alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52007DC0684 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007DC0684

**Communication from the Commission to the Council on the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Communities {SEC(2007) 1466} /* COM/2007/0684 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 6.11.2007

COM(2007) 684 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

on the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Communities {SEC(2007) 1466}

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

on the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Communities

Pursuant to Article 83a of the Staff Regulations, each year the Commission shall present to the Council an updated version of the actuarial assessment of the pension scheme, in accordance with Article 1(2) of Annex XII. Where it is shown that there is a gap of at least 0.25 points between the rate of contribution currently applied and the rate required to maintain actuarial balance, the Council shall consider whether the rate should be adapted.

Eurostat has carried out a study of the scheme in accordance with Article 13 of Annex XII to the Staff Regulations which sets the rate of contribution required to maintain actuarial balance at 10.3%. Rate of contribution in force is 10.25. Therefore, the gap is of 0.05 and is below the threshold indicated in the Article 83a.

Accordingly, the Commission will not present, for this year, a proposal adjusting the rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other servants of the European Communities.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3919 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A1 97 1 . KEVI N PUCKETT v . THE STATE.

Kev i n Pu ck et t was co n vi ct ed o f s ev eral o ffen s es , in cl ud i ng m urd er. Fo l l o wi n g

t h e d en i al o f h i s m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al
, Pu ck et t a p p e a l e d t o t h i s Co urt

. Un d er o u r Co n s t i t u t i o n , h o w ev er, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap pel l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o ver “ [a] l l cas es i n wh i ch a s en ten ce o f d eat h was i m p o s ed o r co u l d b e im

po s ed .” See Ga. Co n s t

. o f
1 9 8 3
, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al ty o f d eat h can b e i m p o sed fo r t h e cri m e o f m

u rd er, ju ri sd i ct io n i s p ro p er i n t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

. See OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -3 0 (b ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 2 9 0 Ga. 5 6 3
, 57 2 (7 2 2 SE2 d 7 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (Hu n s t ei n , C. J
.,

co n cu rri n g ); s ee al so S ta t e v. Th o r n t o n , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 2 4
, 5 24 (1 ) (3 22 SE2 d 7 11 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (d i rect i n g t h is Co u rt t o t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n wh i ch ei t h er a sen t en ce o f deat h o r o f l i fe
i m p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m p o s ed u p o n co n v i ct io n o f m urd er”). Acco rd i n g l y , Pu ck et t’ s ap peal i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 28, 2017

06/28/2017
No. 52322.

petitions 6535-R and 6542-R (Baltimore).

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petitions were dismissed.
Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM   Document 89    Filed 02/09/06   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM   Document 89    Filed 02/09/06   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM   Document 89    Filed 02/09/06   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM   Document 89    Filed 02/09/06   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM   Document 89    Filed 02/09/06   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM   Document 89    Filed 02/09/06   Page 6 of 6

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T18:37:14-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's financial statements contained in the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000

<S>                                     <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-3-2001          FEB-3-2001
<PERIOD-END>                             OCT-28-2000         OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                             0               5,355
<SECURITIES>                                       0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0              13,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                        0              43,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0              68,618
<PP&E>                                             0              29,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0               9,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     0              88,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0              30,641
<BONDS>                                            0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                        0                   0
<COMMON>                                           0                 190
<OTHER-SE>                                         0              21,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       0              88,453
<SALES>                                       64,791             193,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              64,936             194,063
<CGS>                                         43,983             128,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 43,983             128,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              43,106              92,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               702               1,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (22,855)            (28,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (22,855)            (28,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0                   0
<CHANGES>                                          0               (294)
<NET-INCOME>                                (22,855)            (28,313)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (1.23)              (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (1.23)              (1.53)


</TABLE>
#### First Monroe, Inc., Respondent, v Regency Manor Associates, L.P., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 379]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment in its action for breach of contract. The letter agreement between the parties provided that defendant was liable to pay plaintiff, a loan broker, a placement fee that would be earned and due "upon delivery to [defendant] of a mortgage loan commitment having the terms indicated or any other terms which you accept.” It is undisputed that such a commitment was furnished. Defendant’s contention that the contract was modified to provide that the placement fee was payable only if the loan closed is lacking in merit. Defendant’s attempted unilateral change of the payment provision failed as a binding modification or novation because there was no acceptance, meeting of the minds and, most importantly, no consideration. Plaintiff had already fully performed *(see, Holt v Feigenbaum,*52 NY2d 291, 299). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HENRY WILLIAMS, Jr., Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

15 USCMA 65, 35 CMR 37

*66No. 17,560

October 2, 1964

*Lieutenant Colonel John R. DeBarr,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Sevier,*USMC, and *Lieutenant William H. M. Morton,*USNR.

