alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INDEX TO EXHIBITS


10.1  Letter Severance Agreement dated February 20, 1996, between the Company
      and an executive officer.

15.1  Letter of Independent Accountants regarding Awareness of Incorporation by
      Reference.

27.1  Financial Data Schedule.  (Exhibit 27.1 is being submitted as an exhibit
      only in the electronic format of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q being
      submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Exhibit 27.1 shall
      not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of
      1933, Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 323 of
      the Trust Indenture Act, or otherwise be subject to the liabilities of
      such sections, nor shall it be deemed a part of any registration
      statement to which it relates.)

99.1  Amended and Restated Credit Agreement among Global Marine Inc., Various
      Lending Institutions, Bankers Trust Company as Administrative Agent,
      Societe Generale as Managing Agent, and Christiania Bank OG Kreditkasse
      ASA New York Branch, Credit Lyonnais New York Branch, and the Bank of
      Nova Scotia as Co-Agents, Amended and Restated as of July 15, 1997.

99.2  Ratification Agreement dated July 15, 1997, by the Guarantor Subsidiaries
      in Favor of Bankers Trust Company as Administrative Agent.
# C_2023278EN.01000302.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — LD v ALB FILS Kliniken GmbH

(Case C-427/21, (1) ALB FILS KLINIKEN)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Temporary agency work - Directive 2008/104/EC - Article 1 - Scope - Definition of ‘temporary assignment’ - Transfer of duties performed by a worker, from the latter’s employer to a third-party undertaking - Permanent assignment of that worker while maintaining the latter’s initial contract of employment)

(2023/C 278/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LD

Defendant: ALB FILS Kliniken GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(b) to (e) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a situation in which, first, the duties performed by a worker are transferred definitively by his or her employer to a third-party undertaking and, second, that worker, whose employment relationship with that employer is maintained on account of the fact that that worker has exercised his or her right to object to the transfer of that employment relationship to that third-party undertaking, may be required, at the request of that employer, to perform, on a permanent basis, the work contractually due for that third-party undertaking and, in that context, be subject to the technical and organisational direction of the latter.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E F/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T E R R Y J OH NS ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J EAN H I LL , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 36083 D . C. N o . CV - 0 5 - 0 1 5 0 4 - BR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , a n dT A S H I M A , C ir c u it J u d g e s . O re g o n state p riso n erT erry Jo h n so n ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e have j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED DE C 11 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE F/ Res ea r ch 07- 36083 2 p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. J ohns on c ont e nds tha tthe tr i a l c ourtvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s by i m po si ng consec ut i ve se nt ence s bas ed on fa ctual fi nd i ng s thatw er e notprov en b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , se e L arson v. P alm atee r , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 2 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ), i n d i cat es th atth e st at e co u rt s’ r e j e c t i on of

J ohns on’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m w a s notc ontr a ryt o, a nd di d not in v o lv e a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r lye s tab lis h e dS u p r e m e C o u rt la w . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; se e al so O rego n v. Ic e , 12 9 S . C t . 71 1, 71 4-15 (200 9); Appr e ndi v. N

ew Je rs ey, 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . AF F I RME D.
#### In the Matter of Todd Lumpkins, Petitioner, v James Griffin, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 230]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from prosecuting the petitioner in a criminal action entitled *People v Vasquez,*pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Queens County Indictment No. 1454/00, and application for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *see, Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the *450relief sought. O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### David L. BINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-55.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 1973.

Raymond L. Syfrett, Asst. Public Defender, and Herman D. Laramore, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record, on appeal and the briefs filed herein, the appellant having failed to file his own brief within the time allowed by this Court. Our consideration of the record on appeal requires us to concur with the representation of the Public Defender that no justiciable assignment of error could be made as to the proceedings below.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 555 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 555

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 30, 1994.
    Resolved, That all points of order against the conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence 
Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and against its 
consideration are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

p0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140347 & (31) (34) 

 

CURTIS TATE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140347 

 COA: 294071 

Ingham CC: 09-000727-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions 

for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
#### PENTECOSTAL HOLINESS CHURCH, a South Carolina corporation, Petitioner, v. Floyd M. MAUNEY and Connie L. Mauney, his wife, Respondents.

