alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012138EN.01003502.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/35

---

Action brought on 17th February 2012 — ZZ v Commission and CEPOL

(Case F-22/12)

(2012/C 138/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European Police College

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s demand to be granted the dependent child and education allowances for his wife's three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines.

Form of order sought

| — | The annulment of the implicit decision of 25th March 2011 and of the explicit decision adopted by PMO on 11th July 2011, confirmed by the decision of 9th November 2011 rejecting the complaint, insofar as they reject the request of the applicant to be granted the dependent child and education allowances for his wife's three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines; |
| --- | --- |

—

The annulment of the implicit decision of 25th March 2011 and of the explicit decision adopted by PMO on 11th July 2011, confirmed by the decision of 9th November 2011 rejecting the complaint, insofar as they reject the request of the applicant to be granted the dependent child and education allowances for his wife's three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines;

| — | as a consequence, the recognition of the applicant's entitlement to the said allowances; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, the recognition of the applicant's entitlement to the said allowances;

| — | the compensation of the applicant's material prejudice consisting of retroactive payment of the dependent child and education allowances since 1st April 2009, provisionally evaluated at 33 673,31 euros, with late interest at the European Central Bank key rate plus two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

the compensation of the applicant's material prejudice consisting of retroactive payment of the dependent child and education allowances since 1st April 2009, provisionally evaluated at 33 673,31 euros, with late interest at the European Central Bank key rate plus two percentage points;

| — | the compensation of the applicant's moral prejudice evaluated at 20 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

the compensation of the applicant's moral prejudice evaluated at 20 000 euros;

| — | the order for the defending parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the order for the defending parties to pay the costs.

---
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/diseaseandconditions/vaccination/get-picture-childhood-immunization.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/diseaseandconditions/vaccination/get-picture-childhood-immunization.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Keewatin Windpower Corp. - Exhibit 10.3






 

March 27, 2007

Sky Harvest Windpower Corp.

  617 – 666 Burrard Street

  Vancouver, British Columbia

  Canada, V6C 3P6

Dear Sirs:

	RE: 	Acquisition of Sky Harvest Windpower
      Corp. ("Sky Harvest") 
	  	by Keewatin Windpower Corp.
      (“Keewatin”) 


          WHEREAS
Sky Harvest holds the rights to construct a wind power facility on approximately
8,500 acres of land located in southwestern Saskatchewan. Sky Harvest has
completed a wind resource assessment on the property that demonstrates that the
potential wind resource greatly exceeds the minimum capacity factor necessary to
justify the planning and construction of a 150 megawatt wind power project. The
assessment was completed by Phoenix Engineering Inc. of Calgary, Alberta.

          AND
WHEREAS Golder Associates Ltd, also of Calgary, is now in the process of
completing the necessary environmental assessment and permitting of the
property.

          AND
WHEREAS Sky Harvest has also commenced initial discussions regarding the
potential sale of electricity that would be generated by a wind power
facility.

          AND
WHEREAS Keewatin wishes to acquire all of the issued and outstanding share
capital of Sky Harvest on the proposed terms and conditions, as set out
herein.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and for other good and
valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

	1. 	
      In order to acquire a 100% interest in Sky Harvest,
      Keewatin agrees to issue a total of 17,343,516 restricted shares of common
      stock to the shareholders of Sky Harvest, equating to 1.5 shares of common
      stock in the capital of Keewatin for every currently issued common share
      of Sky Harvest.

	 	 	 
	2. 	
      The acquisition will be subject to the
  following:

	 	 	 
		(a) 	
      Sky Harvest completing an audit of its financial
      statements;

	 	 	 
		(b) 	
      Keewatin changing its name to "Sky Harvest Windpower
      Corp."; and



409 Granville Street, Suite 603, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6C
1T2






		
      (c) 
	 Shareholders of both companies approving the
      acquisition agreement.
	 	 
	3. 	
      As the directors of Keewatin are also directors and
      principal shareholders of Sky Harvest, they will abstain from voting their
      shares in respect of the transaction.



          IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date
first above written.



409 Granville Street, Suite 603, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6C
1T2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# New campaign promotes employee safety as priority

By Dianne Ryder

All-season safety information is available on the DLA Safety eWorkplace page. This link requires a DLA Common Access Card to view.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

safety
exv10w35



 




Exhibit 10.35



AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of
November 20, 2007, by and between Mesa Air Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and
Jonathan G. Ornstein (“Executive”).



RECITALS



     The Company and Executive are parties to an employment agreement dated as of March 31, 2004
(the “Original Employment Agreement”). The parties have agreed to enter into this Amendment to the
Original Employment Agreement.



AGREEMENT



          1.     Section 1.3 of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting March 30,
2009 and inserting in its place March 30, 2012.



          2.     Section 4.5(f) of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting March 30,
2009 and inserting it is place March 30, 2012.



          3.     Except as otherwise provided herein, all other terms of the Original Employment Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:



MESA AIR GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Title: 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE:

 	 
	 	/s/ Jonathan G. Ornstein
 	 
	 	Jonathan G. Ornstein
[No. 14418.

