert an attorney credit section as follows: On the briefs:

Gregory W. Kugle (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert) for Appellants-Appellants Maryann G. Sasaki, Deputy County Attorney, County of Kauai, for Appellees-Appellees

1 / Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ. 

### Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000902 18-OCT-2023 08:33 AM Dkt. 128 OCORF O R P UB LICATIO NIN W EST' S HAWAII REP O RTS O R TH E P A CIF IC REP O RTER 

### On page 4, footnote 3, line 5, the closing parenthesis should be regular typeface (not bolded), so that the line appears as follows:

( Contracts ); and (2) on April 21, 2015, ACNSN assigned the Contracts to 

### On page 9, in the paragraph numbered "3," line 3, replace the "l" in the word "agglieved" with an "r" so that the line reads:

bidder, offeror, or contractor who is aggrieved in 

### On page 11, footnote 6, line 3, remove the first "S" in the acronym "ACSNSN" so that the line reads:

ACNSN. We have found none. The supreme court has observed, however, that 

### The clerk of the court is directed to take all necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 18, 2023. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SENIOR HOME CARE, INC., a Florida ) corporation, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3975 ) DONNA ISABELL, an individual, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed February 16, 2018. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Claudia R. Isom, Judge. Christopher L. DeCort and William P. Cassidy, Jr., of Johnson & Cassidy, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner. Gary L. Printy, Jr. of Printy & Printy, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
##### 



Exhibit
10.16
 SIXTH AMENDMENT
TO LOAN AGREEMENT
 Amendment September 28, 2007 Borrower Bank
  Loan Agreement
     Conditions Precedent
  Exhibit
A
 Exhibit
B




---



##### 



Amendments
 The Loans Section 1.1
 Total Capital Base Section 4.15
 Representations; No Default Unmatured Event of Default
 Reaffirmation of Pledge Agreement
 2




---



##### 



Loan
Documents
 Affirmation, Further References
 Merger and Integration, Superseding Effect
 Severability
 Successors
 Costs and Expenses
 Headings
 Counterparts
 Governing Law
 3




---



##### 



No Waiver
 
 4




---



##### 



BORROWER:
    
    WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.,an Ohio corporationBy: /s/ Edward J. McKeonPrinted Name: Edward J. McKeonIts: PresidentBy: /s/ Cynthia A. MahlPrinted Name: Cynthia A. MahlIts: Senior Vice PresidentBANK:
    
    TCF NATIONAL BANK,a national banking associationBy: /s/ Adam C. SouthardPrinted Name: Adam C. SouthardIts: Commercial Loan OfficerBy: /s/ Guy J. RauPrinted Name: Guy J. RauIts: Senior Vice President




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROMISSORY NOTE
 $3,000,000
    
    September 28, 2007
 Borrower Bank Loan Loans
   Default Rate
 LIBOR Rate Base Rate




---



##### 



Loan Agreement




---



##### 



WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.By: /s/ Edward J. McKeonTitle: PresidentandBy: /s/ Cynthia A. MahlTitle: Senior Vice President




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROMISSORY NOTE
 $1,000,000
    
    September 28, 2007
 Borrower Bank Loan Loans
   Default Rate
 LIBOR Rate Base Rate




---



##### 



Loan Agreement




---



##### 



WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.By: /s/ Edward J. McKeonTitle: PresidentandBy: /s/ Cynthia A. MahlTitle: Senior Vice President
No. 62472.

#### Ellis Silver Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 169489-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036. the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2016222EN.01000201.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

(Case C-138/16)

(2016/C 222/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger Reg. Gen. mbH (AKM)

Defendant: Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

Question referred

Are Article 3(1) or Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) and Article 11bis (1)(ii) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, as revised in Stockholm/Paris in 1967/1971, to be interpreted as meaning that a rule according to which the transmission of broadcasts by ‘communal antenna installations’ such as those of the defendant in the main proceedings

| (a) | does not constitute a new broadcast when no more than 500 participants are connected to the installation and/or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

does not constitute a new broadcast when no more than 500 participants are connected to the installation and/or

| (b) | constitutes part of the original broadcast when it involves the simultaneous, full and unaltered transmission of broadcasts of the Österreichischer Rundfunk (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) using services within the country (Austria), |
| --- | --- |

(b)

constitutes part of the original broadcast when it involves the simultaneous, full and unaltered transmission of broadcasts of the Österreichischer Rundfunk (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) using services within the country (Austria),

and these uses are also not covered by any other exclusive right of communication to the public at a distance within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, and are therefore not subject to the author’s consent and are also not subject to a fee,

is contrary to EU law or to the law of the Berne Convention as an international agreement which forms part of EU law?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

---
Exhibit 32.1


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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of GSV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  period  ending  September 30, 2003  (the  "Report"),  I,
Gilad Gat, Chief Executive Officer  and  Chief  Financial Officer of  the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2) The information contained in the  Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Gilad Gat
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David W. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Offshore, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company for the period covered by such Report.

|                        |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2003 |  | /s/ David W. SharpDavid W. Sharp
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Horizon Offshore, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Offshore,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT RAY FERGUSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID AGLER, Dr.; MURRAY YOUNG, 

Dr., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35890 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00073-EJL-CWD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Idaho state prisoner Robert Ray Ferguson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs and his state-law claim alleging 

negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35890 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ferguson’s 

deliberate indifference claim because Ferguson failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in their 

treatment of his medical conditions, including his hip pain. See id. at 1057-58 (a 

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if she or he knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a mere difference in medical 

opinion or negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ferguson’s 

negligence claim because Ferguson failed to introduce competent expert testimony

showing that defendants “negligently failed to meet the applicable standard of 

health care practice.” Ballard v. Kerr, 378 P.3d 464, 476 (Idaho 2016) (citing 

Idaho Code §§ 6-1012, 6-1013); see also Easterling v. Kendall, 367 P.3d 1214, 

1226 (Idaho 2016) (setting forth elements of medical malpractice claim under 

Idaho law and stating that “the applicable standard of care and breach of that 

standard [must] be proved by expert testimony”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including 
3 16-35890 

Ferguson’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by striking 

exhibits attached to the complaint. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 

(9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record Ferguson’s contentions regarding the 

discovery schedule and the district court’s alleged failure to consider his evidence.

Ferguson’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry 

No. 38) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7781

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus MARK EARL JONES, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-570-BR) Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 11, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Michelle T. Fuseyamore, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark Earl Jones was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment in 1990 for bank robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. Jones was released in 1998 but thereafter had his supervised release revoked and was sentenced to twenty-four months of incarceration. (J.A. 21, 23). Jones was diagnosed with schizophrenia and upon motion of the Government was committed to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2000). In 2002, Jones was conditionally released from his civil commitment under § 4246(e). Jones’ conditional release was revoked in April 2003. In December of 2003, Jones sought a hearing to again review whether he could be discharged from the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) (2000). Following a hearing on the motion, the district court found that Jones continued to meet the criteria for commitment under § 4246. Jones appeals, arguing that he has met the requirements for release from his civil commitment. We do not find that the district court clearly erred in its factual determination that Jones failed to meet the requirements for release from custody. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(e) (2000); United States v. Cox , 964 F.3d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating general review standard for factual findings under § 4246). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument- 3 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     16,565,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    34,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           16,784,000
<PP&E>                                      1,041,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (261,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             17,614,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,256,000
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 16,342,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               17,614,000
<SALES>                                       884,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              946,000
<CGS>                                         671,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 671,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,919,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,395,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,395,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,395,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)
        


</TABLE>
No. 49562.

#### Protests 60575-K, etc., of C. Pappas Co., Inc., et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.