alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004228EN.01004102.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/41

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 9 June 2004

in Case T-96/03: Manuel Camós Grau v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Investigation of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the management and financing of the Institute for European-Latin American Relations - Possible conflict of interests with regard to an investigator - Decision to remove the investigator from the team - Action for annulment - Preparatory measures - Inadmissible)

(2004/C 228/94)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-96/03: Manuel Camós Grau, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially H. van Lier, then J.-F. Pasquier and C. Ladenburger, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) of 17 May 2002 to remove one of the investigators from the investigation concerning the Institute for European-Latin American relations in order to avoid any apparent conflict of interests, without annulling the measures adopted by that investigator, and also the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant's complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision and, second, damages by way of compensation for the non-material damage and damage to his career allegedly sustained as a consequence of those decisions — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 June 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

1

---
# Rail travel 

Amtrak offers federal government employees discounted fares for business travel. For specific Amtrak services and routes covered by the Federal Government Discount Program, please visit amtrak.com/government-discount. To receive the Federal Government discount, reservations must be booked through the traveler’s authorized travel management system, and may not be booked on Amtrak.com.

## Fully refundable federal government fares

Your reservation is fully refundable when you book a federal government fare through an approved channel. These channels include CWT's E2 Solutions, SAP Concur's ConcurGov, or your agency’s Travel Management Company (TMC). You can cancel your reservation through Amtrak.com, the Amtrak mobile app, by calling Amtrak at 1-800-USA-RAIL, or with an Amtrak Station Agent. Cancellations made prior to departure will be refunded; however, no-shows or no-cancellations will be forfeited.

### Improvements and safety measures

Amtrak has made public health and safety a top priority. Learn more about their safety measures and improvements.

### Sustainability

Riding Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) reduces a passenger’s greenhouse emissions. On the NEC, travel with Amtrak produces 83% less emissions than driving alone and up to 73% less than flying. To find out more go to amtrak.com/sustainability.

### Benefits to Amtrak rail travel

                        - Free Wi-Fi on the Northeast Corridor trains.
                        - Electrical outlets are available at each seat.
                        - City center to city center services are available in most areas.
                        - Each traveler may bring 2 personal and 2 carry-on items. Size and weight limitations apply.
                        - Generous seat and leg room.
                        - Café Cars offer food and beverages.
                        - Quiet cars on each Northeast Corridor train.
                        - Fully refundable tickets.

For more information on the Amtrak Federal Discount Program, visit amtrak.com/government-discount. For more help, visit Contact Amtrak.

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Plan a trip-  Overview 
-  Per diem rates 
-  Transportation (airfare rates, POV rates, etc.)    -  Privately owned vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement 
  -  Airfare rates - City Pair Program 
  -  Rail travel 
-  Lodging  
-  Conference and meeting planning 
-  Travel charge card
#### Walter J. ROSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-759.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

*430Arthur Massey, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of violating, F. S., Section 790.23, F.S.A., which makes unlawful the “care, custody, possession or control” of any firearm by a convicted felon. He contends on appeal that the state did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. We disagree.

Appellant was arrested at the premises of another which was entered by police pursuant to a search warrant. At his non-jury trial, a police officer testified that upon entry he observed the appellant seated on the floor with his hand on a pillow. The officer stated that he witnessed a fellow officer uncover a firearm beneath the same pillow where the appellant’s hand rested. Appellant argues that these circumstances fail to prove that he had physical or constructive possession of the firearm, or that he knew of its presence. We think the evidence clearly was sufficient to prove appellant exercised “care, custody, possession or control” of the firearm. Wood v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 484; see also, Maloney v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 581. The judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7509
MARK A. GRETHEN, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00052-RBS) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Grethen, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark A. Grethen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grethen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for injunctive relief, deny his motion for substitution of parties, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Official Journal C 276A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.276.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 276A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5625 September 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.276.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 276A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5625 September 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2013/C 276A/01 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2013/C 276A/01

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |
| 199 | |
| 200 | |
| 204 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 210 | (LV) |
| 211 | (PL) |
| 219 | |
| 227 | |
| 231 | |
| 235 | |
| 240 | |
| 264 | |
| 269 | |
| 276 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

199

200

204

(DE/EN/FR)

210

(LV)

211

(PL)

219

227

231

235

240

264

269

276

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 147 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 147

                 In the House of Representatives, U. S.

                                                         April 1, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1430) to provide for a temporary increase 
in the public debt limit. All points of order against the bill and against its 
consideration are waived. Debate on the bill shall not exceed one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one 
motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. Upon its passage by the House, H.R. 1430 shall be considered to 
constitute reconciliation legislation pursuant to section 7(a) of the conference 
report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) setting forth 
the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. —, original.

#### The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania *v.*The State of New Jersey.

November 23, 1925.

Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint herein granted; and process ordered to issue returnable on Monday, January 25 next.

