alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016364EN.01004601.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/46

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Piessevaux v Council

(Case F-94/13) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Plea of inadmissibility - Concept of an act adversely affecting the applicant - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 364/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vincent Piessevaux (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, and lastly by L. Ponteville, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | M. Vincent Piessevaux shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

M. Vincent Piessevaux shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 336 of 16.11.2013, p. 32.

---
No. 10-6410.

#### David O. Edwards, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 429,

178 L. Ed. 2d 334,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8171.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 873.
#### Barbara Robins, Respondent, v Procure Treatment Centers, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Princeton Procure Management LLC et al., Appellants.

[70 NYS3d 457]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 19, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from, *607denied defendants Princeton Procure Management LLC and Procure Proton Therapy Center’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a New York City resident, seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of proton radiation treatment she received at a facility owned by defendant Princeton Procure Management LLC (PPM) (d/b/a Procure Proton Therapy Center) and located in Somerset, New Jersey, after having undergone resection of a non-malignant brain tumor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.

Plaintiff made a “sufficient start” in establishing that New York courts have jurisdiction over PPM under CPLR 301 and 302 (a) (1) to be entitled to disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) (see *Peterson v Spartan Indus.,*33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]). With regard to general jurisdiction, codified in CPLR 301, it is not clear whether PPM’s “affiliations with the State [New York] are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the . . . State” *(Daimler AG v Bauman,*571 US —, —, 134 S Ct 746, 761 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, the record contains a State filing in which PPM identified itself as having a principal place of business in Manhattan—“tangible evidence” upon which to question PPM’s claims to the contrary *(see SNS Bank v Citibank,*7 AD3d 352, 354 [1st Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

With regard to specific jurisdiction (CPLR 302 [a] [1]), the record shows that PPM’s activities in New York were “purposeful and [that] there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” *(Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v Montana Bd. of Invs.,*7 NY3d 65, 71-72 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted], *cert denied*549 US 1095 [2006]; *see also Fischbarg v Doucet,*9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007]). PPM chose and marketed its Somerset, New Jersey, location to target New York residents, touting its proximity to New York in advertising, entered into an agreement with a consortium of New York City hospitals for the referral of cancer patients for treatment at its facility, and provided the consortium’s doctors with privileges at its facility. In contrast to *Paterno v Laser Spine Inst.*(24 NY3d 370 [2014]), a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff argued that New York courts had jurisdiction over a Florida-based facility and its doctors based on an advertisement and communications, in this case, plaintiff did not seek out PPM. She says that she was directed to PPM by her New York doctor, defendant Raj Shrivastava, as part of a referral fee agreement, that Dr. Shrivastava thereafter co-managed her *608care, and that PPM billed her directly for Dr. Shrivastava’s services.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
# DLA, Parker Aerospace cut ribbon for cost saving partnership

/ Published Feb. 22, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Commander Navy Rear Adm. Grafton D. Chase, Jr., officiated a ribbon cutting ceremony on Hill Air Force Base, Utah, marking the third Defense Logistics Agency public private partnership between DLA and Parker Aerospace, Feb.9.   

Chase, along with Carl Kubat, Parker Aerospace’s vice president of military aftermarket, officially cut the ribbon on the PPP, along with Air Force Col. Jason Okumura, DLA Aviation at Ogden, Utah; James McArthur, DDHU director; Mark Strawn, DLA Aviation Ogden, Utah; and Joe Saffron, DLA Distribution business development.  

The largest DLA PPP in terms of scope, financial impact and number of supported weapons systems, this partnership also represents two DLA major subordinate commands working together to support the warfighter. DLA Aviation created the $444 million weapons system performance based logistics contract with Parker Aerospace and DLA Distribution is supporting Parker Aerospace’s ability to fulfill that contract through the PPP for warehousing.                 Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Hill, Utah, is storing Parker Aerospace material, including brakes and actuators for five legacy aircraft, directly facing the maintenance activity at Ogden Air Logistics Center on Hill Air Force Base. Photo submitted.                            DLA, Parker Aerospace cut ribbon for cost saving partnership                            Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Hill, Utah, is storing Parker Aerospace material, including brakes and actuators for five legacy aircraft, directly facing the maintenance activity at Ogden Air Logistics Center on Hill Air Force Base. Photo submitted.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Photo submittedVIRIN: 230104-D-D0441-0001

