alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013079EN.01000401.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

(Case C-491/12)

2013/C 79/07

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay

Applicant:

Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

| 2. | Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

| 3. | Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?

---
# C_2013079EN.01000301.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Sándor Nagy v Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-488/12)

2013/C 79/04

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sándor Nagy

Applicant:

Defendant: Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

| 2. | Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

| 3. | Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?

---
No. 74-5915.

#### Hamilton *v.*Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7244

PATRICK NILO GIL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JANE DOE, C.O. 1; LT. FOWLKES; SGT. WARD; CAPTAIN HITE; 

WALTON, C.O.; SGT. SHERWOOD; SGT. ROBINSON; JANE DOE, C.O. 2,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00618-RDA-JFA)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Nilo Gil, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7244 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Nilo Gil appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gil v. Doe, No. 

1:22-cv-00618-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2023). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7244 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
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
Annual Report of Datalink Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles B. Westling, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:  (1)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 result
of operations of the Company.  /s/ Charles B. WestlingCharles B. WestlingPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 26, 2009  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
Annual Report of Datalink Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory T. Barnum, Vice
President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to my knowledge:  (1)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 result
of operations of the Company.  /s/ Gregory T. BarnumGregory T. BarnumVice President of Finance and Chief Financial
  OfficerDated: March 26, 2009
# C_2012184EN.01002201.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/22

---

Action brought on 11 January 2012 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-6/12)

2012/C 184/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Dony, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the refusal to grant him an expatriation allowance.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 October 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 24 May 2011 refusing to grant him an expatriation allowance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 October 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 24 May 2011 refusing to grant him an expatriation allowance.

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

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2016364EN.01004301.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/43

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Bouvret and Others v Commission

(Case F-112/12) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under national pension schemes - Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))

(2016/C 364/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Florence Bouvret (Brussels, Belgium), Beata Stepien (Brussels, Belgium) and Daniel Wille (Mouscron, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, next by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and last by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and last by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions on the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which apply the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 379 of 08/12/2012, p. 35.

---
#### D. A. Collins Construction Co., Inc., Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 43825.)

Court of Claims,

March 23, 1966.

*McClung, Peters*<fi *Simon (Homer Peters*and *Thomas Burke*of counsel), for claimant. *Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Leonard Rubin*and *Lawrence De Lucia*of counsel), for defendant.

Alexander Del Giorno, J.

The claim herein is based upon a breach of contract. The claimant has moved for an order directing the State of New York to answer certain interrogatories in accordance with CPLR 3130-3134. The State objects to the claimant’s motion on the grounds that it is not a *“*party ” bound to answer interrogatories under CPLR 3134 when it is a defendant in the Court of Claims. The State contends that CPLR 3134 (subd. [a]) limits those who must answer interrogatories to individuals, corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, none of which includes the State. In its brief, the State further points out that the interrogatories provision of the CPLR was enacted by chapter 422 of the Laws of 1963, after a date subsequent to the adoption of the CPLR by the Legislature.

We find the contentions of the State to be without merit. Interrogatories are included in disclosure devices (CPLR 3102, subd. [a]). Subdivision (f) of the same section makes disclosure available in the Court of Claims by order of such court.

The argumentation advanced herein by the State was specifically overruled in *Di Santo*v. *State of New York*(22 A D 2d 289) where the Appellate Division, in affirming this court *736(opinion below 41 Misc 2d 601), stated that the only limitation on disclosure in the Court of Claims was that it must be obtained by order of the court, and that the CPLR is not intended to limit, but to liberalize, the practice in this court. (See, also, *Peters*v. *State,*41 Misc 2d 980, affd. 22 A D 2d 764.)

The State has objected to the requirement that it furnish copies of certain documents. The order to be entered herein shall provide that the State either furnish true and correct copies of the documents or records mentioned in paragraphs Nos. 5, 8,11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, or afford the claimant reasonable opportunity to examine and copy such documents (CPLR 3131).

