alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014409EN.01006601.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/66

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — Carneiro v Europol

(Case F-122/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis))

2014/C 409/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria José Carneiro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Kempeners and M. Itani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and J. Arnould, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Europol’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract for an indefinite duration and an application for an order that Europol pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive from Europol and any other allowance which she actually received.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any legal basis.

| 2. | Ms Carneiro is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Carneiro is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 52 of 22/02/2014, p. 53.

1

---
2016-1626.

#### State v. Elifritz.

Preble App. No. CA2016-02-002, 2016-Ohio-7193.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-2-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    113,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,564
<PP&E>                                          73,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (35,340)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,488
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,474
<SALES>                                        363,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               363,509
<CGS>                                          239,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  239,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,287
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,215
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (956)
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
        

        

</TABLE>
No. 10-6856.

#### Sebastian L. Eccleston, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 582,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8753.

178 L. Ed. 2d 424,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 62.
No. 10-7160.

#### Joseph Tome, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 674,

178 L. Ed. 2d 502,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9100.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 611 F.3d 1371.
#### Lazaro Joel Montas, Appellant, v Sally H. Abouel-Ela, Respondent.

[61 NYS3d 904]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered April 26, 2016, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated conduct by defendant’s counsel that would warrant reversal. Defendant’s counsel was properly permitted to cross-examine plaintiff’s expert rebuttal witness about the circumstances surrounding his suspension from chiropractic school for falsely reporting that he had seen patients, a matter relevant to his credibility *(see generally Badr v Hogan,*75 NY2d 629, 634 [1990]; *Spanier v New York City Tr. Auth.,*222 AD2d 219, 220 [1st Dept 1995]). Although the conduct was 30 years ago, the witness opened the door to its relevancy by claiming that his expert knowledge of biomechanics came, in part, from his training as a chiropractor. Counsel’s comments about the plaintiff’s expert in summations were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment *(see Selzer v New York City Tr. Auth.,*100 AD3d 157, 163 [1st Dept 2012]).

In any event, the purportedly offensive comments did not “create a climate of hostility that so obscured the issues as to have made the trial unfair” *(Wilson v City of New York,*65 AD3d 906, 908 [1st Dept 2009]; *cf. O’Neil v Klass,*36 AD3d 677 [2d Dept 2007]).

*590We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer and Kern, JJ.
No. 09-11387.

#### Elton Gregg Woodard, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 693,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9328.

178 L. Ed. 2d 523,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 190, 178 L. Ed. 2d 114, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6863.
#### Francisco Garcia, Respondent, v Habacus Construction, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[66 NYS3d 880]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ruben Franco, J.), entered October 6, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Habacus Construction, Inc. (Habacus) summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action, and denied the branch of defendants’ motion seeking sanctions and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly ruled that the alleged oral agreement between plaintiff and Habacus for a share of the company’s profits during the duration of plaintiff’s employment did not violate the statute of frauds. Plaintiff testified that the profit-sharing agreement was for the duration of his employment, which was at will and thus could have been *598terminated within one year of his hiring *(see Cron v Hargro Fabrics,*91 NY2d 362, 366 [1998]). In addition, issues of fact exist concerning the nature of plaintiff’s employment agreement with defendants.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for sanctions and costs *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber, Oing, JJ.
No. 10-5564.

#### Nestor Quinones, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 929, 131 S. Ct. 319,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7490.

178 L. Ed. 2d 208,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 34.
No. 10-7102.

#### Lawrence Maynard, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1073, 131 S. Ct. 671,

178 L. Ed. 2d 500,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9154.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 392 U.S. App. D.C. 291, 615 F.3d 544.
# C_2015026EN.01002902.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/29

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Eleftheriou and Papachirstofi v Commission and ECB

(Case T-291/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 026/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Andreas Eleftheriou (Dherynia, Cyprus); Eleni Eleftheriou (Dherynia); and Lilia Papachirstofi (Dherynia) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Andreas Eleftheriou, Ms Eleni Eleftheriou and Ms Lilia Papachristofi shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Andreas Eleftheriou, Ms Eleni Eleftheriou and Ms Lilia Papachristofi shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
# C_2014329EN.01002504.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Eltek v OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)

(Case T-139/13) (1)

1

2014/C 329/39

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
# Service dogs show their skills at disabilities program

/ Published Oct. 7, 2016
Battle Creek, Michigan, 
The Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center’s People With Disabilities Program on Oct. 5 had four special guests — including two who literally work their tails as they train to help former military personnel with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Kharma and Lucy are training to become service dogs. The German Shepherd and the yellow Labrador retriever were joined by their trainers, Sarah Rodeheaver, owner of Dog Zone, and Kelly Lapham, a trainer at the company. 

DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon noted in his opening remarks the achievement potential and resiliency of people with disabilities, recalling that in the recent Paralympic Games, the run times for four visually impaired runners in the 1500-meter race beat the time of the gold medalist at the recent Olympics for the same race.  

Cannon went on to talk about the 183 DLA Disposition Services employees who have identified themselves as having a disability. Like those four Paralympic athletes,  those workers give their all to help their colleagues support the warfighter every day, he said.