As with all PPP’s, the material, including brakes and actuators for five legacy aircraft, is stored inside the wire in DLA Distribution Hill, Utah’s warehouse, directly facing the maintenance activity at Ogden Air Logistics Center. This expedites parts delivery to the maintenance line, and in the end, gets the planes back to the warfighter faster. The partnership also increases the Defense Department and DLA’s organic network utilization. The five-year combination of Defense Working Capital Fund revenue, cost avoidance and cost reduction is $1.7 million.

Section 883 of the 2017 NDAA, authorized DLA to create five pilot PPPs for “storage and distribution services support to a contractor in support of the production, modification, maintenance, or repair of a weapon system.” The DDHU – Parker Aerospace PPP marks the successful execution of all five pilots.
No. 10-11.

#### Worldwide Network Services, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. DynCorp International LLC.

562 U.S. 889, 131 S. Ct. 224,

178 L. Ed. 2d 135,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7088.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 432.
No. D-2574.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Gary R. LeBlanc.

562 U.S. 818, 131 S. Ct. 411,

178 L. Ed. 2d 275,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7577.

October 4, 2010.

Gary R. LeBlanc, of Gardner, Massachusetts, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16865]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: U.S. Fishermen Fishing in Russian Waters.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0228.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 75 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 10 with multiple responses.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: In support of the Agreement between the U.S. and 
the Government of the Russian Federation, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) requires certain information to honor this Agreement. 
First, U.S. fishermen must apply for a Russian permit by submitting the 
application to NMFS for transmittal to Russian authorities. When 
received, fishermen must notify NMFS of the approved permit and then 
they must report when entering and exiting the U.S. Exclusive Economic 
Zone. This information will be used in conjunction with landings data 
by ``enforcement'' staff to determine illegal catch.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion, annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20503.

    Dated: June 18, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Office, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-16865 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A0 35 9 . MI CHAEL D. CARNES v . CHANDRA PATTERSON.

M i ch ael D. C a

r ne s ( “ H usba

nd” ) a nd C ha

ndr a P a tte rs o n (“ W i fe”) were d i v o rced

i n M ay 20 1 9

. In Ap ri l 2 0 21

, t h e t ri a l c o u r t i s s u ed an o rd er fi n d i n g Hu s b an d in

co n tem p t fo r n o t m ak i n g cert ai n al i m o n y an d d eb t p ay m en t s as p r o v i d e d i n t h e

p art i es ’ fi n al d iv o rce d ecree. Hu s b an d t h en fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal

, seek i n g rev i ew o f

t h e co n t em

p t o rd er. 1 W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Ap p eal s fro m

o rd ers i n d o m es t ic rel at io n s cas es , i n cl u d i n g o rd ers h o l d i n g o r

d ecl i ni n g t o ho l d p ers o ns i n co nt em p t

, m u s t b e p u rs u ed b y d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n.

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (2 ), (b ). “ Co m p l i an ce wi t h t h e d is cret i o n ary ap p eal s p ro ced u re

i s ju ri s d i ct i o nal .” S

mo a k v. Dep t

. of Hu m an Res ou r ces , 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 7

, 25 7 (4 7 1

SE2 d 6 0 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Becau se th is i s a d o m es t i c rel at i o n s cas e, Hu s b an d was req u i red to

co m p l y wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re t o o b tai n rev i ew o f t h e co n t em p t

1 Hu s b an d fi l ed h i s ap p eal i n th e Su p rem e Co u rt b u t

, u p o n fi n d i n g n o b as i s fo r

t h at Co urt ’ s j u ri s d i ct i o n , t he Su p rem e Co u rt t ran s ferred t h e ap peal t o t h i s Co u rt

. See

Cas e No . S2 1 A1 2 8 7 (Au g . 2 4

, 2 0 2 1 ). October 19, 2021o rd ers

. Hi s fai lu re t o d o so d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o ver t h i s di rect ap p eal

