alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2
9th April 2002




PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL


James Boucher
CN - VP






Dear James

EMPLOYEE RETENTION PROGRAM ("THE PROGRAM")

The purpose of the Program is to retain employees such as you who are critical
to maintaining the on-going operations of FLAG Telecom Limited ("FLAG"). This
includes key leadership, technical and functional professionals with critical
expertise and knowledge.

You will become entitled to a gross sum of USD47,500 ("RETENTION PAYMENT
AMOUNT") on 31 December 2002 (the "FINAL RETENTION DATE"). Any entitlement to
the Retention Payment Amount is CONDITIONAL UPON THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT
REMAINING CONFIDENTIAL TO YOU AND NOT BEING DISCLOSED TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

The Retention Payment Amount will be paid as an advance, on your signature to
this agreement. The payment is net and was subject to the usual statutory
payroll deductions.

If you have terminated your employment with FLAG or have given notice
terminating your employment or FLAG has terminated your employment or given
notice to terminate your employment for Good Cause prior to the Final Retention
Date then you will repay all advances made of the Retention Payment Amount to
FLAG immediately and you shall have no further entitlement under this agreement.

By signing this agreement you authorise FLAG to deduct any advances made from
any payments (which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, salary,
bonus, notice payments and the repayment of expenses) due to you from FLAG on
the termination of your employment. The Retention Payment Amount is in addition
to your salary and shall not be treated as an increase in your salary or as part
of your salary for the calculations of any other benefit.

Any entitlement to the Retention Payment Amount is subject to your continuing
good performance and contribution to the success of FLAG. Should FLAG, in its
absolute discretion, determine that your performance at any time prior to the
Final Retention Date has not been adequate to merit the Retention Payment Amount
then FLAG may request the repayment of the advance under this plan.

<Page>

If you agree to these terms please sign and return to me the attached copy of
this agreement within 24 hours of receipt of this letter.


For and on behalf of FLAG Telecom Limited


     /s/ RICHARD A. LONG
     ------------------------------------


RICHARD A. LONG
VICE PRESIDENT CORPORATE SERVICES


Date:             9th April 2002
         -----------------------------------------------------







Signed:  /s/ James Boucher
       -------------------------------------


Name:             James V. Boucher
         -----------------------------------


Date:             12 April 2002
         -----------------------------------
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

# AGENCY:

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). 

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is holding an open business meeting to discuss Commission programs and administrative matters. Topics will include: (1) Digital Information; (2) Emergency Management, (3) Literacy; (4) Open Access and related topics. 

*Dates and Times:*                         NCLIS Business Meeting—June 4, 9 a.m.-3 p.m.; June 5, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., 2007.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Room 642 (June 4-5), Madison Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20540-1099. 

*Status:*                         Open meeting.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The business meeting is open to the public, subject to space availability. To make special arrangements for physically challenged persons, contact Madeleine McCain, Director of Operations, 1800 M Street, NW., Suite 350 North Tower, Washington, DC 20036, e-mail                     *mmccain@nclis.gov,*                     fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606-9200.                 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Madeleine McCain, Director of Operations, U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1800 M Street, NW., Suite 350 North Tower, Washington, DC 20036, e-mail                         *mmccain@nclis.gov;*                         fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606 9200.                     

Dated: May 17, 2007. 

Madeleine C. McCain, 

NCLIS Director of Operations. 

[FR Doc. E7-9811 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7528-01-P
# C_2012243EN.01001901.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/19

---

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

(Case T-216/12)

2012/C 243/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haïfa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haïfa) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | admit this action for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit this action for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | declare it to be admissible, and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it to be admissible, and

| — | primarily, declare the action well-founded and annul the decision for compensation of the Commission, Directorate General of Information Society and Media, contained in its letter of 13 March 2012, directed against TECHNION; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, declare the action well-founded and annul the decision for compensation of the Commission, Directorate General of Information Society and Media, contained in its letter of 13 March 2012, directed against TECHNION;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-657/11 Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission. (1)

Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ 2012 C 73, p. 28.

1

---
# C_2012165EN.01002901.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/29

---

Action brought on 29 March 2012 — Bayerische Motoren Werke v OHIM (ECO PRO)

(Case T-145/12)

2012/C 165/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (München, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2012 in case R 1418/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2012 in case R 1418/2011-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECO PRO’ for goods in classes 9 and 12 — International Registration (IR) No W 1059979

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused protection of the International Registration designating the European Union.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that the International Registration of the applicant’s trademark was devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of this article.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63341-63342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26267]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Igor Sikorsky Memorial Airport, 
Stratford, Connecticut

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
Record of Decision (ROD), resulting from an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) Re-evaluation has been prepared for Sikorsky Memorial 
Airport in Stratford, Connecticut.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Environmental

[[Page 63342]]

Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration New England, 12 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. Telephone (781) 238-7613.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is making available a ROD regarding 
Runway Safety Areas at Sikorsky Memorial Airport in Stratford, 
Connecticut. The ROD documents the final Agency decisions regarding the 
proposed projects as described and analyzed in the EIS Re-evaluation. 
The ROD is available for review during normal business hours at the 
following locations: FAA New England Region, Airports Division, 16 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. Telephone (781) 238-7613 and at 
Sikorsky Memorial Airport, 1000 Great Meadow Road Terminal Building, 
Stratford, Connecticut 06497.