*Messrs. George W. Woodruff*and *William A. Schnader*for complainant. *Messrs. Edward L. Katzenbach*and *John R. Hardin*for defendant.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roger A. Cregg, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of AV Homes, Inc.;

2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Roger A. Cregg                                  
|                   |  |  |  | Roger A. Cregg President
and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                   TECH SQUARED INC.
                                     AMENDMENT TO
                         1995 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR OPTION PLAN
                                   DECEMBER 15, 1998

The Tech Squared Inc. 1995 Non-Employee Director Option Plan is hereby 
amended by addition of the following new Section

     5.8 DISCRETIONARY GRANTS AND AMENDMENTS. In light of amendments to Rule 
     16b-3 since adoption of the Plan, the Board of Directors is authorized, 
     from time to time, (i) to make additional, discretionary grants of 
     options to non-employee directors, (ii) to vary terms of options to be 
     granted hereunder from the terms provided in this Section 5, and (iii) 
     to make such modifications to any options outstanding as the Board of 
     Directors determines, provided that any modification of options 
     outstanding that would limit rights of holders of options already 
     outstanding at the time of the modification shall only be effective with 
     the written consent of the option holder.

Such amendment is subject to the following condition:

     Other provisions of this Plan that are inconsistent with this amendment 
     are hereby amended by providing, in each case, that such provisions 
     remain effective but subject to the authority of the Board of Directors 
     pursuant to Section 5.8.

                                                Tech Squared Inc.

                                                by: /s/ Jeff Martin
                                                   ----------------------
                                                Jeff Martin
                                                Its Acting Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.01

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350**

**OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Employment Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  February 6, 2009 | /s/ Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.                                                                 |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.                                                                     |
|                    | Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal executive officer) |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Quinn O. HATFIELD.

No. 62725.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 21.1
 
 SUBSIDIARIES
    
    JURISDICTIONSkillSoft Corporation
    
    DelawareSkillSoft Ireland Ltd
    
    IrelandSkillSoft UK Limited
    
    EnglandSkillSoft Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
    
    AustraliaBooks24x7.com, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsSkillSoft Finance Limited
    
    Grand CaymanCBT Technology Limited
    
    IrelandSkillSoft Canada Limited
    
    CanadaSmartForce Business Skills Ltd
    
    IrelandSmartCertify Direct, Inc.
    
    FloridaSkillSoft New Zealand Ltd
    
    New ZealandSkillSoft France SARL
    
    FranceSkillSoft Asia Pacific PTE Ltd
    
    SingaporeTargeted Learning Corporation
    
    MaineNETg GmbH
    
    GermanyNETg Australia Pty Limited
    
    AustraliaSkillSoft NETg Limited
    
    EnglandWave Technologies Limited
    
    EnglandNETg SA (France)
    
    FranceFidalco
Limited
    
    Ireland
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of GeneLink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John R. DePhillipo, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods shown in such report.

Date: March 28, 2005              By:   /s/ John R. DePhillipo
                                     -----------------------------------
                                             John R. DePhillipo, Chief Executive
                                             Officer and Chief Financial Officer
H. Res. 282

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 21, 1993.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider in the House the joint resolution

(H.J. Res. 281) making further continuing appropriations for

the fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes. Debate on the

joint resolution shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                               BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 5 (d) of the Borders Group, Inc. Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended to read as follows effective as of the date hereof:


(d) Nontransferability. Except as otherwise provided in Section 4(g)(3) hereof,
no option or any rights with respect thereto shall be subject to any debts or
liabilities of an optionee, nor be assignable or transferable except by will or
the laws of descent and distribution, nor be exercisable during the optionee's
lifetime other than by him or her, nor shall Shares be issued to or in the name
of one other than the optionee; provided, however, that (i) an option may after
the death or Disability of an optionee be exercised pursuant to paragraph (iv)
of Section 5(b); (ii)any Shares issued to an optionee hereunder may at the
request of the optionee be issued in the name of the optionee and one other
person, as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in
common, or in the name of a trust for the benefit of the optionee or for the
benefit of the optionee and others; and (iii) if so provided in a Share Option
Agreement executed by the optionee and approved by the Committee, the option and
rights covered by such Agreement may be transferred without consideration to an
immediate family member(s) or to a trust for the benefit of such family
member(s), in which event the transferee(s) must agree in writing to accept the
terms and conditions of such option and such option shall not be covered under
Rule 16(b)-3 of the Exchange Act.


                                            BORDERS GROUP, INC.


December 13, 1995                           By: /s/ George R. Mrkonic
                                               -------------------------
                                               George R. Mrkonic
Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Parent

NS&L Bancorp, Inc.

                                            Percentage        Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries (a)                           of Ownership   State of Incorporation

Neosho Savings and Loan Association, F.A.      100%            United States

NS&L Enterprises, Inc. (b)                     100%              Missouri

Crawford Mortgage, Inc. (b)                    100%              Missouri

-----------
(a)      The  operation  of the  Corporation's  wholly  owned  subsidiaries  are
         included in the  Corporation's  Financial  Statements  contained in the
         Annual Report attached hereto as Exhibit 13.

(b)      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Neosho Savings and Loan Association, F.A.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael M. Chaffee, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 
               (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
               (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Dated: November 5, 2008

/s/ Michael M. ChaffeeMichael ChaffeeChief Executive Officer

1

---
#### Leon RICHARD, Appellant, v. Thomas ASBURY, Appellee.

No. 69-361.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.