Department One.

April 25, 1918.]

#### W. J. Easley *et al., Respondents,*v. Henry D. Elmer *et al., Appellants.*
      *1*

Appeal—Record—Exhibits—Review. Error cannot be predicated upon insufficiency of tbe evidence to sustain tbe verdict, where neither the instructions nor numerous exhibits introduced in evidence are made a part of the record on appeal.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pend Oreille county, Jackson, J., entered December 29, 1916, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action on contract.

Affirmed.

*M. F. Ryan,*for appellants.

Reported in 172 Pac. 575.

Webster, J.

Plaintiff W. J. Easley, in his own right and as guardian *ad litem*for the minor respondents. *409brought this action to recover the reasonable value of work and labor performed for the defendants at their special instance and request. For answer, the defendants alleged that the work for which recovery was sought had been performed under an express contract, by the terms of which certain work was to be done for the agreed sum of $225, and that, without fault on their part, the plaintiffs had abandoned the contract before the completion of the work. By way of counterclaim, it was alleged that the plaintiff W. J. Easley was indebted to defendants for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered in the sum of $155.27. In the reply the plaintiffs denied the express contract pleaded in the answer, and alleged payment in full of the account set up as a counterclaim. The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $240.75. From the judgment entered upon the verdict, the defendants appeal, assigning as error the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the recovery.

The instructions of the trial court are not made a part of the record on this appeal. Numerous exhibits were introduced during the progress of the trial which, it may be inferred from the testimony, had important bearing upon the issues. These exhibits are not before us, neither are their contents copied into the record.

Under such circumstances it is impossible for this court to determine what issues were submitted to the jury or what was considered by it in arriving at the verdict. There is, however, competent evidence to sustain a recovery in the amount awarded. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., Fullertok, Maik, and Parker, JJ., concur.
Before the Third Division,

October 28, 1942

No. 47678.

#### Protest 74998-K of Balfour, Guthrie & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 3558 was sustained.
**S,,\~IOD sr~r**  !;'

......**~<l'.** S -- ""u UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

# ~~~W

"'1- ., REGION IX

r'i( PR01,1f;..C,'\.fJ 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 March 11, 2010 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Mary D. Nichols, Chairman California AirResources Board 1001 I Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 RE: Exceptional event requests regarding exceedances ofthe PM25 NAAQS in Shasta County, CA and Plumas County, CA Dear Ms. Nichols: This letter responds to ARB's submittal regarding the July 8, 2007 PM25 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) exceedance at the Portola monitor in Plumas County, and ARB's submittal regarding PM2 .5exceedances in Plumas and Shasta Counties onJune 23, June 26, July 11, July 19, and July 23, 2008. ARB has requested that EPA exclude these exceedances from consideration when making decisions related to Shasta County's and Plumas County's attainment status. Ourresponse to ARB'srequest is governed by the "Treatment ofData Influenced by Exceptional Events" rule (72 FR 13560, March 22, 2007). After careful consideration ofthe information provided, we are concurring with ARB'srequest to flag these exceedances as exceptional events. The basis for our decision is set forth in the enclosed document. Ifyou have any questions orwish to discuss this matter further, please have your staff contact DeborahJordan, Director ofthe Air Division at (415) 947-8715. Sincerely,

J¥ed Blumenfcv

egional Administrator

Printed on Recycled PaperEnclosures

cc: James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board Gretchen Bennitt, Northern SierraAir Quality Management District Russ Mull, Shasta County Air Quality Management District Christa Stewart, Maidu Indians SophiaVillaruel, Pitt River Indians
33971.

#### BROUGHTON v. WEST et al.

Bowles, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment granting appellees’ motion for a directed verdict in an equitable proceeding for fraud and to clear title to land.

Appellant filed a complaint in equity alleging that forty years before the filing of his lawsuit he purchased a certain tract of land in Fulton County and built a house thereon. He further alleged that appellees sought to deprive appellant of this property, and to this end, purchased a tax deed on the property; that appellant tendered cash in satisfaction of the tax deed under the right of redemption, which tender was refused; and that the tax deed was invalid for the further reason that notice was not properly given and the knock-down sale was irregular. Appellant asked that he be declared the sole owner of the property and for money damáges.

Appellees answered, denying all essential allegations of the complaint.

The case came on for trial. There was no dispute that appellant’s right to redeem the property ended on January 12, 1977. After hearing all of the evidence, the *821trial judge directed a verdict, finding that no tender of redemption money had been made on or before January 12, 1977.

Argued September 18, 1978

Decided January 5, 1979.

*Irwin M. Levine, Leigh R. Bodner,*for appellant.

*Marvin P. Nodvin,*for appellees.

On appeal, appellant enumerates four errors. We affirm.

1. The threshold issue before the trial court was whether tender had been made. In reviewing the undisputed evidence presented to us on appeal, we find that no tender was made, nor was tender waived by appellees. The verdict for appellees was demanded under the facts of this case.

