alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012133EN.01003101.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/31

---

Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/12)

2012/C 133/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant: European

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the proposal recalculated by the PMO.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations to be unlawful;

| — | annul the decisions annulling and replacing the applicants offers concerning the crediting of pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions annulling and replacing the applicants offers concerning the crediting of pension rights;

| — | annul the decisions to apply to the applicants’ applications to transfer pension rights the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions to apply to the applicants’ applications to transfer pension rights the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
132 STAT. 1546 PUBLIC LAW 115–217—JULY 24, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4840: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

May 7, considered and passed House. 

June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–217 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 567 East 

Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Alwyn Crendall 

Cashe Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS ALWYN CRENDALL CASHE POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 567 East Franklin Street in Oviedo, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Alwyn 

Crendall Cashe Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe Post Office 

Building’’. 

Approved July 24, 2018. 

July 24, 2018 

[H.R. 4840] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40883

JANEY BRISENO; PATRICIA HARGUS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(V-93-CV-29)

September 24 1996 Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM

Defendant-appellant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeals the judgment

on the jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Briseno and

Hargus, contending that it was error to deny its Rule 50 motions

for judgment as a matter of law because there was no sufficient

evidence of any false imprisonment of either plaintiff, nor of any2

compensable mental anguish, which was the only element of damages

submitted to the jury. After considering the argument of counsel,

the briefs, and the relevant portions of the record, this Court

concludes that Wal-Mart's a rguments are without merit and that

there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-41962) pertaining to the StarMedia Network, Inc. 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-79255) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option
Plan, 1998 Stock Option Plan and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of StarMedia
Network, Inc. of our report dated June 21, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of StarMedia Network, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
July 8, 2002
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Davis, Brody & Wisniewski, Petitioners, and Temple Emanu-El of East Meadow, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

April 19, 1966.

*Nathaniel Bothstein*for petitioners. *Stickles, Hayden, Kennedy, Hort*efi *Van Steenburgh*for respondent.

Jack Stanislaw, J.

Petitioners’ motion for leave to reargue is granted. Proceeding then to an examination of the substance *1068of the factors putatively affecting the prior determination (49 Misc 2d 251), we find them without substantial significance. The argument that respondent’s noncompliance with statutory requirements as to notice warrants granting of the relief sought by petitioners is rejected.

The point is that respondent claims it simply amended a demand already in arbitration. Petitioners are trying to treat these figures added, instead, as a new claim, and they moved to have it barred as untimely. They urge that their motion to do so was not itself untimely (CPLR 7503) as previously held, because of deficiencies in the notice of the amendment which obviated any such untimeliness on their part.

The trouble with this argument is that petitioners (or anyone else) would eliminate the statutory time limit for objections altogether, just by unilaterally categorizing any subsequent amount in arbitration as a new claim. Of course, the reverse is then also true, insofar as a claimant might avoid objection by labelling everything an amendment of an earlier claim.

However, article 75 of the CPLR does not provide specifically with regard to the amendment of claims in arbitration. It is apparently assumed that questions arising with regard to further claims will be passed upon by the arbitrators. We cannot see any benefit to a determination which would give parties in arbitration the ability to come back to the courts during that proceeding to separately litigate time limitations on anything new that came up. The line is to be drawn somewhere, and if these parties disagree about the time status of added items then the burden of making a timely objection is more likely with petitioners. So that if petitioners are going to treat a notice as a brand new claim they must do so completely and assume the presence therein of that which is required by the statute (CPLR 7503, subd. [b]). To cast the onus on the claimant in this respect would be to retain judicial jurisdiction too long we think, and to broaden the statutory requirements correspondingly. Petitioners’ reaction here is distinguishable, on the issue of the timeliness of its objection, from that treated in our decision in a related action *(Matter of Wenger Constr. Co., [Temple Emanu-El of East*Meadow], 49 Misc 2d 189). For us to declare otherwise would be to mandate new claim procedures and objections in every case. We are not prepared to go this far. The prior determination is reaffirmed.
# C_2015311EN.01006001.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/60

---

Order of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Matrix Energetics International v OHIM (MATRIX ENERGETICS)

(Case T-573/12) (1)

1

(2015/C 311/65)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
No. 55532.

#### Shapiro Glove Co. *v.*United States,

protests 497157-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the gloves which *429were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C.A.D.333), the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 915, plus the additional duty-under paragraph 924, was sustained. Other items of the merchandise, stipulated to be similar to the knit fabric passed upon in Abstract 51342, were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragrapn 914, plus the additional duty under said paragraph 924.
No. 54973.

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151646-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 96-7007.

#### Washington *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Cer-tiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-109183, Form S-3 No. 333-110678, Form S-3 No. 333-113192, Form S-3 No. 333-117441, Form S-3 No. 333-117443, Form S-3No. 333-125901 and Form S-3 No. 333-130091) of Avanex Corporation and in the related Prospectus and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-119690, Form S-8 No. 333-109917, Form S-8 No. 333-99645,Form S-8 No. 333-74124, Form S-8 No. 333-55364, Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-34202 and Form S-8 No. 333-42952) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan, as amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1999 DirectorsOption Plan, the Holographix Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, as amended, the Holographix Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the LambdaFlex, Inc. 2000 Stock Plan of our report dated July 30, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Avanex Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2004 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended June 30, 2006. 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California 

March 30, 2007
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph SPENCER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72472.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

July 31, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30, 1998.

Richard H. Sindel, Jerilyn E. Lipe, Sindel & Sindel, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

*65ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Spencer (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury on two counts of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050 RSMo 1994,1 and one count of burglary in the first degree, Section 569.160. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender, pursuant to Section 558.016, and sentenced him to three consecutive terms of fifteen years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994.
No. 53283.

