alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014071EN.01003602.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/36

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 —  JJ (*1) v Council

(Case F-47/13) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2012 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Interinstitutional transfer in the course of the promotion procedure preceding that during which a promotion decision would have taken effect - Institution which is competent to take a decision on promotion of the transferred official)

(2014/C 71/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JJ (*1) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials in function group AD proposed for promotion in 2012.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

| 2. | JJ (*1) shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

JJ (*1) shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 63.

---
# C_2014024EN.01004102.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/41

---

Action brought on 28 October 2013 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-108/13)

2014/C 24/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s salary statements for January, February and March 2013, established pursuant to Council decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicant’s salary statements issued since 15 January 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant’s salary statements issued since 15 January 2013;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant arrears of remuneration to which he is entitled from 1 July 2012 together with late-payment interest calculated, with effect from the date on which the arrears fell due, at the rate fixed by the ECB for main refinancing operations increased by two points; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant arrears of remuneration to which he is entitled from 1 July 2012 together with late-payment interest calculated, with effect from the date on which the arrears fell due, at the rate fixed by the ECB for main refinancing operations increased by two points;

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant a symbolic EUR 1 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the administrative errors repeatedly committed by the Council and the appointing authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant a symbolic EUR 1 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the administrative errors repeatedly committed by the Council and the appointing authority;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

---
No. 10-5220.

#### David W. Wilson, Petitioner v. Scott Kernan, et al.

562 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 260,

178 L. Ed. 2d 172,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6885.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 831.
# C_2016027EN.01003301.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — CN v Parliament

(Case T-343/13) (1)

1

((Non-contractual liability - Petition addressed to the Parliament - Dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2016/C 027/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by A. Buchta and V. Pozzato, then by A. Buchta, M. Pérez Asinari, F. Polverino, M. Guglielmetti and U. Kallenberger, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data relating to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CN to pay the costs of the European Parliament and to bear his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CN to pay the costs of the European Parliament and to bear his own costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,040
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          18,613
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    93
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,499
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,053
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,081
<LOANS>                                        189,154
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,992
<DEPOSITS>                                     220,467
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,628
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,794
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 257,992
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,007
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  332
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   361
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,700
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,654
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,046
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,155
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,155
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       755
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.94
<LOANS-NON>                                        322
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,088
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       90
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,411
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,411
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-6352.

#### Reza B. Tabatabai, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 974, 131 S. Ct. 492,

178 L. Ed. 2d 311,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7894.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 845.
No. 09-11481.

#### Steven Crain, Petitioner v. Matthew Heifner.

562 U.S. 1037, 131 S. Ct. 589,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8732.

178 L. Ed. 2d 429,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 883, 131 S. Ct. 207, 178 L. Ed. 2d 124, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6754.
302 Certification

Exhibit 31.2


Date: May 13, 2004

           I, Jim Bolokoski, certify that:

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

     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; (b)
[Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238];

          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


                                                 /s/ Jim Bolokoski
                                                   ----------------
                                                   Jim Bolokoski
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Sanchez, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 38]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 24, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, the plea vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

A defendant forfeits his right to appellate review of a CPL 30.30 motion upon a guilty plea *(see People v O’Brien,*56 NY2d 1009 [1982], citing *People v Suarez,*55 NY2d 940 [1982]). However, here, the record is clear that the court misadvised defendant that he could pursue his 30.30 claim on appeal of a guilty plea (see *People v Williams,*123 AD3d 1376, 1377 [3d Dept 2014]; *People v Dalton,*69 AD3d 1235, 1235-1236 [3d Dept 2010]). Neither the defense counsel nor the prosecutor corrected the court’s misadvice. Moreover, defendant accepted a lengthier sentence, and declined to replead to a different offense with a shorter prison sentence, based on this misstatement that his 30.30 claim could be raised on appeal. Under the totality of these circumstances, defendant’s plea is vacated and the matter remanded *(see Williams*at 1377-1378; *see generally People v Gray,*62 AD3d 1256 [4th Dept 2009]). As defendant had no practical ability to object to the error because he was sentenced on the date the misstatement occurred *(see Williams*at 1377, quoting *People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168, 182 [2013], *cert denied sub nom. Thomas v New York,*574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]), he was not required to preserve his argument.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach defendant’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
No. 10-6263.

#### Terrick Terrell Nooner, et al., Petitioners v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 569,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8714.

