alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Willis J. POIRRIER, Jr., Clement Jasmin, Individually and as representatives of John Does and Jane Does, similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. JAMES PARISH POLICE JURY, Paul Keller, etc., et al., etc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-1058.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 26, 1976.

Paul G. Aucoin, Vacherie, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Charles S. Becnel, First Dist. Atty., 23rd Judicial Dist., Vacherie, La., for Keller & St. James Police.

*841ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion May 7, 1976, 5 Cir. 1976, 531 F.2d 316)

Before MORGAN, CLARK and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The issues raised in the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause were properly disposed of by the District Court in its order of March 18, 1974, which we set out in the appendix to this opinion. IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be and the same is hereby DENIED.

APPENDIX

*Order Granting Certain Motions*

The Court has now ruled on the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by all parties except for those brought by the local authorities, the St. James Parish Police Jury and the St. James Parish Hospital Board. For the reasons noted briefly below, these motions are GRANTED.

This action now proceeds against only the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, as a claim for judicial review of the administrative actions he has taken or failed to take with respect to the St. James Parish West Bank Hospital. This theory of law will not, however, support an action against the local officials, since they are not a part of the Department and cannot be charged with responsibility for its actions. Only if the complaint states an independent claim against the parochial bodies can they properly be joined as defendants in this lawsuit.

The plaintiffs suggest such a theory, asking the Court to find that the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 291 et seq., gives them an implied right to sue to force the opening of the hospital built to serve them. As authority, they cite a number of cases holding that indigents may sue to enforce the community service assurances local agencies must give in order to secure Hill-Burton funds. See, e. g., *Euresti v. Stenner,*10 Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 1115. As the Court noted in its opinion denying the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, however, a ruling that indigents may sue to enforce a particular contractual assurance is not the same as a determination that any resident may sue to enforce an implied, “main purpose” clause of an agreement. The difference is in fact critical and, for the reasons outlined in that previous opinion, the Court is reluctant to extend so far the scope of the implied right of action the Act creates. In addition, courts generally hesitate to imply a civil remedy when other relief is available to protect the rights at stake. In this case, the Court has just concluded that the plaintiffs have a remedy against the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. See Note, Implying Civil Remedies from Federal Regulatory Statutes, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 205 (1963). That should be adequate to protect their interest.
# Loudon - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Tennessee Development District Executive Director Rick Yakubic Email &#114;y&#x61;k&#x75;&#98;&#x69;&#99;&#x40;&#101;t&#x64;d&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#103;The post East Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                               Names Under
                                                    State or Other Jurisdiction of             Which the Subsidiary
Subsidiary                                          Incorporation or Organization              Does Business
----------                                          ------------------------------             --------------------
<S>                                                 <C>                                         <C>    
Bogen Corporation                                   Delaware                                   Bogen Corporation

  (a) Bogen Communications, Inc. (1)                Delaware                                   Bogen Communications, Inc.

  (b) New England Audio Resource Corp.(2)           Delaware                                   New England Audio Resource Corp./NEAR

  (c) Bogen Communications (Barbados), Ltd. (3)     Barbados                                   Bogen Com

Speech Design GmbH                                  Gremering, Germany                         Speech Design GmbH

  (d) Satelco AG (4)                                Switzerland                                Satelco AG

  (e) Speech Design (Israel) Ltd.(5)                Israel                                     Speech Design (Israel)      
        
  (f) Speech Design (UK) Ltd.(6)                    United Kingdom                             Speech Design (UK)

  (g) Digitronic Computersystern GmbH (7)           Germany                                    Digitronic Computersystem GmbH
</TABLE>




(1)  Bogen Communications, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Corporation

(2)  New England Audio Resource Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Communications, Inc.

(3)  Bogen Communications (Barbados) Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
     Communications, Inc.

