alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

COMERICA BANK,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

July 31, 2018

v No. 336637

Oakland Circuit Court

MICHAEL KELMAN, LC No. 2012-142821-CK

Defendant-Appellant, 

and

BIRMINGHAM BLOOMFIELD CREDIT 

UNION,

Garnishee Defendant-Appellee.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and JANSEN and O’CONNELL, JJ.

JANSEN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

To the extent that the majority concludes that any disability payments deposited into 

Kelman’s BBCU account are exempt under MCL 600.6023(1)(f), I agree. However, I write 

separately because my review of the record did not yield any documentary evidence supporting 

Kelman’s contention that his disability payments were deposited into his BBCU account. 

Because I do not agree that remand is necessary, and I respectfully dissent. 

As the party asserting the exemption, Kelman bore the burden of proving that he was 

receiving disability payments, and that those disability payments were being deposited into the 

BBCU account. Kelman attached to his brief in support of his objection to the writ of 

garnishment the following: the consent judgment against him; the request and writ for 

garnishment; the garnishee disclosure; his original objection; the spousal support order from his 

divorce; and case law he argued supported his position. What Kelman did not submit was 

documentation verifying that he was receiving disability payments, and that those payments were 

being deposited into the BBCU account. In my view, Kelman has failed to support his claim that 

he is entitled to an exemption under MCL 600.6023(1)(f). 

If no evidence was presented to support Kelman’s contention that he had received 

disability payments to the BBCU account that were exempt, the trial court remains unable to 

make factual findings regarding how much of the BBCU account balance is exempt from 
-2-

garnishment under MCL 600.6023(1)(f). By remanding to the trial court to make factual 

findings regarding what amount of the BBCU account reflects disability payments, the majority 

allows Kelman to take another bite of the apple, sort to speak. I do not find remand to be 

appropriate on this record. Accordingly, I would affirm. 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen
# C_2019035EN.01003101.xml

| 28.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/31

---

Action brought on 28 November 2018 — Air Liquide Industriegase v Commission

(Case T-705/18)

(2019/C 35/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Air Liquide Industriegase GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in full the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in full the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

| — | in the alternative, annul the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 insofar as it orders that, in respect of the years 2012 and 2013, baseload consumers with at least 7 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 20 % of published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 hours of full use per year repay more than 15 % of published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 10 % of published network charges; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the defendant’s Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 relating to Ref. C(2018) 3166 insofar as it orders that, in respect of the years 2012 and 2013, baseload consumers with at least 7 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 20 % of published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 hours of full use per year repay more than 15 % of published network charges and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 hours of full use per year repay more than 10 % of published network charges;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-693/18, ZY v Commission.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 19, 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00220

- CR

Tyrieck Dontrell Smalls, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOOD WIN, BAKER, AND KELLY MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the court’ s

judgment requiring rever sal

. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction.

Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the “ T erms of P lea

B argain ” is “ open plea to lesser

- included off ense

. ” The judgmen t, as modified , is affirmed

.

Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
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 Treasure Mountain  Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10- QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, George I. Norman,  III, Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.


/s/   George I. Norman, III
-----------------------------
      George I. Norman, III
      Chief Executive Officer
      August 13, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of
         this  written  statement  has been  provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing  certifications are
         accompanying  the Company's Form 10-QSB solely  pursuant to section 906
         of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350,  chapter  63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
                                       1
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 

This Third Amendment To Collaboration And License Agreement (this Amendment No3) is by and between Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
with a place of business at 300 George Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 (“Achillion”) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , a Pennsylvania corporation with a place of business at 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, New Jersey 08560
(“Janssen”). Achillion and Janssen are each referred to individually as a “Party” and together as “the Parties” 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS the Parties executed a
Collaboration And License Agreement on May 19, 2015 as amended by the Amendment To Clinical Trial Collaboration And License Agreement executed June 29, 2015 (“Amendment No1”) (taken together as the “Collaboration
Agreement” ) and by Amendment No2 with same effective date as the Collaboration Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and sufficient consideration,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree to amend the Collaboration Agreement as amended by Amendment No2 in the following way: 
 1.
Parties agree that the one-time milestone payment of Fifteen million ($15,000,000) for the Clinical Milestone Event under Section 8.3.1 (a) shall be due on dosing of the first patient in the OMEGA-1 Phase 2b study of JNJ-4178. Said
milestone payment shall be payable by Janssen to Achillion within thirty (30) days after receipt of invoice from Achillion. 
 2. This Amendment No3
shall enter into effect on Monday December 26, 2016. 
 3. Except as otherwise provided herein, all of the other terms and conditions of the
Collaboration Agreement (as amended) shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment No 3 in two
(2) copies 
  

			
	JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 	ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS, Inc.
		
	By /s/ Jeffrey M. Smith	 	By /s/ Milind S. Deshpande
		
	Name Jeffrey M. Smith	 	Name Milind S. Deshpande
		
	Title Vice President New Business	 	Title President & CEO
		
	Date December 23, 2016	 	Date December 23, 2016
# C_2010113EN.01001102.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-496/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Officials - Success in internal competitions for change of category under the old Staff Regulations - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules for classification in grade - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

2010/C 113/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen and K. Zejdová, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ application for annulment of the individual decisions classifying them in grade, taken pursuant to transitional measures laid down in Annex XIII and, in particular, Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Ending, following entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, of classification in grade following success in an internal competition held under the old Staff Regulations — Whether interest in bringing an action retained despite the contested decisions becoming obsolete — Principles of the retaining of acquired rights and the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equal treatment

Angé Serrano and Others

Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal;

| 2. | Dismisses the cross appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the cross appeal;

| 3. | Orders Ms Angé Serrano, Mr M. Bras, Orcajo Teresa, Decoutere, Hau, Solana Ramos, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Angé Serrano, Mr M. Bras, Orcajo Teresa, Decoutere, Hau, Solana Ramos, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21. 2. 2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Brad
      E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the "Company") do
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
      June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  August
      13, 2007


/s/Brad
                E. HerrBrad
                E. Herr
              Chief
                Financial Officer
crowd_ex102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.2
 
RESIGNATION FROM
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AND ALL OFFICER POSITIONS
OF
CROWD 4 SEEDS, INC.
 
