alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005115EN.01002102.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/21

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 January 2005

in Case T-357/03 Bruno Gollnisch and Others v European Parliament (1)

1

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 115/40)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-357/03: Bruno Gollnisch, residing in Limonest (France), Marie-France Stirbois, residing in Villeneuve-Loubet (France), Carl Lang, residing in Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, residing in Overijse (Belgium) and Koen Dillen, residing in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by W. de Saint Just, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and N. Lorenz, having an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 2 July 2003 amending the rules on the use of credits under budgetary heading 3701 of the general budget of the European Union — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The opinion of the Parliament's legal service, produced by the applicants in Annex 5 to the application, is removed from the file; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The opinion of the Parliament's legal service, produced by the applicants in Annex 5 to the application, is removed from the file;

| 2. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 3. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

1

---
VIA

OFFICE or THE UNDER sacwarmer

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON

.•

1.1727 JOINTLY

intuguipuratt

June 28, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with the DIA on the Requirement for

the SI Camera

Admiral Lowrance, General McChristian and other

members of the DIA met with me on June 18th to answer

my questions on the requirement for the SI camera. After

observing that the costs were going up at a rapid rate

I stated the need for having a better understanding of

the requirement.

I noted that if the requirement is firm we

should go ahead. If it is not firm, we should review

it and determine whether we should continue. We might

even try to identify another cour

cost has risen from approximately

Admiral Lowrance asked General Mc r st an to exp a n

the. Army requirement. He stated that the requirement

came from USIB thru JCS. General Wheeler reaffirmed

the requirement only yesterday. He stated without any

doubt that we needed the 1 to 50,000 scale map. The

brigade Leader and the platoon leader can not use the

1 to 100,000 scale map because it is too gross to show

the type of detail they need. They need the 1 to 50,000

scale map because of the details that can be easily drawn

on the map. From this detail they can decide what battle

tactics they should employ. In fact, General McChristian

stated they need the 1 to 25,000 picto map in many instances.

When questioned where they get the material for

the 1 to 25,000 maps, he stated they use the 1 to 50,000

maps as base material, but add detail from many sources.

In other words they do not need the metric accuracy but

do need greater detail.

•
NuLt VIA

They do not plan to propose maps of the entire

•20M square mile land area outside the Soviet Sino block.

This is too much material to prepare and store. They

would like to have a data base so that if maps are

needed in any area of the world they could automatically

produce them to the scale needed.

There are at least" an years

employed in exploiting TX. ma era 411la P . tikaamaterial

is their primary source material.

They made the significant point that the cost

of making the maps for exploiting the material we furnish

is much greater than collecting the material. In this

case the increased cost of the stellar index camera is

a small fraction of the total map producing cost. They

claimed that making these maps with a 12" camera would

cost Less than with the KH4 material. We

acknowledged that it would be cheaper to make it from the

12" than from the 3".

Colonel Herndon stated that he did not understand

our figure ofIllPince he spoke to General Berg and

General Berg sa d the cost had risen to We stated

that there was some misunderstanding ana t t we would

to check this. They agreed that if the cost was now

other look at the requirement would be justified.

John L.. McLucas
### NUMBER 13

- 1 4

- 00 556

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellant,

v.

SHIELA CASSIANO

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Order Per Curiam

Th is cause is before the Court because the court reporter, Esther Natividad , has

failed to timely file the reporter ’ s record. The reporter ’ s record in th is cause was originally

due to be filed on October 20, 2014 . The reporter has previously requested and received

three extensions of time to file the record , granting the reporter until February 16, 2015 to
file the record. The reporter was notified that the court will not look favorably upon any2

further extensions . To date, Ms. Natividad has not filed the reporter ’ s record.

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further

delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(a)( 2 ). Accordingly,

this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court.
Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given

and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant has abandoned its appeal. If it is

determined tha t appellant has not abandoned it s appeal, the court shall further determine

if the state will diligently pursue this appeal.

The court shall further determine if the reporter ’ s record, or any part thereof, has
been lost or destroyed, and shall make appropriate findings under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f),
if necessary. Otherwise, the court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure

the prompt preparation of a reporter's record, and shall enter any orders required to avoid

further delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights.
The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be

included in a supplemental cle rk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this
Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed this the 26 th day of February, 2 015

.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1904

TERRY H. CAPONE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, Employer; COMPANION THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS; SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS ’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION; DORIS MCCUBBINS, In her individual capacity; HENRY GENE MCCASKILL, In his individual capacity; DR. MICHAEL GREEN; RICHLAND COUNTY OMBUDSMAN ’ S OFFICE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 02490

- CMC )