*Major J. M. Detrio,*USMCR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Captain James A. Potter,*USN.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Among other offenses, the accused pleaded guilty before a special court-martial at Camp Sukiran, Okinawa, to a charge of larceny of two suits. This finding was subsequently reduced to wrongful appropriation by a Navy board of review and it is the basis upon which the board acted that occupies our attention herein.

In his appeal before the board, appellate defense counsel submitted two unsworn letters, one by defense counsel and one by the accused, in support of his assignment that the accused’s plea of guilty to the charge of larceny was improvidently entered. He urged the board to consider the correspondence in lieu of more formal affidavits in the interest of speedy disposition of the case.

The board of review expressly held that the letters were not properly before it, and declined to consider them in connection with the claim of improvident plea. However, the board decided “for the purpose of this review” to give “full credence and effect to the letters with regard to the question of adequacy of representation by counsel.” The board concluded that the nonlawyer counsel may have misadvised accused as to the larceny charge, but was competent as to all other offenses. Thus, as previously noted, it reduced the larceny finding to wrongful appropriation, as urged by appellate defense counsel.

The Government contends the letters are not fit matter for consideration by this Court, as they are outside the record. Cf. United States v Killgore, 8 USCMA 683, 25 CMR 137; United States v Henn, 13 USCMA 124, 32 CMR 124. We need not reach that argument, for the fact is that the board of review did consider the letters, although not for. the purpose urged by counsel.

In United States v Henn, supra, the appellant initially presented his claim of improvidence of plea in correspondence with appellate defense counsel. Subsequently, affidavits from accused and trial defense counsel were filed with the board of review. Based upon the material presented, the board ordered an investigation. We believe this case to be sufficiently similar to *Henn*to warrant the same action by the board.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review as to the issue of wrongful appropriation is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board shall reconsider its action in light of this opinion.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Timothy G. Healy,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) [Paragraph omitted inaccordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release No. 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 13, 2008

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Timothy G.  Healy     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   | Timothy G. Healy               |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   |   | (principal executive  officer) |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, S.Jeffrey Johnson, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CanoPetroleum, Inc.;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)          designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)          any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
| February 9, 2007              |   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                          |   |   |
| /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson        |   |   |
| S. Jeffrey Johnson            |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   |   |

 

----
Before the Third Division,

March 1, 1950

No. 54077.

#### Frank Partridge, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 54266-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 53581.

protest 147920-K (New York).

#### British West Indies Co. *v.*United States,

*177Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLYDE TERRY and ANNE TERRY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVELERS INSURANCE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

CLYDE TERRY and ANNE TERRY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENNEL PARK, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

No. 2:04-cv-2314-MCE-GGH

RELATED CASE ORDER

No. 2:06-cv-1004-WBS-GGH

Examination of the above-entitled civil actions reveals that

these actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-

123(a) (E.D. Cal. 1997). 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02314-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The actions involve many of the same defendants and are based on

the same or similar claims, the same property transaction or

event, similar questions of fact and the same questions of law,

and would therefore entail a substantial duplication of labor if

heard by different judges. Accordingly, the assignment of the

matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial

savings of judicial effort and is also likely to be convenient

for the parties. 

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under

Local Rule 83-123 merely has the result that both actions are

assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the action is

effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related

cases are generally assigned to the district judge and magistrate

judge to whom the first filed action was assigned. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action denominated 2:06-cv1004-WBS-GGH, CLYDE TERRY and ANNE TERRY v. KENNEL PARK, INC., ET

AL. is reassigned to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. and Gregory

G. Hollows for all further proceedings, and any dates currently

set in this reassigned case only is hereby VACATED. The parties

are referred to the attached Order Requiring Joint Status Report. 

Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case

shall be shown as 2:06-cv-1004-MCE-GGH.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02314-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make

appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to

compensate for this reassignment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02314-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 65525.

#### J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/19047, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass pole rings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kroder Reubel Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 274, C.D. 2186), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.