alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013377EN.01002102.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/21

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Doyle v Europol

(Case F-103/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

2013/C 377/48

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

Doyle

Europol

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Ms Doyle the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Ms Doyle the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol;

| 2. | Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Doyle. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Doyle.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 70.

1

---
·t In The Matter f: AERO TECH,LLC Respondent 

### SERVED: October 12, 2016
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

### TRANSPORTATI~PARTHENT 

## OF OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

## TRANSPORTATION WASIDNGTON, DC 

## Z81. OCT 13 P ·4: 45 ) ) ) ) ) ) 

## DOCKET OPERATIONS Docket No. FAA-2016-4270

Case No. 2015WA910115

ORDERFINALIZING LITIGATION SCHEDULE On Septe ber 22, 2016, the undersignedjudge held a prehearing conference inthe above captioned cas . During the course ofthe conference, the parties developed ajointlitigation schedule with timeline dependent upon the hearing date. On Septe ber 23, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued a Prehearing Conference Report, ordering the p ies to adhere to thejoint litigation schedule. On Septe ber 27, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued a Notice ofHearing, setting the hearing in this case to begin on August 9,_2017. Pursuant t 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6) and 13.217(d), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Comp ete witness and evidence lists shall be exchanged by the parties and submittedto the un ersignedjudge no laterthanJuly 10, 2017. 2. Any s bpoenarequests must be submittedto the undersignedjudge no later than June 9, 2017. 3. Each arty shall provide the undersignedjudge a CD containing digital copies of prem ked versions ofall proposed exhibits no later than July 10, 2017. 4. The p ies may, during the course ofthe hearing, request the opportunity to submit posth aring briefs pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.23l(c).

# ~---- DOUGLAS M. RAWALD Administrative LawJudge Attachment: ervice ListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviati n Administration 800 Independe ce Avenue, S.W. Washington, C 20591 Attention: earing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Stephen Doerr 

### Respondent's Counsel DOERR& UDSON, PA 212 West First Street Portales, NM 8130 TEL: 575-35 -1289 FAX: 575-35 -1898 Kyle Lomazo , 

### Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe egional Counsel FAA Northwe t Mountain Region 1601 LindAv. SW, ANM-7 Renton, WA 9 057 TEL: 425.:22 -1847 FAX: 425-22 -1007 ONE COPY



### The Honorabl Douglas M. Rawald,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHe ngs, M-20 U.S. Departm nt ofTransportation 1200 New Jer ey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, C 20590 TEL: 202-3 -5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-3 6-7536 Docket No. FAA-2016-4270 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was b U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Admini tration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Atte ion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
(Reap. Dec. 9448)

#### M. Wimpfheimer & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 6394.

(Decided June 4, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

*669Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall he made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a ease does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Filed by EDF Electronic Data Filing Inc. (604) 879-9956 - Nevada Geothermal - Exhibit 4.70





  Exhibit 4.70

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT

The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2007, made by and between NGP BLUE MOUNTAIN HOLDCO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Pledgor”), for the benefit of GLITNIR BANKI HF (the “Lender”), a company incorporated in Iceland (the “Pledge and Security Agreement”). The undersigned agrees for the benefit of the Lender as follows:

1.  The undersigned will be bound by the terms of the Pledge and Security Agreement and will comply with such terms insofar as such terms are applicable to the undersigned.

2.  The undersigned will notify the Lender promptly in writing of the occurrence of any of the events described in the proviso in Section 5 of the Pledge and Security Agreement (without giving effect to any clause therein that would require the undersigned to determine the Lender's opinion as to any matter described therein).

3.  The terms of Section 9(b) of the Pledge and Security Agreement shall apply to it, mutatis  mutandis, with respect to all actions that may be required of it under or pursuant to or arising out of Section 9 of the Pledge and Security Agreement.






 



 








	
	NGP BLUE MOUNTAIN I LLC




		
	By: 

	/s/ Brian D. Fairbank




	
	Name: Brian D. Fairbank


	Title: President  & CEO




 

	
	Address for Notices:


	1755 East Plumb Lane, Suite

  220 Reno, Nevada 89502


	Attention: Max Walenciak


	Phone: (775) 786-3399


	With a copy to:


	Nevada Geothermal Power Inc.


	Suite 900-409 Granville Street


	Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2


	Canada


	Attention: Brian Fairbank & Andrew Studley Phone: (604) 688-1553


	Fax: (604) 688-5926
No. 49436.

#### Protest 81897-K of Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the Government examiner testified in behalf of the plaintiff and was later recalled as a Government witness. An employee of the plaintiff company also testified in its behalf. After a careful consideration of the evidence the court was unable to find anything to establish the claims made. The classification of the collector being presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
EX-10.3



 





Exhibit 10.3




Amendment to Employment Agreement




     This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Robert
D. Falese (hereinafter “Employee”) and Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (and all of its affiliates and
subsidiaries) (hereinafter collectively “Commerce”), a New Jersey business corporation, effective
as of the date written below. This Amendment amends the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
between Employee and Commerce dated as of October 2, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement”).



