alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

24 September 2009

Case F-36/08

**Arno Schell**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Allocation of promotion points by Directors-General – 2007 promotion procedure)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Schell seeks annulment of his career development report for the period
from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006 and of the formal intentions to allocate promotion points adopted by the Director-General
under the 2007 promotion procedure.

**Held:**The action is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay all of the costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45)*

It cannot be inferred from Article 8(7) of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted
by the Commission, that the administration is under an obligation to conduct a comparative appraisal of officials reported
on in order to draw up their career development reports. That provision is to be read in its context. First of all, while
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations requires an assessment to be made, in the form of a career development report drawn up
at least once every two years, of each official’s ability, efficiency and conduct in the service, the Staff Regulations do
not provide for that assessment to be comparative in nature, as required with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. On the
contrary, according to Article 8(5) of the general implementing provisions, the report is to be drawn up, as regards ‘Efficiency’,
in the light of objectives to be attained which are specific to each official. Furthermore, the verification mentioned in
the first paragraph of Article 8(7) of the general implementing provisions is a preliminary to the concertation provided for
in the second paragraph of that article, which is designed to ensure, within each directorate-general, that the appraisal
of merits conducted for the purposes of the report is consistent. It follows from the foregoing that the reference to a comparison
of merits in the first paragraph of Article 8(7) of the general implementing provisions must be understood as being one of
the elements by which the consistency of appraisals may be monitored, rather than as meaning that the career development reports
may be drawn up only after the merits of all the officials have been compared.

(see paras 37-39, 41)

See:

F‐42/06 *Sundholm* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I‐A‐1‐0000 and II‐A‐1‐0000, para. 31
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               TRIBUTE TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL PETE DEROUIN

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. GREG WALDEN

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fellow Oregonian 
and good friend, Lieutenant Colonel Pete Derouin of the Oregon Army 
National Guard, as he departs the National Guard Bureau's Office of 
Legislative Liaison in Washington, DC to return to Oregon. While Pete 
has served around the world over the past decade, he has always kept a 
very special place for Oregon in his heart.
  Pete was born and raised in my great state and joined the Army by 
earning his commission through the University of Oregon's ROTC program. 
He served for many years as a part-time soldier in Oregon as an officer 
in the Oregon National Guard. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
Pete felt the call of service and decided to leave the comforts of home 
and make military service his full time career. Over the last decade, 
he has served his country in different corners of the globe, including 
Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
  For the last four years, Pete has worked here on Capitol Hill as an 
outstanding advocate for the National Guard. I've worked closely with 
him during his time as a legislative liaison for the Guard, and have 
found his dedication and effectiveness to be exceptional. We worked 
together on obtaining approval for the new Readiness Center in The 
Dalles and on allowing the Oregon National Guard to retain parts of the 
Umatilla Chemical Depot. Pete was also instrumental in efforts to make 
sure that National Guard soldiers were not unfairly denied promised 
bonus payments due to paperwork errors by the Guard.
  Now the time has come for Pete to return home to Oregon. He has been 
selected to lead the 2nd of the 641st Theatre Aviation Battalion, which 
controls all of Oregon's Army National Guard aviation assets. I have no 
doubt that he will serve our state and nation well in this new role.
  I would like to thank Pete and his wife Andrea for tolerating the 
frantic pace which comes with working here in Washington, D.C., and 
wish them happiness and success as they continue their service to our 
nation back in Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I invite our colleagues to join me 
in saying thank you to Lieutenant Colonel Pete Derouin for his 
dedication to our country.