(4)  Satelco AG is a 67% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH

(5)  Speech Design (Israel) Ltd. is a 100% owned subsidiary of Speech Design
     GmbH

(6)  Speech Design (UK) Ltd. is a 100% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH

(7)  Digitronic Computersystern GmbH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Speech
     Design GmbH
exv10w2



 











EXHIBIT 10.2




February 4, 2005




Glynis Bryan

2734 Bush Street

San Francisco, CA 94115

gabryan999@aol.com



Re: Hiring Specifications




     Dear Ms. Bryan:


You have been offered the position of Chief Financial Officer with Swift Transportation, Co., Inc.
We have offered you the following compensation package:





	 	•  	$325,000.00 annual salary
	 
	 	•  	50% target bonus based on performance
	 
	 	•  	$100,000.00 sign-on bonus to be paid upon hire. In the event that your
employment is terminated, you will repay the sign-on bonus to the company as
follows:






	 	•  	If you voluntarily terminate your employment within
the first 12 months of employment, you will repay 100%
	 
	 	•  	If you voluntarily terminate your employment 13 to 24
months from your date of hire, you will repay 66%,
	 
	 	•  	If you voluntarily terminate your employment 25 to 36
months from your date of hire, you will repay 33%






	 	•  	$700.00 monthly car allowance
	 
	 	•  	100,000 stock options will be granted upon hire






	 	•  	20% will vest each year
	 
	 	•  	100% vested in 5 years






	 	•  	20,000 annual target stock options based on performance
	 
	 	•  	3 weeks of vacation
	 
	 	•  	Eighteen months of severance, based on salary, will be guaranteed if your
employment is terminated unless the reason is for gross misconduct.





2200 S. 75th Avenue • Phoenix, AZ 85043

(602) 269-9700 (800) 800-2200




 









 




This offer is contingent upon Negative Substance Abuse Screening Test results for controlled
substances, job related reference checks, and a pre-employment physical (if required) taken prior
to reporting to work.



If the above terms are acceptable, please sign this form on the line indicated below and return it
to Barbara Kennedy. Your start date will be April 18, 2005.



We welcome you as new member to our Company!



Sincerely,



 



 




Jerry Moyes

Chairman & CEO



Received and acceptable:                                          Date                     




2200 S. 75th Avenue • Phoenix, AZ 85043

(602) 269-9700 (800) 800-2200
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1459-E1460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    TRIBUTE TO COLONEL JOHN BOULE II

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. WILLIAM L. OWENS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career and service 
of a friend and constituent, Colonel John Boule II of Plattsburgh, New 
York, and to congratulate him on his upcoming retirement. Col. Boule 
has a long and decorated career, rising to his current position as 
Commander of the New York District for the Army Corps of Engineers. 
This country and the State of New York are fortunate to have benefitted 
from his years of dedicated service.
  Col. Boule graduated in 1986 from the United States Military Academy 
at West Point with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He went 
on to earn two Master of Science degrees from Stanford University, and 
later used those skills to help further the careers of fellow soldiers 
by teaching at West Point. Col. Boule also served the Army in a variety 
of operational, command, and staff assignments in the U.S. and overseas 
including in Iraq, Somalia, and in New York at Fort Drum with the 41st 
Engineer Battalion, 10th Mountain Division. His decorated career 
includes the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, six awards of the 
Meritorious Service Medal, the Ranger Tab, and the Combat Action Badge.
  In addition to his work overseas, Col. Boule has been a positive 
force for change in New

[[Page E1460]]

York and in my congressional district. Since coming to Congress, I have 
benefited from his knowledge and experience in our efforts to improve 
Plattsburgh Harbor, attend to the district after Hurricane Irene, and 
strengthen Fort Drum. His dedication to these efforts has always helped 
to keep New York moving forward, and I am proud to have worked with 
him.
  It has been a pleasure and honor to work with Col. Boule. On a 
personal note, I am glad to have John as a friend and look forward to 
seeing him in Plattsburgh visiting with his family in the years ahead. 
I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating him on his 
retirement and wishing him well in whatever comes next.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 99.1


     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended June 30, 2002, (the "Report") by Chopin Venture Group, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.   The Report complies in all material respects 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 the operations of the
     Registrant.