    Issued on: September 28, 2011.
Bryon H. Rakoff,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-26267 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# C_2012151EN.01003102.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/31

---

Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Sorouh v Council

(Case T-102/12)

2012/C 151/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sorouh Joint Stock Company (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

Makhlouf

Council

1

Makhlouf

Council

2

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.

2

---
Before the Second Division,

October 15, 1941

No. 46448.

#### Protest 967808-G of Quon & Quon Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with the analyst’s report that the merchandise is in chief value of silk, the protest was overruled.
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

# JBER pumped for new fuel facility

By Staff Sgt. Curt Beach673d Air Base Wing Public Affairs

                JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

673d Logistics Readiness SquadronJOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSONfuel offloading facilityfuel facilitiespipelinefuel truckfuel transportation
Independent Accountants' Consent


Board of Directors
First Kansas Financial Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-81667 and No. 333- 81699) on Form S-8 of First Kansas Financial  Corporation
and subsidiary of our report dated January 25, 2002 relating to the consolidated
balance  sheets of First  Kansas  Financial  Corporation  and  subsidiary  as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated  statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2001 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of First Kansas Financial Corporation and subsidiary.


                                             /s/ KPMG
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                 KPMG



Kansas City, Missouri

March 14, 2002
# C_2014078EN.01001901.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/19

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Van Asbroeck v Parliament

(Case F-102/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Classification in grade - Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category following the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations - Compensatory allowance - Decision to re-grade officials benefitting from that compensatory allowance)

2014/C 78/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Van Asbroeck (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and S. Seyr, acting as Agents, then by V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision to re-grade the applicant in grade AST 5, step 3, with retroactive effect.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Van Asbroeck. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Van Asbroeck.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 41.

1

---
#### Charles Fritz v. The State of Kansas.

No. 16,008.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

Constitutional *Law*— Equal *Protection of the Law*— Attor*ney’s Fee*— Abatement *of Liquor Nuisance.*The statute providing for the abatement of a nuisance maintained in violation of the prohibitory liquor law, which authorizes the court in awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff to allow and tax as costs an attorney’s fee for plaintiff’s attorney (Laws 1903, ch. 338), is not repugnant to the guaranty of the equal protection of the law made by the federal constitution.

Error from Saline district court; Rollin R. Rees, judge.

Opinion filed May 8, 1909.

Affirmed.

*David Ritchie,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Fred S. Jackson,*attorney-general, *Charles D. Shukers,*special assistant attorney-general, and *Frank T. Knitle,*county attorney, for The State; *J. K. Codding,*and *John Marshall,*of counsel.

*169The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

In a proceeding by the state against Charles Fritz and another to abate a nuisance maintained in violation of the intoxicating liquor law Fritz was found guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and the court in awarding judgment against him allowed to plaintiff’s attorneys and taxed as costs an attorney’s fee of $50. Of the ruling allowing an attorney’s fee complaint is made. The allowance is specifically authorized by the statute. (Laws 1903, ch. 338. See, also, *The State, ex rel., v. Durein,*46 Kan. 695; *The State v. Plamondon,*75 Kan. 269; *In re Ellis,*76 Kan. 368.)

The contention that the provision violates the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, in that it denies to defendant the equal protection of the law, is not sound. The statute authorizing the allowance of an attorney’s fee is quite unlike a provision for an allowance of such a fee in private litigation, as,- for instance, the collection of a debt. It is an exercise of the police power of the state, designed to promote the peace, morals and good order of society, and, although somewhat special in character, it can not be regarded as an infringement of the rule guaranteeing the equal protection of the law. *(Railroad Co. v. Matthews,*58 Kan. 447; *Assurance Co. v. Bradford,*60 Kan. 82; *Railway Co. v. Simonson,*64 Kan. 802; *Atchison, Topeka &c. Railroad v. Matthews,*174 U. S. 96; *Fid. Mut. Life Assn. v. Mettler,*185 U. S. 308; *Iowa Life Insurance Co. v. Lewis,*187 U. S. 335; *Farmers’ &c. Ins. Co. v. Dobney,*189 U. S. 301.) Every defendant violating this provision of the prohibitory liquor law is subject to the same liability. The regulation imposes no unequal or unnecessary restrictions, as it applies to *170all persons under the same circumstances and conditions, and falls alike upon all brought within the scope of its operations.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
# C_2014194EN.01000801.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Nutricia NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-267/13) (1)

1

((Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings - Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 - Notion - Nutritional preparations intended to be administered only enterally under medical supervision to persons undergoing medical treatment - Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 - Notion - Nutritional liquids intended to be administered enterally and not to be drunk))

2014/C 194/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nutricia NV

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Medicaments within the meaning of heading 3004 — Notion — Food preparations intended exclusively to be administered enterally, under medical supervision, to persons undergoing medical treatment as a result of a disease or ailment — Beverages within the meaning of heading 2202 — Notion — Liquid foodstuffs for enteral administration, not intended to be drunk

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Tariff heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘medicaments’ within the meaning of that heading includes food preparations intended exclusively to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube) under medical supervision to persons who are receiving medical care, provided that that product is administered, as part of the control of the disease or ailment affecting them, in order to prevent or control their malnutrition.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---