Rodeheaver started Dog Zone in 1994 but has been training dogs since 1988 — not only in service duties but also in obedience, scent detection, tracking and other disciplines. She partnered with The Battle Buddy Foundation in 2014 to train PTSD service and mobility dogs for combat veterans enrolled in the foundation’s programs. Rodeheaver and her team now have six dogs serving with veterans through the foundation and are working with five dogs planned to be placed with veterans after completing the program. 

It can take up to 18 months to train one dog, depending on the tasks the dog must perform, Rodeheaver said. Common skills are anxiety alert, mobility support, nightmare alert and retrieving objects. She also explained that when a service dog wearing its service vest, it is not the time to pet or play with the dog. The vest shows the dog is working and needs to focus on the needs of its human companion.

Ray Zingaretti, the director of Logistics Information Services, shared a story about a service dog who may have been especially perceptive. He once attended a multi-day class with 71 other people, including one with a PTSD service dog. Zingeretti did not know if the dog was trained to do so, but if an instructor went long in a session, the dog would make a show of stretching in the middle of the classroom, which signaled the instructors to give the class a break.
#### In the Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 44, Borough of the Bronx. City of New York, Respondent, v Family House Real Estate Corp., Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 246]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about December 9, 2002, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate an in rem judgment of foreclosure granted on default, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent’s conclusory denial of receipt of notice of the foreclosure action is insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by the deed conveying title to the City *(see Matter*
      *242
      *of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 33,*141 AD2d 437, 437-438 [1988], *appeal dismissed*73 NY2d 915 [1989]). In any event, such presumption became conclusive when, four months after entry of the final judgment, respondent had not yet instituted proceedings to set aside the deed (Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [h]). We also note respondent’s failure to substantiate its claim that the interest and penalties imposed on the parcel were improper. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Sullivan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17331]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 16, 1998.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 30, 1998 
to be assured of consideration.

Bureau of the Public Debt (PD)

    OMB Number: 1535-0122.
    Form Number: None.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Survey to Implement 
Executive Order 12862.
    Description: The voluntary customer service survey, as mandated by 
Executive Order 12862, measures customer satisfaction.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 7 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden Hours: 876 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Vicki S. Thorpe (304) 480-6553, Bureau of the 
Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West VA 26106-1328.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-17331 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-40-P
# Profiles in Resiliency: Tanya Lee

/ Published Oct. 25, 2016

Resiliency is one of the Defense Logistics Agency’s five core values - Integrity, Resiliency and Diversity, Innovation, Accountability and Excellence. Resiliency is the foundation for agency leaders’ actions in support of their customers and employees. It provides employees flexibility to adapt to changing environments while achieving outstanding results. 

DLA has produced a series of videos titled “Profiles in Resiliency,” to help support workforce resiliency.

Tanya Lee leads the audit readiness human performance team in DLA Finance. She used to travel often for her job, until she began experiencing life-threatening blood clots and heart problems. Lee discovered the source of her strength in faith and fortitude.

View her story of resiliency and perseverance.
No. 10-5772.

#### Benjamin Leo Zarn, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 937, 131 S. Ct. 344,

178 L. Ed. 2d 223,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7564.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 838.
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This agreement to amend that certain Employment Agreement (defined below) (this “Agreement”) is entered into December 10, 2004, and effective as
of December 8, 2004, by and between Calypso Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Calypso Management”), and Donald H. Hunter (“Mr. Hunter”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to increase the bonus opportunity provided to Mr. Hunter pursuant to that certain letter
agreement dated as of August 8, 2000 by and between Calypso Management and Mr. Hunter (the “Employment Agreement”), from a bonus opportunity of up to 100% of Mr. Hunter’s base salary to a bonus opportunity of up to 110% of Mr.
Hunter’s base salary. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of
the foregoing, and the covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:

  

	 	1.	Amendment to Employment Agreement. The first sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the terms “annual bonus opportunity of up
to 100% of your base salary” with the terms “annual bonus opportunity of up to 110% of your base salary” so that the first sentence of Paragraph 3 now reads: 

  
 “Your annual base salary will be $250,000 and you will be provided with an annual bonus opportunity of up to 110% of
your base salary, which will be based upon the achievement of performance goals to be established by the Board.” 
  

	 	2.	Miscellaneous. 

  

	 	a.	This Agreement is effective as of December 8, 2004, and except as set forth herein, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect and is otherwise unaltered by this
Agreement. 

  

	 	b.	This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A
facsimile or photocopy of a counterpart shall be sufficient to bind the party or parties whose signature(s) appear thereon. 

  

	 	c.	This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without reference to its conflicts of laws principles.









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the duly authorized officers
of the parties hereto as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	CALYPSO MANAGEMENT LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen G. Kasnet


	Name:	 	Stephen G. Kasnet
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	
	DONALD H. HUNTER
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Donald H. Hunter


	 	 	Donald H. Hunter, Individually
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1999 and the
Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    11137
<ALLOWANCES>                                       459
<INVENTORY>                                       3465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 14719
<PP&E>                                            6894
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   19002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13062
<BONDS>                                           1914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1235
<OTHER-SE>                                        1373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19002
<SALES>                                          36679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 36782
<CGS>                                            31924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    31924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    28
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (102)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Brown

12/07/2015

667 MAL (2017)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 466