alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Braun, Appellant, vs. Merten, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Brennan, Lucas & McDonough*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Emil Hersh*and *Herbert Morse,*both of Milwaukee.

*By the Covert.*

Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6529

WILLIAM HENRY ROACH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-734)

Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Henry Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIUM:

William Henry Roach, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court order denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims a district court dismisses solely

on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not

issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Roach has not satisfied

either standard. See Mitchell-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029

(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral arguments because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid in the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11

                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                        OF NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Nine Months         Nine Months         Three Months        Three Months
                                           Ended 9/30/02       Ended 9/30/01       Ended 9/30/02       Ended 9/30/01
                                           -------------       -------------       -------------       -------------
<S>                                        <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Net earnings (loss)                        $  (1,574,000)      $  (1,640,000)      $     120,000       $    267,000
                                           =============       =============       =============       ============

Earnings (Loss) Per Share - Basic
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                          5,470,311           5,470,311           5,470,311          5,470,311
                                           =============       =============       =============       ============

Earnings (loss) per common share -
Basic                                      $        (.29)      $        (.30)      $         .02       $        .05
                                           =============       =============       =============       ============
Earning (Loss) Per Share - Diluted
Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                          5,470,311           5,470,311           5,470,311          5,470,311


Effect of stock options dilution                       0                   0                   0                  0
                                           -------------       -------------       -------------       ------------
Total shares outstanding for purposes of
calculating diluted earnings                   5,470,311           5,470,311           5,470,311          5,470,311
                                           =============       =============       =============       ============

Earnings (loss) per common and common
Equivalent share - Diluted                 $        (.29)      $        (.30)      $         .02       $        .05
                                           =============       =============       =============       ============
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6767-6768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--U.S. Photovoltaic Manufacturing Consortium, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 6, 2015, pursuant to 
Section 6(a)

[[Page 6768]]

of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 
U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), U.S. Photovoltaic Manufacturing 
Consortium, Inc. (``USPVMC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Akrion Systems LLC, Allentown, PA, has 
been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and USPVMC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 14, 2011, USPVMC filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on December 21, 2011 (76 FR 79218).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 1, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52364).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-02359 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
# CA2004137EN.01000301.xml

| 15.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 137/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 137/3

---

Corrigendum to the vacancy notice for a Director (grade A2) in DG Environment (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations)

COM/081/04

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 92 A of 16 April 2004
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 92 A of 16 April 2004

(2004/C 137 A/05)

Page 23: Closing Date

Closing Date

For:

‘Applications must be sent on or before 14 May 2004 (date of e-mail or date as postmark for registered mail).

14 May 2004

Applications sent by express courier service must be delivered to the address above before 17.00 on 14 May 2004’

14 May 2004

Read:

‘Applications must be sent on or before 1 June 2004 (date of e-mail or date as postmark for registered mail).

1 June 2004

Applications sent by express courier service must be delivered to the address above before 17.00 on 1 June 2004’

1 June 2004

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.15.1

                             SIMMONS HOLDINGS, INC.
                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                             1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         Pursuant to Section 8 of the Simmons Holdings, Inc. 1999 Stock Option
Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:

                  "(a) Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in
         Section 5(c), the aggregate number of Shares that may be delivered upon
         the exercise of awards granted under the Plan (the "Option Shares")
         shall be 4,456,000, which Option Shares may be designated "Regular
         Option Shares" or "Superincentive Option Shares". If any award granted
         under the Plan terminates without having been exercised in full, or
         upon exercise is satisfied other than by delivery of Shares, the number
         of Shares as to which such award was not exercised shall be available
         for future grants within the limits set forth in this Section 5(a)."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Simmons Holdings, Inc. has caused this instrument
of amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the 22nd day of
March, 2000.

                                        SIMMONS HOLDINGS, INC.