The following is a true copy of the resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation at a special meeting, notice to this meeting having been waived, held on the 30th day of December, 2016
 
WHEREAS the undersigned was appointed as Director of the Corporation and has served in said capacity to date, he has determined at this time to formally RESIGN and renounce all further corporate designation or affiliation with CROWD 4 SEEDS, INC. and hereby formally RESIGNS, and severs any and all official ties, duties, obligations or liabilities regarding CROWD 4 SEEDS, INC., and does hereby, by affixing, his signature hereto, officially as his last corporate act, DOES HEREBY RESIGN. This Resignation is not the result of any dispute with management. In addition, the undersigned hereby formally RESIGNS from his positions as CEO, CFO, President, Treasurer and Secretary of the Corporation. 
 
The Board shall choose a new Director at a time and place of its choosing. 
 
 
DATED: 30th December, 2016
 
_____________________________________________
Itzhak Ostashinsky
# C_2020054EN.01001101.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-143/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15 and 66 - Genuine use of an EU collective trade mark - Mark concerning a system of collection and recovery of packaging waste - Affixing to the packaging of goods for which the mark is registered)

(2020/C 54/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows) (T-253/17, EU:T:2018:909); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows) (T-253/17, EU:T:2018:909);

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 February 2017 (Case R 1357/2015-5); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 February 2017 (Case R 1357/2015-5);

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH relating to both this appeal and the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH relating to both this appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*George Brandau, Defendant.

County Court, Oneida County,

September 21, 1959.

*George Brandau,*defendant in person.

*John M. Liddy, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

John J. Walsh, J.

Motion by defendant-petitioner for leave to reargue original application for a writ of error *coram nobis*filed June 25, 1959 and denied by this court on August 20, 1959 upon the ground that no triable issue of fact was presented by the petition.

The defendant may not in the guise of a motion for reargument introduce new matter on a motion which has already been denied. Orderly procedure requires a new motion where the defendant feels aggrieved by reason of new or additional facts which were not presented on the original motion *(People*v. *Doceti,*N. Y. L. J., Jan. 26,1959, p. 14, col. 6).

Motion for reargument denied. However, the court will consider this motion as a new application for a writ of error *coram nobis*and will deny the same. The additional facts presented in the affidavit of defendant, sworn to September 1, 1959 and filed September 8, 1959 do not raise any issue of fact (a) that the testimony was perjured, (b) that it was material, and (c) that the District Attorney knew at the time that said testimony was perjurious.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.50


                        [BIOCIRCUITS LETTERHEAD]


April 3, 1997



Dear ______________,

I am pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors on March 20, 1997, 
approved a retention package to encourage your continued service to the 
Company. This retention package is in addition to and separate from the terms 
of your employment agreement with the Company. You should not worry that the 
terms of your continued employment by the Company have been modified in any 
way.

Under this retention package you will receive a lump sum retention payment 
equal to [six/twelve] months salary (less standard deductions and 
withholdings of course), if you are employed by the Company on the closing 
date of a merger or sale of the Company (as determined by the Board of 
Directors) occurring before March 20, 1998.

We appreciate your efforts, and look forward to working with you through this 
difficult period.

Sincerely,



John Kaiser
President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       1.
# C_2021182EN.01001001.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — X v Kuoni Travel Ltd

(Case C-578/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 90/314/EEC - Article 5(2), third indent - Package travel, package holidays and package tours - Contract concerning package travel concluded between a travel organiser and a consumer - Liability of the travel organiser for the proper performance of obligations arising from the contract by other suppliers of services - Damage resulting from the acts of an employee of a supplier of services - Exemption from liability - Event that cannot be foreseen or forestalled by the travel organiser or the supplier of services - Concept of a ‘supplier of services’)

(2021/C 182/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Respondent: Kuoni Travel Ltd

Intervener: ABTA Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The third indent of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, in so far as it provides for a ground for exemption from liability of an organiser of package travel for the proper performance of the obligations arising from a contract relating to such travel, concluded between that organiser and a consumer and governed by that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of non-performance or improper performance of those obligations, which is the result of the actions of an employee of a supplier of services performing that contract:

| — | that employee cannot be regarded as a supplier of services for the purposes of the application of that provision, and |
| --- | --- |

—

that employee cannot be regarded as a supplier of services for the purposes of the application of that provision, and

| — | the organiser cannot be exempted from its liability arising from such non-performance or improper performance, pursuant to that provision. |
| --- | --- |

—

the organiser cannot be exempted from its liability arising from such non-performance or improper performance, pursuant to that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 64204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25402]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 30, 2013.

PLACE: CFTC Headquarters Conference Center, Three Lafayette Centre, 
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Commission has scheduled this meeting to 
consider various rulemaking matters, including the approval of several 
final rules. The agenda for this meeting is available to the public and 
posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov. In the 
event that the time, date, or place of the meeting changes, an 
announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of 
the meeting, will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, Secretary of 
the Commission, 202-418-5516.

Melissa D. Jurgens,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-25402 Filed 10-24-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```