#### Rathjen Brothers *v.*United States,

protests 961826-G and 982589-G (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the Amer Picon passed upon in *Edw. & John Burke, Ltd.*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 276, C. D. 253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
No. 45298.

#### Protests 33658-K, etc., of James H. Rhodes & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

On the record presented the claim at one-fourth or one-tenth of 1 cent per pound, depending on the value, under paragraph 206 was sustained. *Chrystal*v. *United States*(T. D. 49571) followed.
#### Edward Y.S. LEE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. TRW INC., Defendant/Appellee.

No. 03-56332.

D.C. No. CV-02-05172-FMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2005.

Decided June 20, 2005.

Michael J. Collins, Nikki L. Wilson, Collins & Bellenghi, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Gregg C. Sindici, Littler Mendelson, San Diego, CA, for Defendant/Appellee.

Before WARDLAW, PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alas*11ka, sitting by designation.

*11MEMORANDUM**

Edward Y.S. Lee appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of TRW Inc. (“TRW”) in Lee’s diversity action arising from TRW’s demotion and termination of Lee’s employment as an engineer. In essence, Lee raises three issues: (1) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of TRW on Lee’s claim of age discrimination related to his layoff; (2) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of TRW on Lee’s claim of age discrimination related to his reclassification; and (3) whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of TRW on Lee’s cause of action for breach of implied contract not to terminate without good cause.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with our decision.

To begin, it is clear that Lee entered into an at-will contract with TRW. This contract precludes the existence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination. *See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc.,*24 Cal.4th 317, 340 n. 10, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal.2000) (“[M]ost cases applying California law ... have held that an at-will provision in an *express written agreement,*signed by the employee, *cannot*be overcome by proof of an implied contrary understanding.” (emphasis in original)). As a result, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of TRW on Lee’s cause of action for breach of an implied contract.

We conclude, however, that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether TRW’s reasons for demoting and terminating Lee were pretexted. Lee presented evidence that TRW “was considering things like seniority and age” in its downsizing decisions, and that TRW failed to follow its employee termination procedures. The district court erred by failing to view the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Lee. *See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n,*809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we reference them here only as they are necessary to explain our decision.
Exhibit 23.2.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-87749 and 333-32342) of Answerthink,
Inc. and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated December
17, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 1998 of THINK New Ideas, Inc. included in Answerthink, Inc.'s
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 2000, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 2001
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10123

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jesus Sidon, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-122-6

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jesus Sidon, federal prisoner # 54164-177, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motion because his blindness constitutes an extraordinary and 

compelling circumstance warranting release. Sidon further argues that he 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 4, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10123 Document: 00516846513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2023
No. 23-10123

2

was denied access to courts due to the district court’s failure to appoint 

counsel. 

The district court determined that the nature and circumstances of 

the offense, the history and characteristics of Sidon, and the seriousness of 

the offense did not warrant a further reduction to Sidon’s sentence than the 

one granted at his original sentencing hearing due to his eye condition. See

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). Sidon’s failure to challenge these findings 

defeats his claim. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 

2020); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. 

Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). As such, 

we need not consider his contention that extraordinary and compelling 

reasons justify relief. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 

2021). 

Sidon did not move for the appointment of counsel in the district 

court. Thus, he fails to demonstrate that the district court denied him access 

to courts or abused its discretion in denying his compassionate release 

motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-10123 Document: 00516846513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2023
(LOGO)
BankAmerica

March 30, 1999

Real Estate Loan Service Center

Structured Asset Securities Corporation
C/O Norwest Bank of Minnesota N.A.
MSD SASCO98-1
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044

Dear D. Woodus,

RE: Servicing Agreement Compliance and Annual Officer Certification
Investor Numbers: S61

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT PURSUANT TO OUR  SERVICING  DEPARTMENT  CONCURRENCE,  THE
FOLLOWING AREAS HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 1998:

*    All taxes,  ground rents,  and special  assessments  that may become a lien
     upon the property and which became due in the last  calendar  year has been
     paid. This also includes  verifications of payment with taxing  authorities
     for non-impound accounts.

*    All  insurance  premiums  for flood or other  casualty  insurance;  and FHA
     premiums or Private Mortgage  Insurance premiums on conventional loans have
     been paid, and all policies as required are in full force.

*    Inspections  have  been  made  monthly  on all  delinquent,  foreclosed  or
     otherwise  vacant  properties,  and any other  property  we have  reason to
     believe requires an inspection.

* Analysis  has been made to ensure  sufficient  monies are being  collected  in
escrow for the current year.

*    All information  returns have been provided to the Internal Revenue Service
     as required on activity  relating to  Mortgage's  serviced  during the last
     calendar year.

*    A "Year 2000" plan has been adopted to meet the  business-wide  risks posed
     by the millennium date change.

* All interest  and/or monthly  payment  adjustments for ARMS and GPM loans have
been made in  accordance  with the mortgage  terms.  Timely and proper notice of
such changes was provided to the mortgagors.

*    Blanket Bond and Errors & Omission  policies  are in full force,  a copy is
     attached for your  records.  Please note the policies have been combine and
     have one renewal date of September 2001.

Enclosed  please find the uniform  single audit letter  prepared by our external
auditors Ernst & Young along with our corporate annual financial report.

ANNUAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

To the best of my knowledge and upon reasonable investigation,  the servicing of
the Mortgage  Loans during the preceding  year has been  conducted in compliance
with all other provisions of the Servicing Agreement(s).  Any exceptions to this
certification will be on an attachment along with explanations  concerning their
completion.  If no attachment is sent, it should be considered that there are no
exceptions.

BY:
Sheryl Franke, Vice President

BankAmerica  Mortgage,  A Division  of Bank of  America,  FSB 10600  Valley View
Street Box 6012 Cypress, CA 90630-0012