Submitted : March 23 , 2021 Decided: March 26, 2021

Before THACKER , QUATTLEBAUM , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Terry H. Capone, Appellant Pro Se. Jacqueline Marie Pavlicek, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry H. Ca pone appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Capone’s employment action for failure to state a
claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Capone v. City of Columbia , No. 3:19

- cv - 02490

- CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2020)

. We deny Capone’s motion to hold this appeal in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit (10)(a)



 EXHIBIT (10)(a) 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 
  







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 
 We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Supplement to the Statement of Additional
Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated March 28, 2008, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, (2) dated March 28, 2008, with respect
to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (3) dated August 5, 2008, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Life Investors Insurance Company of
America and (4) dated March 21, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of the subaccounts of Separate Account VA-2L, which are available for investment by contract owners of the Dreyfus/Transamerica Triple Advantage Variable
Annuity, included in Amendment No. 33 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-07042) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and related Supplement to the Statement of Additional Information of Dreyfus/Transamerica Triple
Advantage Variable Annuity. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des Moines, Iowa 
 September 26, 2008
#### Schmidt, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Schwarz, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Harry V. Meissner*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Gilbert J. Davelaar,*attorney, and *W. 0. Meilahn,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
" • 

USCIB: 9. 7 /1 

!OP SBSRE!F 

IrA:Nm.E TJIA SOMIN'i' SI~ O!U1¥ 

APPENDED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN 

CODEWORD MATERIAL 

5 August 1955 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3. 3 I h I I 2 I 

M»dORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: UKUSAOcoltl'erence, April 1955. 

The enclosure is forwarded for information at the request of 

the Director, National Security Agency. 

USCIB 

Enclosure 

Copy of NSA Serial N 5230 dtd l Aug 1955. 

USCIB: 9. 7/1 

APPENDED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN 

CODEWORD MATERIAL 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-26-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

TOP SECRET 
• ~142 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

APPENDED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN 

CODEWORD MATERIAL 

'i'OP OEOR'lll'f 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, USOIB 

SUBJECT: UKUsAOconrererice, A})~ii !95; 

• 

Serial: N 5230 

1 August 1955 

)''.Jl'L 86-36/50 USC 3605 

. E.Q . 3 . 3 I h I I 2 I 

the 1. Conference Inclosed papers here·wi:·······t·· of h the f()r UKUSA the ~ Conference ... ·.· tion .o···f US· on .. CI·.·.·.B···.·. the ·.· .. members II are 

I I held at GCHQ, .7' 2 April 1955, and Tet;rerS 

from the Director NSA and the Direct,or GCHQ approving \these papers. 

2. The Conference concerned/itself with techni.cal matters or 

CCMINT production as summari,ed below and all of the reco:rnm.endations 

are in consonance with the current UKUSA Agreement. 

a. The Conference included a general briefing by\both\US 

and UK representatives>on the present deployment and tasking \of0 

I .... ________ .... ~>and the future plans for these units. 

b. Also considered were the pr.esent arran ements for cooperation and division of labor on the 

problem, and views were exchanged on tn"""e---..-e-s-ir ... a........,1 ........ 1 ......... y,._···· an____,. ........ p .... r"""a-..c ..... :i_-_..., 

cabil itv 0£ extending such cooperation to other aspects of the I.___ .... I !problem.. It was generally decided that present liaison 

arrangements, as well as arrangements :for technical co.ntrol and support, were sayi sfac:nrv and sboul d continue. It was a.g··· ... reed, however, 

that when the! ~ ~ad been established, the situation 

would be re-examine • 

c. Certain specific recommendations were made for the technical improvement of existing methods of processing th~ I 

Problem. 

3. The Director NSA has informed the Director GCHQ of his agreement with the Conference report and its recommendations. 

Incl: 

a/s 

FOR THE DIRECTOR: 

(Signed) 

J. S. HOLTWICK, Jr. 

Captain, US Navy 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

Operations 

Enclosure with USCIB 9.7/1 dtd 5 Aug 1955. 

TOP SECRET
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2496

LOYLESS B. TUCKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

REGINALD A. LEE, SR.; WILLIAM E. REID, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

JOHN B. DALTON, Secretary; DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY,

Defendants - Appellees,

versus

JAMES L. CRAWFORD,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-96-113-2-18AJ)

Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: January 21, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Loyless B. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. John Harris Douglas, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for appointment of his choice of representative. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not

appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We note that our

dismissal renders moot Appellant's motion to expedite this appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>           0000351129
<NAME>          CDX Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>    1
<CURRENCY>      U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>              <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1996      SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1996      JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1996      SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1                1
<CASH>                                9,325                0 
<SECURITIES>                              0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                        48,467                0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                0
<INVENTORY>                          46,199                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    109,950                0
<PP&E>                              187,044                0
<DEPRECIATION>                     (166,432)               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      189,627                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               758,695                0
<BONDS>                             248,620                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                0
<PREFERRED>                               0                0
<COMMON>                             48,881                0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       (569,068)               0
<SALES>                              91,248           93,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     91,248           93,957 
<CGS>                                64,191           32,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       153,865          114,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    (76,514)         (23,499) 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   (4,364)          (3,176)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (76,514)         (23,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                0
<CHANGES>                                 0                0
<NET-INCOME>                        (76,764)         (23,499)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.016)           (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.016)           (.007)
#### Hartsfield *v.*Westbrook.