No. 70-93.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### SOUTH FLORIDA BUSINESS NEGOTIATORS, INCORPORATED, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. BIRD’S PHOTO CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, R. A. Cangelosi, Patricia Cangelosi, A. J. Cangelosi and Hobby House Camera Shop, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 13, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Fritz STEIN, Jr., John Rybovich, Jr. and Benjamin H. Oehlert, Jr., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PALM BEACH, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 52653.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.

*1202Chester Bedell and John A. DeVault, III, of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellants.

R. William Rutter, Jr., County Atty., West Palm Beach, David Bludworth, State’s Atty., and Erin L. Fernandez, Asst. State’s Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *County of Palm Beach*v. *State,*342 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977).

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                                    |  |                       
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                                    |  | State of Incorporation
|Subsidiaries  Direct / wholly-owned                                |  |                       
|Community Bank                                                      |  | Alabama               
|Community Funding Corporation                                       |  | Alabama               
|                                                                    | 
|Subsidiaries  Indirect / wholly-owned by Community Bank            |  |                       
|Community Appraisals, Inc                                           |  | Alabama               
|1stCommunity Credit Corporation                                     |  | Alabama               
|Community Insurance Corp                                            |  | Alabama               
|                                                                    | 
|Subsidiaries  Indirect / wholly-owned by Community Insurance Corp. |  |                       
|Southern Select Insurance, Inc.                                     |  | Alabama
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Larry C. Oldham, the President and Chief Executive Officer ofParallel Petroleum Corporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/Aof Parallel for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the periodic reportingrequirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained inthat Form 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Parallel.Dated: July 11, 2007              /s/ Larry C. Oldham   Larry C. Oldham,   President and Chief Executive Officer        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 68 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 68

    Electing Representative Schiff to the Committee on Standards of 
                           Official Conduct.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. Michel submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Electing Representative Schiff to the Committee on Standards of 
                           Official Conduct.

    Resolved, That Representative Steven Schiff, New Mexico, be and he 
is hereby, elected to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