     For purposes of complying with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
the last sentence of Section 7.1(b) of the Employment Agreement is deleted, and in its place, the
following sentence is added:




“If and only to the extent that it becomes necessary to reduce any compensation payable to
Employee in order to comply with this provision, then (i) the installment of the Change in
Control Payment to be paid to Employee on the third anniversary of the Closing Date shall be
reduced first, (ii) the installment of the Change in Control Payment to be paid to Employee
on the second anniversary of the Closing Date shall be reduced second, (iii) the installment
of the Change in Control Payment to be paid to Employee on the first anniversary of the
Closing Date shall be reduced third, (iv) the installment of the Change in Control Payment
to be paid to Employee on the Closing Date shall be reduced fourth, and (v) any other cash
payments to be paid to Employee shall be reduced fifth, commencing with those payments
payable latest in time and ending with those payments payable earliest in time under the
terms of this Agreement.”



     In addition, Section 7.1(c) of the Employment Agreement (for purposes of clarity, including
subsections (i) and (ii) thereof) is hereby deleted, and all references thereto are hereby deleted.



     All other terms of the Employment Agreement remain unamended. This Amendment may be signed in
counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of December 31, 2007.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	COMMERCE BANCORP, INC.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Douglas J. Pauls	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	/s/ Robert D. Falese	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Robert D. Falese
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

# Historical F-35 global transportation and distribution planning meeting kicks off at DLA Distribution HQs

By DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
 The Department of Defense recently assigned F-35 global transportation and distribution and North American regional warehousing to the Defense Logistics Agency and U.S. Transportation Command. 

 

The DLA Distribution team along with more than 50 attendees from the Joint Program Office Product Support Manager and Hybrid Product Support Integrator, USTRANSCOM and DLA headquarters, participated in the session.  

 

The team established five working groups to support the Product Support Programs focused on warehouse and transportation laydown, finance/contracting, information technology, and global asset management. 

 

The working groups established a weekly battle rhythm, with the next full group face-to-face meeting scheduled in Fort Worth, Texas the first week of March.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionF-35Global DistributionUSTRANSCOMJoint Program Office
# C_2015302EN.01004202.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Pilkington Group v Commission

(Case T-462/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Administrative procedure - European automotive glass market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of data allegedly covered by business secrecy - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Obligation of professional secrecy - Legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 302/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, and C. Puech Baron, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass), in so far as it relates to the request by Pilkington Group concerning recital 115 of Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 5718 final of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Pilkington Group Ltd under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass), in so far as it relates to the request by Pilkington Group concerning recital 115 of Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Pilkington Group to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Pilkington Group to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---
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

# Beneath the Skies: Aircraft Maintainers

By Maj. John T. Stamm, 332d Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

                SOUTHWEST ASIA   –              *The 332d Air Expeditionary Wing is the continuing legacy of the famous Tuskegee Airmen of World War II, delivering full-spectrum integrated air and space power, providing agile combat support, developing and empowering innovative Airmen, cultivating relationships with joint and coalition partners, and posturing the wing for enduring strategic presence in Southwest Asia.**Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

332nd Air Expeditionary Wingmaintenanceaircraft maintenance
No. 74-5962.

#### Ward *v.*Griggs, Institution Superintendent.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 6288.

#### C. NEWTON, JR., vs. FRANK ROUSEO, ET AL.

Syllabus.

Where the judgment of the trial Court upon questions of fact is not manifestly erroneous, it will not be disturbed.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “E,” No. 106,644. Honorable Gr. H. Theard, Judge.

Thos. E. Furlow, for plaintiff and appellant.

*191John L. Feli-eu, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, CHARLES F. CLAIBORNE,

rendered the opinion .and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of money.

Plaintiff alleges that on November 4th, 1913, he bought from defendants a horse for $150 which he paid cash with the agreement that he “should have fifteen days from the day of purchase in which to decide whether or not to keep said horse, and on return of said horse within fifteen days petitioner- should receive back the $150, so paid by him;” that on November 20th, “he returned said horse to defendant, who promised to refund said sum on November 22nd, but that defendants on said date and subsequent dates refused petitioner the price paid by him; and plaintiff now sues for the return of said price -of $150.

Defendant admits the sale of the horse and the payment of the price of $150, but denies the alleged agreement of fifteen days trial and promise to refund the price on return -of the horse, on the day of sale or on any subsequent date.

There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff has appealed.

The question to be decided is one of fact; the judgment of the District Court will not be reversed unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous.'

Plaintiff testifies in support of his allegations. He is corroborated by John Morales, stableman at the Jackson Barracks where the plaintiff fills the position of second lieutenant. Plaintiff’s attorney and his office mate testify that they rang up the defendant at the phone and a voice sounding like that of defendant answered and promised to pay the $150, but on a subsequent date declined to do so.

*192Opinion and decree, February 1st, 1915.

Plaintiff is contradicted by the defendant, and by R. W. Gaudet, his bookkeeper, and by John Angnstin, an employee, and by E, P. Perelli, a by-stander, who claim that they were present when the bargain for the sale of the horse was made. They all testify that the sale was made for $150, of which the plaintiff paid cash $50, and was to pay the balance in two or three days, if the horse suited him; and that the plaintiff sent a check of $100, within the time specified. Both plaintiff and defendant and their witnesses agree upon the price, upon the cash payment, and a delay for the credit portion. The only point upon which they differ is the extent of that delay. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff. He has not made it certain, and the circumstances of the case do not support his evidence.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

St. Paul, J., not having heard the argument, takes no part.