One line of a boundary was from a poplar on a swamp, *“*thence down the swamp to the beginning”: *held,*that the swamp, and not a straight line from the poplar to the beginning, is the boundary.

The patent called for a beginning at a tree, which stood (though not so expressed in the patent) near the swamp, thence in a rectangular course from the swamp, thence South degrees West, thence North to apiñe (which also stood near the swamp, but not said to be so in the patent) thence to the beginning, not taking any notice or making any mention of the swamp. The patentee conveyed part of this land to *Eaves,*who con veyed to *Hartsfield, Eaves’s*deed began at the beginning, corner of the patent, thence a rectangular course from the swamp, thence South, thence- North to the swamp to a poplar, thence *down the swamp to the legin - ning.*The trespass complained of, was on the opposite side, of the swamp from the poplar. It was within the land of the Plaintiff, if a direct line from one boundary to the other was the true *one;*but not within it if the swamp was the true boundary.

*Per Curiam*

The swamp is to be considered as the boundary — but that this judgment may not be hurried, you may move the matter at another day. Should the opinion of the court be altered in the mean time, they *298will then set aside the nonsuit now ordered. The Plaintiff was nonsuited — anda few days afterwards it moved fyy *Gen. Davie,*that this nonsuit should be set aside, saying he wished the opinion of the court upon this point, because another suit was depending in court upon the same point, between *Hartsfield*and *Fuller,*which would be disposed of immediately should the court be of opinion that the swamp was to be considered as the boundary.

*Per curiam*— A case similar to the present was decided at Edenton last term, between *Foster*and *Sandifer*— the expression there was, “thence along the river5” here it is, “ thence down the swamp to the beginning” — they are both of the same import, and the case of *Foster*and *Sandifer,*is therefore, tit to govern the present, and accordingly the swamp in the present case, is to be considered as the boundary. — Let the nonsuit remain, and the rule to show cause why it should not be set aside, discharged.— Then *Gen. Davie*dismissed the other suit of *Hartsfield*v. *Fuller.*

*Note.*— Vide *Sandifer v. Foster, ante*237.
**EXHIBIT 10.31****Retention Agreement with each of John D. Schwab, Clinton A. Sampson, and Randall J. Peterson**August 16, 2006[Address]Dear ___:In connection with our recently announced transaction involving the merger of RepublicBancorporation, Inc. (“Republic”) with and into Citizens Banking Corporation (“Citizens”) (the“Merger”), the compensation and human resources committee of the board of directors of Citizens(the “Committee”) has determined that your specialized knowledge and expertise will be instrumentalin assuring a successful integration of the two companies. As such, the Committee has authorizedme to extend to you this offer of a “retention bonus”. Under this arrangement, you would continueas [functional title] of the Corporation and would continue to report directly to me and would alsoassist me in the integration process with respect to the Merger. In return, Citizens would agreeto pay to you in addition to your normal compensation, a lump sum payment of $150,000 followingDecember 31, 2008 (the “Retention Period”). In return, Citizens would require that: i) you do notterminate your employment with Citizens and that you continue as an active employee of Citizensthrough the Retention Period; ii) your job performance continue at an acceptable level consistentwith past performance; and, iii) while the Change in Control Agreement entered into between you andCitizens on [hire date] would remain in full force and effect, the Merger shall not constitute a“Change in Control” for purposes of the Change in Control Agreement.If you are interested in continuing in the employ of Citizens pursuant to the above-describedarrangement, please indicate your desire to do so by signing the duplicate originals of this letteragreement and returning them to me. Thereafter, I will sign both originals and return one fullyexecuted original to you for your records while retaining the other for our records. Also, bysigning this letter agreement, you agree not to disclose any of the provisions contained herein tothird parties and to treat the provisions of this agreement in a confidential manner.Very truly yours,           Agreed and Accepted         /s/ William R. Hartman William R. Hartman   /s/    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer      
44
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>          0001004540
<NAME>         AIRPLANES US TRUST
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               6
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5
<ALLOWANCES>                                         2
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9
<PP&E>                                             419
<DEPRECIATION>                                     117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               10
<BONDS>                                            351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (147)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       347
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   105
<CGS>                                             (85)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        6
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (1)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>