                                 <all>
```
# Feb 2020
#### Robert F. CLANCY v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND CIRCUIT COURT FOR the COUNTY of MARTIN and the NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

No. 38496.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
file:///J|/Equivio/Case15/Reports/EPA_Report%200234%203.17%20to%204.7.11/22713.TXT[4/25/2011 8:41:30 AM]

MessageID: <6962400.1300477386699.JavaMail.www@app230>

From: Sierra Club Membership Services<membership.services@sierraclub.org>

Sent: 03/18/2011 03:43:06 PM

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Body: Mar 18, 2011

Administrator Lisa Jackson

DC

Dear Administrator Jackson,

Thank you for proposing long-overdue Clean Air Act standards to protect

our nation's communities from the threats of toxic air pollution from

power plants. Power plants are the largest source toxic air emissions

in the United States, and yet absent these proposed standards now, no

national standards exist to protect communities from toxic air

pollution from these sources.

Power plants emit some of the most hazardous air pollutants known to

us. In addition to mercury and arsenic, power plants emit lead, other

heavy metals, dioxin and acid gases. Even in small amounts these

extremely harmful air pollutants are linked to health problems such as

cancer, heart disease, brain damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and

even premature death.

Without strong protections, thousands of people will continue to

suffer. EPA needs to adopt the strongest air toxics protections

possible and stand its

at ground against industry pressure to weaken the proposed standards.

Way too many low bifgh weight babies are being born in Ausg\tin lately.

We then have many family tragedies and greatly more costly hospital

bills.

Help us to stop the air pollution. Thanks,

r & Mrs. David M. Hendeerson

Please continue to defend public health and protect our communities and

children from mercury and other toxic air pollution.

Sincerely,

Mr. Elaine & David Henderson

6302 Camille Ct

Lago Vista, TX 78645-5203
#### ELLISON v CITY OF DETROIT

Docket No. 133463.

Submitted June 24, 1992, at Lansing.

Decided November 17, 1992, at 9:15 a.m.

Leave to appeal sought.

Calvin T. Ellison sought workers’ compensation benefits from the City of Detroit. The parties entered into a redemption agreement, and a redemption order was entered. When the city failed to make the redemption payment within thirty days after the order became final, Ellison sought imposition of penalties pursuant to MCL 418.801(2); MSA 17.237(801X2). The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board awarded penalties in the amount of $850 and interest at ten percent. The city appealed by leave granted.

The Court of Appeals *held:*

The penalty provision of § 801 of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act is not applicable to redemptions. The appeal board erred in awarding penalties.

Reversed in part.

*Michael V. Marston,*for the plaintiff.

*Donald Pailen,*Corporation Counsel, and *Rosa Bava,*Assistant Corporation Counsel, for the defendant.

Before: Holbrook, P.J., and Weaver and McDonald, JJ.

Weaver, J.

These proceedings originated when plaintiff filed a petition against defendant, seeking workers’ disability compensation benefits on the basis of personal injury and occupational disease. Plaintiff redeemed his claim in front of a hearing referee on March 27, 1985, for $4,950. A check was issued for the wrong amount, so defendant issued another check on May 28, 1985. Plaintiff alleges *723that because the redemption check was supplied to him seventeen days late, the penalty provision of MCL 418.801(2); MSA 17.237(801)(2) should apply.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board awarded $850 in penalties and interest at ten percent a year. Defendant now appeals by leave granted. We reverse in part.

Defendant argues that the penalty provision of § 801 does not apply to a redemption. We agree. MCL 418.801(2); MSA 17.237(801)(2) provides:

> If weekly compensation benefits or accrued weekly benefits are not paid within 30 days after becoming due and payable, in cases where there is not an ongoing dispute, $50.00 per day shall be added. . . .

However, a redemption payment is distinct from weekly compensation benefits or accrued weekly benefits. Redemption is a method of settling a case without necessarily admitting liability. MCL 418.835; MSA 17.237(835). Redemption cannot factually or legally overlap or duplicate compensation. *Powell v Casco Nelmor Corp,*406 Mich 332; 279 NW2d 769 (1979).

Section 801(2) was drafted to provide for penalties in specific instances, and those instances do not include redemptions. Penalty provisions are strictly construed in favor of the person being penalized. *Goetz v Black,*256 Mich 564; 240 NW 94 (1932).

Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary to address the second, which concerns the appeal board’s imposition of interest on the penalty.

We reverse that portion of the order below that imposed penalties because of the late redemption payment. Reversed in part.
Calendar No. 70

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1002

A BILL

To require each recipient of a grant or contract

cervical cancer.Act to provide information concerning breast andunder section 1001 of the Public Health Service

MAY 20 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Ordered to be placed on the Calendar
II

Calendar No. 70

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1002

To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section 1001 of

the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast

and cervical cancer.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 20 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr.

JEFFORDS, Mr. THURMOND, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr.

SIMON, Mr. DODD, Mr. WALLOP, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr.

DURENBERGER, and Mr. HARKIN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and ordered to be placed on the Calendar

A BILL

To require each recipient of a grant or contract under section

1001 of the Public Health Service Act to provide information concerning breast and cervical cancer.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER INFORMA4 TION.

5 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

6 ‘‘Breast and Cervical Cancer Information Act of 1993’’.
2

•S 1002 PCS

1 (b) AMENDMENT.—Title X of the Public Health

2 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended by adding

3 at the end the following new section:

4 ‘‘SEC. 1010. BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER INFORMATION.

5 ‘‘Each recipient of a grant or contract under section

6 1001 shall provide, to such individuals as the recipient de7 termines appropriate, information (in a culturally com8 petent manner) concerning breast and cervical cancer, in9 cluding information on the need for breast self-examina10 tions and the skills for such self-examinations, and shall

11 refer such clients as the recipient determines appropriate

12 for breast and cervical cancer screening, treatment or

13 other services.’’.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000             JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                               0               1,658,721
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                 562,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                  19,721
<INVENTORY>                                          0               2,182,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0               4,531,133
<PP&E>                                               0               4,525,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               3,170,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0               6,259,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 451,508
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                  21,344
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0               6,259,017
<SALES>                                        975,492               2,961,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               975,492               2,961,875
<CGS>                                          584,277               1,779,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  287,067                 894,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,095                  35,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                169,938                 476,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                    69,500                 195,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,438                 280,888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,438                 280,888
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05                    0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05                    0.13


</TABLE>