2-4. Code Ann. § 92-8314 provides: "After notice to foreclose the right of redemption, as hereinabove required and provided for, shall have been given, no suit at law, or bill in equity, shall be filed, allowed, sanctioned or maintained for the purpose of setting aside, canceling, or in anywise invalidating the tax deed referred to in such notice, or the title conveyed by said tax deed, unless and until the plaintiff in said suit or bill in equity shall pay, or legally tender, to the grantee in said deed, or the heirs, successors or assigns of said grantee, as the case may be, the full amount of the redemption price for said property, as hereinabove fixed and determined; unless it shall clearly appear that the tax or special assessment for the collection of which the execution under or in obedience to which said sale was held was not due at the time of said sale, or that service or notice was not given as required herein.”

Appellant did not claim that he was not given notice of the right to redeem. Therefore, as there was no showing of tender of the redemption money, it was not error for the trial court to sustain appellees’ objections to the admission of appellant’s evidence tending to show fraud by appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Joseph C. Giaimo, Respondent, *v.*Alfred J. Phillips, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 16, 1966.

*Morris B. Kurlander*for appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

The stipulation of settlement here involved terminated the action and may not be set aside upon a claim of fraud or overreaching except by way of plenary suit *(Yonkers Fur Dressing Co.*v. *Royal Ins. Co.,*247 N. Y. 435; *Matter of Hecht,*24 A D 2d 1001). Accordingly, the court no longer has power to grant summary relief by motion and a plenary action is necessary for enforcement of or relief from the terms of the stipulation (Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 2104.06).

The order granting plaintiff’s motion to vacate stipulation of settlement and for related relief should be reversed, without costs, and motion denied without prejudice to the institution of a plenary action, if plaintiff be so advised.

The order denying defendant’s motion to direct plaintiff to execute settlement papers should be modified, by providing that such denial is without prejudice; as so modified, order affirmed without costs.

Hargett, Brenner and -Olliffe, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Order modified, etc.
#### Elizabeth Mandelino, Plaintiff, *v.*Samuel Levy et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

January 27, 1966.

*Francis X. McCormack (William T. Finnerty*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Hauptman & Hauptman*for S.‘ Litwak Construction Corp., defendant.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Plaintiff moves to compel S. Litwak

Construction Corp., the bidder at the foreclosure sale, to complete its purchase. The bidder and its assignee of the bid, Natanya Lumber *&*Construction Corp., insist that the sale be *135free of the lien of a judgment which had been procured against the S. Litwak 'Construction Corp. and the personal defendant Samuel Levy, president of the Natanya Lumber and Construction Corp., prior to the foreclosure sale.

Apparently plaintiff failed to include the judgment creditor as a party defendant in the foreclosure suit. Consequently, the Litwak Corp. and its assignee contend that though they were aware of the outstanding subordinate judgment against it and the assignee’s officer, they are entitled, nonetheless, to receive from the Referee in foreclosure a deed which will convey a good and marketable title, and that the failure of the plaintiff to cut off the lien of the judgment creditor renders the title unmarketable.

It is established law that a subordinate judgment creditor is a necessary party in an action to foreclose a mortgage (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 1311, subd. 3) and, in the event that such judgment creditor is not made a party, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale is entitled to be relieved from his purchase *(Verdin*v. *Slocum,*71 N. Y. 345; *Morris*v. *Wheeler,*45 N. Y. 708; *Lyon*v. *Lyon,*67 N. Y. 250). It should not be forgotten, however, that a foreclosure action is equitable in its nature and that equity principles apply. The court may direct its officers to act in accordance with fairness and equity *(Lane*v. *Chantilly Corp.,*251 N. Y. 435; *Major Capital Corp.*v. *4487 Third Ave. Corp.,*15 Misc 2d 1052). It is true, of course, that “ The rule that a buyer must protect himself against undisclosed defects does not apply in all strictness to a purchaser at a judicial sale.” *(Lane*v. *Chantilly Corp., supra,*p. 438.) Yet, where it appears, as here, that the buyer has entered into a contract with all the facts known, the court, in its discretion may decline to relieve him of the purchase.

Certainly the Litwak Corporation was fully aware of the lien on the foreclosed property inasmuch as it was the cause and creator thereof. It allowed the judgment to continue unsatisfied, whereupon it proceeded to bid in at the sale with this full knowledge of the judgment against itself and an officer of its assignee.

Thus, the bidder and its assignee, in their plea for equitable relief, have failed to establish that they were themselves free of inequitable conduct and that they seek the relief with clean hands *(Matter of Krabbe,*7 Misc 2d 823). They knew or had reason to know of the infirmities in the proposed sale and such knowledge must preclude the requested relief of release from the contract *(Scala*v. *Levensen,*95 N. Y. S. 2d 850).

The motion is in all respects granted.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 35 MXS fabrication flight repair makes U.S. Air Force history 

By Airman 1st Class Collette Brooks35th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

                MISAWA AIR BASE, Japan  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Misawa Air Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Misawa Air Base35th Aircraft Maintenance Squadronaircraft maintenanceAircraft repairmaintenancerepair