                          ____________________
```
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 Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher J. Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.






Dated:  April 06, 2010








/s/ Christopher J. Reed


Christopher J. Reed


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)














A signed original of this certification 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.
H. R. 452 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 324 West 

Saint Louis Street in Pacific, Missouri, as the ‘‘Specialist Jeffrey L. White, Jr. 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JEFFREY L. WHITE, JR. POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 324 West Saint Louis Street in Pacific, Missouri, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Jeffrey L. White, 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Jeffrey L. White, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
July 14, 2015

Mr. Ron Davison

4265 Chickadee Circle

Jackson, WY 83001

Dear Mr. Davison:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 1st 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2628), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

Please use the Comment Now Button on the Regulations.gov page to upload any additional 

information to the public docket. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
3
#### Bokhara Realty Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Barton’s Bonbonniere, Inc., Tenant, Besson Cohen et al., Appellants, et al., Undertenants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 9, 1959.

*1087
      *Leon D. Miller, Bernard Novick*and *Harold Greenberg*for appellants.

*Delatour & Miller (Frank A. Barrera*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Where the instrument from the lessee transfers to the undertenant the identical term which the transferor had received from its lessor and the transferor does not retain a reversion to himself, the instrument, although designated as a sublease, is an assignment *(Herzig*v. *Blumenkrohn,*122 App. Div. 756; *Gillette Bros.*v. *Aristocrat Restaurant,*239 N. Y. 87).

Since the evidence presented factual issues on which conflicting conclusions could be drawn by the jury, it was error to set aside the verdict.

The court likewise erred in granting a final order to landlord as the latter not only did not move for a directed verdict but also stated that the case should go to the jury *(Taylor*v. *Creary,*5 AD 2d 876; *Root, Inc.*v. *Lipstadt,*78 N. Y. S. 2d 11).

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed in favor of undertenants dismissing the petition, with costs.

Concur — Steuer, J. P., Hofstadter and Aurelio, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4451 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a five-year extension 

to the homeless veterans reintegration programs and to provide clarification regarding eligibility for services under such programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Mr. WENSTRUP (for himself and Ms. BROWNLEY of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 

five-year extension to the homeless veterans reintegration 

programs and to provide clarification regarding eligibility 

for services under such programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeless Veterans’ 

5 Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2017’’. 


daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4451 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

2 AFFAIRS HOMELESS VETERANS REINTEGRA3 TION PROGRAMS. 

4 (a) FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF HOMELESS VET5 ERANS REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS.—Section 2021(e)(F) 

6 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2022’’. 

8 (b) FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF HOMELESS WOMEN

9 VETERANS AND HOMELESS VETERANS WITH CHILDREN

10 REINTEGRATION GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 2021A(f)(1) 

11 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘2022’’. 

13 (c) CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES

14 UNDER HOMELESS VETERANS REINTEGRATION PRO15 GRAMS.—Section 2021(a) of such title is amended by 

16 striking ‘‘reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor 

17 force.’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘reintegration into the 

18 labor force of— 

19 ‘‘(1) homeless veterans; 

20 ‘‘(2) veterans participating in the Department 

21 of Veterans Affairs supported housing program for 

22 which rental assistance is provided pursuant to sec23 tion 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 

24 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19)); 

25 ‘‘(3) Indians who are veterans and receiving as26 sistance under the Native American Housing AssistVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:33 Nov 24, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4451.IH H4451

daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4451 IH

1 ance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 

2 4101 et seq.); 

3 ‘‘(4) veterans who are transitioning from being 

4 incarcerated; and 

5 ‘‘(5) veterans participating in the Department 

6 of Veterans Affairs rapid rehousing and prevention 

7 program authorized in section 2044 of this title.’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT      8.1**

**Significant      Subsidiaries of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.**

| **Name                  of Subsidiary**                                | **Country                  of Incorporation** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| SQM                  Industrial S.A.                                   | Chile                                         |
| SQM                  Nitratos S.A.                                     | Chile                                         |
| SQM                  Salar S.A.                                        | Chile                                         |
| Minera                  Nueva Victoria S.A.                            | Chile                                         |
| Servicios                  Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. | Chile                                         |
| Soquimich                  Comercial S.A.                              | Chile                                         |
| SQM                  North America Corp.                               | USA                                           |
| SQM                  Europe N.V.                                       | Belgium                                       |

----
Amendment to Employment Agreement - Paul J. Kelly



 Exhibit 10.35 
  
 On July 13, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Orchid BioSciences, Inc. increased the target
bonus of Dr. Paul J. Kelly, its Chief Executive Officer, to at least 50% of his annualized base salary commencing with his 2004 bonus payment.
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Reed’s, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Linesch, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.





Dated:     August 18, 2009




/s/ James Linesch


James Linesch


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)




A signed original of this certification 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


                            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 Seamless Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Albert Reda, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     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/ Albert Reda
---------------------------
Albert Reda,
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 17, 2008
# C_2011030EN.01003502.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-303/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark Golden Elephant Brand - Non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Common-law action for passing-off - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - New pleas in law - Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

2011/C 30/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Tsing Yi, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd and Tresplain Investments Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Rejects the form of order sought by Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd for partial annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings and Tresplain Investments Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the form of order sought by Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd for partial annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings and Tresplain Investments Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Tresplain Investments to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM and one half of those incurred by Hoo Hing Holdings, and orders Hoo Hing Holdings to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Tresplain Investments to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM and one half of those incurred by Hoo Hing Holdings, and orders Hoo Hing Holdings to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

1

---
# Stephens - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Georgia Mountains Regional Commission Executive Director Heather Feldman Email h&#102;&#101;&#x6c;&#x64;&#x6d;&#x61;n&#64;&#103;&#109;&#x72;&#x63;&#x2e;ga&#46;&#103;&#x6f;&#x76;The post Georgia Mountains Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2009055EN.01002702.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 December 2008 — AES-Tisza v Commission

(Case T-468/08 R)

(Application for interim measures - State aid - Commission decision declaring aid awarded by the Republic of Hungary to certain electricity producers through power purchase agreements to be incompatible with the common market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)

(2009/C 55/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AES-Tisza Erőmű kft (AES-Tisza kft) (Tiszaújváros, Hungary) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn, N. Khan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 2223 final of 4 June 2008 on the State aid awarded by the Republic of Hungary through power purchase agreements.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---