Dated:  September 27, 2002

                                        /s/ Daryl Desjardins
                                       --------------------------------
                                       Name: Daryl Desjardins
                                       Title:  Chief Executive Officer


                                       /s/ Daryl Desjardins
                                       --------------------------------
                                       Name: Daryl Desjardins
                                       Title:  Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,547,448
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  719,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,266,821
<PP&E>                                      23,071,999
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,805,559)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,533,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          585,026
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,948,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,533,261
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,744,414
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,728,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,016,007
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,016,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,016,007
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2011269EN.01004601.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Kleinakis kai SIA (GOOD LIFE)

(Case T-108/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOOD LIFE - Earlier national word mark GOOD LIFE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Duty of diligence - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 269/100

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke and J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Siotou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE and Zino Davidoff SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zino Davidoff SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zino Davidoff SA;

| 3. | Orders I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   IN RECOGNITION OF THE VICTORY ARCH

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Victory 
Arch, which will make its debut after undergoing a two year restoration 
at the Cuyahoga County Fair in Berea, Ohio.
   The original Victory Arch was built in 1929 by Fred Hartman and was 
erected at the main entry to the Berea Fairgrounds on Eastland Road. 
The arch's columns are 25 feet high and span 35 feet across. For years 
the Victory Arch served as a beautiful welcoming sign to Cuyahoga 
County residents coming to enjoy the annual County Fair. Unfortunately, 
over the years, with the exception of some minimal work in the late 
1970s, the arch began to rust and fell into disrepair. A few years ago, 
Berea's Save Our Arch Committee began advocating for a full restoration 
of the Victory Arch. Two years ago the project began.
   The Cuyahoga County Fair Board, American Legion Post 91 and the 
Berea Historical Society helped to raise money and awareness needed to 
restore the structure. However, the physical restoration would not have 
been possible if it had not been for donations, support and countless 
man hours of the Berea City Club, Iron Workers Local 17 Apprentice 
Program, Cosmos Industrial Service, Inc., AkzoNobel, eGlobal 
Construction, Kottler Metal Products, Inc., Ziegler Bolt, Local 17 
President Tim McCarthy, Retiree Local 17 Doug McJunkins, Sealcoat, 
Horizon Metal, Inc., Luna and American International--Michael Petrasek.
   The Victory Arch was resurrected to its original place on Eastland 
Avenue on July 12, 2012 just weeks before thousands will visit the 
Berea Fairgrounds for the 116th Cuyahoga County Fair.
   Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the 
reinstatement of the Victory Arch at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008092EN.01005002.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/50

---

Action brought on 5 January 2008 — Hambura v Parliament

(Case F-4/08)

(2008/C 92/103)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Johannes Hambura (Soultzbach, France) (represented by: S. Hambura, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Personnel of 5 December 2007 to disallow the applicant from taking part in selection procedure PE/95/S, annul that selection procedure and carry out that selection procedure again.

Form of order sought

| — | declare the invalidity of the decision of the Directorate-General for Personnel (Competitions Unit) of the European Parliament of 5 December 2007, which refuses the use of electronic application forms in connection with a selection procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the invalidity of the decision of the Directorate-General for Personnel (Competitions Unit) of the European Parliament of 5 December 2007, which refuses the use of electronic application forms in connection with a selection procedure;

| — | annul selection procedure PE/95/S, in respect of a female or male Doctor, published in the OJ C 244 A, 18.10.2007, and carry out the procedure again using electronic application forms; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul selection procedure PE/95/S, in respect of a female or male Doctor, published in the OJ C 244 A, 18.10.2007, and carry out the procedure again using electronic application forms;

| — | in the alternative, decide the order in which the case is to be dealt with in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure so that the applicant is still able to take part in selection procedure PE/95/S. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, decide the order in which the case is to be dealt with in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure so that the applicant is still able to take part in selection procedure PE/95/S.

---
# C_2008285EN.01004501.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/45

---

Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Uralita v Commission

(Case T-349/08)

(2008/C 285/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Forrester, QC, K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt, J. Garcia-Nieto Esteva, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to Uralita; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to Uralita; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it finds that the applicant must be held jointly and severally liable for infringement allegedly committed by Aragonesas, in which the applicant held shares, during the period 16 December 1996 through 9 February 2000.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, it submits that the Commission erred in law by imputing the conduct of Aragonesas to Uralita by way of parent-subsidiary liability.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in imputing the conduct of Aragonesas to Uralita by way of succession.

---
# C_2009282EN.01003301.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Friedrich Schulze, Jochen Kolenda, Helmar Rendenz v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-529/08) (1)

1

2009/C 282/59

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. ISRAEL:
       H.R. 6382.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8.
```