, wh i ch

i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/19/2021
Exhibit 10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Program




	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer
	 	$56,500
	 
	 	 
	Committee Chair Retainer
	 	Audit Committee -$10,000
	 
	 	Compensation Committee -$7,500
	 
	 	Other Committees -$5,000
	 
	 	 
	Stock-based Awards
	 	$50,000 annual value
	(to be granted at each reorganization
	 	80% allocated to restricted shares
	meeting or pro-rated for any mid-year
	 	that vest on the first re-election of a
	director appointment)
	 	director following the award date
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	20% allocated to stock options with an
	 
	 	exercise price equal to the fair market value
	 
	 	of Company stock on the date of grant and
	 
	 	vesting on the first re-election of a director
	 
	 	following the award date
No. 09-11280.

#### Dennis Emerson Gonzalez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 871, 131 S. Ct. 172,

178 L. Ed. 2d 102,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7032.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 596 F.3d 1228.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ioulia Guerman, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 687]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered July 29, 2015, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, petit larceny and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of a store employee’s testimony that he had communicated a trespass notice barring defendant from the store after a prior shoplifting incident.

*545We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
#### Louis Burns, Respondent, v Stephanie Burns, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[48 NYS3d 610]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kenneth R Sherman, J.), dated October 18, 2016. The order denied the motion of the defendant Stephanie Burns to strike the plaintiff’s jury demand.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A jury trial is guaranteed in an action ‘for determination of a claim to real property under [RPAPL article 15]’ ” *(Paciello v Graffeo,*8 AD3d 543, 543 [2004], quoting CPLR 4101 [2]). Although the plaintiff did not characterize or refer to his causes of action to recover possession of real property as claims pursuant to RPAPL article 15, he was nevertheless entitled to a jury trial on those causes of action *(see Paciello v Graffeo,*8 AD3d 543 [2004]; *see also Howard v Murray,*38 NY2d 695, 699-700 [1976]). Moreover, regardless of whether the plaintiff’s causes of action to recover the subject properties are equitable in nature, he is statutorily entitled to a jury trial on those causes of action *(see City of Syracuse v Hogan,*234 NY 457, 462 [1923]) and, thus, he did not waive his right to a jury trial by joining legal and equitable claims *(see Paciello v Graffeo,*8 AD3d at 543). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant Stephanie Burns’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s jury demand.

Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# C_2013260EN.01002801.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 27 June 2013 — Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others

(Case C-360/13)

2013/C 260/50

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

In circumstances where:

| (i) | an end-user views a web-page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

an end-user views a web-page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;

| (ii) | copies of that web-page are automatically made on screen and in the internet ‘cache’ on the end-user’s hard disk; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

copies of that web-page are automatically made on screen and in the internet ‘cache’ on the end-user’s hard disk;

| (iii) | the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;

| (iv) | the screen copy remains on screen until the end-user moves away from the relevant web-page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the screen copy remains on screen until the end-user moves away from the relevant web-page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;

| (v) | the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end-user views further web-pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end-user views further web-pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and

| (vi) | the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;

Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1)?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society

1

OJ L 167, p. 10

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q, (the Report), of SunCom Wireless, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, Michael E. Kalogris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as appropriate, 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.



/s/ Michael E. KalogrisName:

Michael E. KalogrisTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

August 15, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to SunCom Wireless, Inc. and will be retained by SunCom Wireless, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of SunCom Wireless, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or
after the date of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
163 A.3d 348

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD N. ZUVICH, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 013231980)

June 29, 2017

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-160, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*l:20-4(f)(default by respondent), that RICHARD N. ZUVICH, formerly of COLONIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since May 31, 2017, should be suspended from practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.15(d) and *R.*1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations), *RPC*5.5(a)(1) (practicing law while ineligible), *RPC*8.1(a) (false statement of material fact to disciplinary authorities), *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from disciplinary authorities), *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RICHARD N. ZUVICH is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

*509ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*1:20—20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of *RPC*8.1(b) and *RPC*8.4(d); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.