                                        By  /s/ Charles R. Eitel
                                            -----------------------------
                                                Charles R. Eitel
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Georges Benarroch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Osprey Gold Corp.;

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

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                        Date: December 20, 2006


                                        By: /s/ Georges Benarroch
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Georges Benarroch
                                            Acting President & Chief Executive
                                            Officer And Acting Chief Financial
                                            Officer


                                       22
On respondent’s petition for attorney fee filed July 27,

petition for attorney fee allowed September 28, 1983

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Eugene Muehlhauser, Claimant. STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, *Petitioner, v.*MUEHLHAUSER, *Respondent.*

(83-0027M; CA A28596)

669 P2d 387

Willard E. Merkel, Portland, appeared for the petition.

Darrell E. Bewley, Appellate Counsel, State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation, Salem, appeared contra.

Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*725PER CURIAM

After SAIF appealed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board here, claimant moved to dismiss on the ground that we lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was not final. We agreed and dismissed SAIF’s appeal. Claimant now seeks an award of attorney fees for his attorney’s services before the appeal was dismissed. SAIF objects.

Claimant’s compensation was not reduced or disallowed as a result of SAIF’s appeal. Claimant is therefore entitled to receive a reasonable attorney’s fee. ORS 656.012(2) (b); *see SAIF v. Bond,*64 Or App 505, 669 P2d 332 (1983).

$375 attorney fee allowed.
# C_2004251EN.01001502.xml

| 9.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/15

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2004

in Case T- 342/99 DEP: Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Taxation of costs - Solicitors' and barristers' fees - Economists' fees - VAT)

(2004/C 251/26)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-342/99 DEP: Airtours plc, represented by M. Nicholson, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for taxation of the costs to be recovered from the Commission by Airtours plc following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 28 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Commission to Airtours is fixed at GBP 489 615.03 (four hundred and eighty-nine thousand, six hundred and fifteen pounds and three pence).

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 18.3.2000.

1

---
# C_2004307EN.01000101.xml

| 11.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 December 2004

(2004/C 307/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3191 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,59 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4310 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69120 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0140 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5349 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,62 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2180 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5792 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,868 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6860 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4316 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2077 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 845 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,87 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,088 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 896 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7609 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6225 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2569 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8759 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1884 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 408,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,7072 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3191

JPY

Japanese yen

139,59

DKK

Danish krone

7,4310

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69120

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0140

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5349

ISK

Iceland króna

83,62

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2180

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5792

CZK

Czech koruna

30,868

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6860

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4316

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2077

ROL

Romanian leu

38 845

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,87

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,088

TRL

Turkish lira

1 896 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7609

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6225

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2569

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8759

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1884

KRW

South Korean won

1 408,01

ZAR

South African rand

7,7072

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005006EN.01000902.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-425/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative): Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye v Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme administrative (1)

1

(Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of a transfer of an undertaking to the State - Possibility for the State to impose rules of public law - Reduction of the amount of remuneration)

(2005/C 6/15)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-425/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg), made by decision of 21 November 2002, received at the Court on 25 November 2002, in the proceedings between Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye and Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme administrative — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as not precluding in principle, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking from a legal person governed by private law to the State, the latter, as new employer, from reducing the amount of the remuneration of the employees concerned for the purpose of complying with the national rules in force for public employees. However, the competent authorities responsible for applying and interpreting those rules are obliged to do so as far as possible in the light of the purpose of that directive, taking into account in particular the employee's length of service, in so far as the national rules governing the position of State employees take a State employee's length of service into consideration for calculating his remuneration. If such a calculation leads to a substantial reduction in the employee's remuneration, such a reduction constitutes a substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employees concerned by the transfer, so that the termination of their contracts of employment for that reason must be regarded as resulting from the action of the employer, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 77/187.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

1

---
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Constructed Wetland, Heavy Use Area Protection, Nutrient Management, Subsurface Drain, Vegetated Treatment Area, Waste Storage Facility, Waste Transfer, Waste Treatment Lagoon, Waste Utilization.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# C_2004300EN.01000402.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-55/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

1

(Member State's failure to fulfil obligations - Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC - Concept of ‘collective redundancy’ - Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies - Incomplete transposition)

(2004/C 300/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-55/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 February 2002, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Sack and M. França) and Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro Lopes) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by restricting the concept of collective redundancies to redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend that concept to dismissals for any reason not related to the individual workers concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by restricting the concept of collective redundancies to redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend that concept to dismissals for any reason not related to the individual workers concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)   OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.

1

---