178 L. Ed. 2d 417,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 594 F.3d 592.
No. 10-5515.

#### Charles T. Davis, Petitioner v. C. Huckabay, et al.

562 U.S. 926, 131 S. Ct. 312,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7584.

178 L. Ed. 2d 203,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2457 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2457

              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 23 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Danforth introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., 
of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily performed emergency work after 
the Northridge earthquake, but has not been reimbursed as a result of a 
technicality under California State law.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to fairly compensate 
Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for which, except for the 
technicality under California State law, it would otherwise have been 
paid under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall pay to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an 
amount equal to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of California to 
compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the emergency work and 
services performed at the request of the Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority, to the extent that such work and services are otherwise 
eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and 
Emergency Assistance Act. The payment shall be made from funds 
appropriated to implement such Act.
    (b) Deobligation of Funds.--The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall deobligate an equal amount to that obligated previously for 
payment to the State of California to cover the costs of work performed 
for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by Benchmark Rail 
Group, Inc., after the Northridge earthquake which would have been 
eligible for reimbursement under such Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-6084.

#### Mary L. Battle, Petitioner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, et al.

562 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 515,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8601.

178 L. Ed. 2d 381,

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 328.
#### In the Matter of Eileen Jordan et al., Respondents-Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[64 NYS3d 201]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered August 16, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the petition to direct respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to conduct a medical examination of petitioner Eileen *619Jordan pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71, reinstate her to her former position, and award her back pay to the extent of remitting the proceeding to NYCHA for compliance with Civil Service Law § 71, dismissed the petition as against respondent Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), and denied NYCHA’s cross motion to dismiss the petition as against it and request to answer the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent DCAS is not a necessary party *(see*CPLR 1001 [a]). It had delegated its responsibility for determining the medical fitness of employees like petitioner Jordan well before Jordan applied for reinstatement, and was not involved in NYCHA’s denial of the application; the court’s determination completely resolves the controversy between the parties *(compare City of New York v Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp.,*48 NY2d 469, 475 [1979] [“(t)o the extent that (the State Commissioner of Transportation) may choose to disregard a holding which is not binding on him, the judgment . . . may not produce a complete resolution of the controversy between the city and the limousine service”]).

NYCHA’s argument that Civil Service Law § 71 does not apply to labor class employees is contradicted by the plain language of the statute, which, by its terms, applies broadly to “employee [s],” an undefined term. We “cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit because the failure of the Legislature to include a matter within the scope of an act may be construed as an indication that its exclusion was intended” *(Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Is. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,*21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Indeed, elsewhere in article V of the statute, the legislature included terms that limited protections to certain classes of employee *(see*Civil Service Law §§ 75, 80, 80-a, 81; *Matter of Allen v Howe,*84 NY2d 665 [1994]).

As the dispositive facts are undisputed and the parties fully presented their arguments before the court, it was not necessary to grant NYCHA an opportunity to answer the petition following the denial of its cross motion to dismiss *(Matter of Davila v New York City Hous. Auth.,*190 AD2d 511, 512 [1st Dept 1993], *lv denied*87 NY2d 801 [1995]).

Jordan is not entitled to back pay pursuant to Civil Service Law § 77, because she has not been reinstated to her former position “by order of the supreme court” *(id.).*

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for af*620firmative relief and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
# DSCR reaches crucial milestone in quest to achieve OSHA star

/ Published March 23, 2016
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, is one step closer to receiving a star under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Voluntary Protection Program. 

Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Allan Day was joined by David Gibson, site director for DLA Installation Support at Richmond and Lucy Lewis, president, American Federation of Government Employees Local 1992 on March 15 in signing the application DSCR submitted to OSHA seeking designation as a VPP star site.   

VPP recognizes employers and workers in private industry and federal agencies who have implemented effective safety and health management systems and maintain injury and illness rates below national Bureau of Labor Statistics averages for their respective industries. DSCR has been working towards earning a VPP star since 2008.

Over the past year, in preparation for the OSHA audit, DSCR has completed two self-assessments, received two DLA Headquarters-led mock audits and held a DSCR-wide Safety Stand Down Day.  

Michael Kneip, DSCR VPP site coordinator said once OSHA accepts DSCR’s application, it will send an inspector to Richmond to determine the level of readiness. If things go well, a final site inspection will take place early this summer. If DSCR meets all requirements, OSHA will recommend the site for a VPP star.
No. 10-5774.

#### Valentino Dixon, Petitioner v. James Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 967, 131 S. Ct. 467,

178 L. Ed. 2d 297,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8029.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, in the following Registration Statementson Form S-8 (Nos. 333-143664 and 333-143661) and Form F-3 (No. 333-142237) of our report datedOctober 15, 2007 relating to the financial statements of Corgi International Limited (formerlyMaster Replicas, Inc.) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Corgi International Limited(formerly Master Replicas, Inc.) for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004./s/ Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP
No. 09-1434.

#### Florida Department of Revenue, Petitioner v. Daniel Rodriguez.

562 U.S. 833, 131 S. Ct. 128,

178 L. Ed. 2d 34,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6747.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 25.
#### People v Boyd

4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1481 (Monroe)

denied 3/15/17 (Stein, J.)