The State also objects to interrogatories Nos. 9 and 28 in that they require an answer as to whether the State will contend certain matters. We find that such objection is not well taken. The answers to these questions might be expected “ to help the plaintiff know what proofs were required: it might save him much labor and expense in producing proofs for which there would be no actual need. In other words, the interrogatory, if answered, might refine the actual issue of fact.” *(Taylor*v. *Sound Steamship Lines,*100 F. Supp. 388, 389; see, also, *McElroy*v. *United Air Lines,*21 F. R. D. 100.) Motion granted.
Form of Grant Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6.5 
 

 
 MEMORANDUM 
  

									
	To:	  	[Name]	  	Date:	  	[date of award]	  	

 We are extremely pleased to inform you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. (“Energy Transfer”) has granted you an Award representing [                    ] common units under the
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. Amended and Restated 2004 Unit Award Plan (the “Unit Award Plan”). This Award is subject to vesting over five (5) years, with 20% of this Award to be vested upon each anniversary of this Award
subject to your continued employment with Energy Transfer as of each such anniversary date. Any portion of this Award that does not vest will be forfeited. Common units will be issued to you upon vesting of the Award as described below. You will be
entitled to receive regular quarterly cash distributions on units issued to you upon vesting, with such distributions to be made at the same times and in the same amounts as other outstanding common units. This Award is subject to the terms and
conditions of the Unit Award Plan. 
 Please note that like any compensation arrangement, Awards under the Unit Award Plan are to be kept confidential unless
required by SEC disclosure regulations. 
 Thanks for your continuing contributions to our efforts. It is a pleasure for us to be associated with you in
building an even greater company. Enclosed are two originals for your execution. Please retain one for your file and forward the other to Energy Transfer Partners, 3738 Oak Lawn Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75219, Attention: Thomas P. Mason. 
 Accepted: 
  

											
	  
	 		 		 	  

	[Name]	 		 		 		 	 Kelcy Warren
 CHAIRMAN
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

		 		 		 		 	BY:	 	 ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS G.P., L.P.,
 GENERAL PARTNER

		 		 		 		 	BY:	 	 ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.L.C.,
 GENERAL PARTNER

						
	Date:	 	  
	 		 		 	Date:	 	  

					
		 		 		 		 	  
  

		 		 		 		 	 Brian J. Jennings
 CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

		 		 		 		 	BY:	 	 ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS G.P., L.P.,
 GENERAL PARTNER

		 		 		 		 	BY:	 	 ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.L.C.,
 GENERAL PARTNER

						
		 		 		 		 	Date:
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 The Quantum Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Noel J. Guillama, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and,



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: June 22, 2009



| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Noel J. Guillama                 
| | Noel J. Guillama                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer



A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the smaller reporting company specifically incorporates it by reference.
No. 55561.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 169169-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2016048EN.01008901.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/89

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case F-82/12) (1)

1

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - New 2007 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - Refusal of promotion - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 048/99)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Adjudication Panel’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the result of the second overall appraisal of his performance for 2007.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 15 February 2012; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 15 February 2012;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the new staff report for 2007; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the new staff report for 2007;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 18.

1

---
Order entered November 20, 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00604

- CR

ALAN LEE WASHINGTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 57841

- R



### O RDER

Pending is appellant Alan Lee Washington’s “ Petition for Complete Copy of Trial

Transcripts.” The motion is DENIED.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
No. 45261.

#### Protest 23421-K of Hin Yuen Hong (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of . sliced wai san the same as that the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(C. D. 372). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

July 22 , 2008

Pacific Rim Mining Corp. #410  625 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V7L 1J1

|Dear  Sirs/Mesdames:
|--------------------
|                    
|Re:                 
|                    

The undersigned hereby consents to being named in the Annual
Information Form dated July 18, 2008 (AIF), Management Discussion and Analysis
dated July 18, 2008 (the MD&A), and the Form 40-F for the year ended April
30, 2008 (the Form 40-F).

I confirm that I have read the AIF, the MD&A and the Form
40-F and have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the
information contained therein or that the written disclosure contains any
misrepresentation, confirm that the information contained therein accurately
represents the information that supports the written disclosure and confirm that
such matters are within my knowledge as a result of the services performed by
me.

|Sincerely,
|----------

William Gehlen

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Julianne M. Biagini, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Endwave Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: November 8, 2004 /s/ JULIANNE M. BIAGINI   Julianne M. Biagini Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial andAccounting Officer)