alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6905** 

JOSEPH RUHREN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. MARCOS SPITTAL, Detective Prince William County Police; LUTHER, Sergeant Manassas A.D.C.; MELETIS, Superintendent Manassas A.D.C. , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00445

- AJT

- JFA )

Submitted : October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Joseph Ruhren, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Ruhren appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (20 12 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the d istrict court. Ruhren v. Spittal , No. 1:15

- cv - 00445

- AJT

- JFA (E.D. Va. May 14, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisio nal process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,458
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,788
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,773
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,546
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,310
<LOANS>                                        237,230
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,809
<DEPOSITS>                                     240,040
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,324
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,435
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,803
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 289,809
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,970
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  977
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,523
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,470
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,927
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,879
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,591
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,667
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,963)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (1,963)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.93
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,586
<LOANS-PAST>                                       700
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,202
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,448
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,723
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,723
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0




</TABLE>
No. 09-11164.

#### Veronica R. Pearson, Petitioner v. Danny Brace, et al.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 691,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9179.

178 L. Ed. 2d 521,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 865, 131 S. Ct. 149, 178 L. Ed. 2d 90, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6492.
No. 10-5720.

#### Debra Robertson, Petitioner v. Cree, Incorporated.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 597,

178 L. Ed. 2d 437,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8873.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 307.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Ckrush, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jan E. Chanson, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

|                     |  |  |        |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|---------------------|--|--|--------|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: May 14, 2007 |  |  | By:    |  |  | /s/ Jan E. Chason                                          |
|                |  |  |   |  |  | Jan E. Chason Executive Vice President& Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                     |

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
No. 10-7753.

#### Nathan Lamar Jones, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 965,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 211.

178 L. Ed. 2d 794,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 356.
# C_2015107EN.01001401.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-317/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Freedom of movement for workers - Access to employment - Local public service - Linguistic knowledge - Means of proof))

(2015/C 107/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, J. Van Holm and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that by requiring candidates for posts in the local services established in the French-speaking or German-speaking regions, whose diplomas or certificates do not show that they were educated in the language concerned, to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that by requiring candidates for posts in the local services established in the French-speaking or German-speaking regions, whose diplomas or certificates do not show that they were educated in the language concerned, to provide evidence of their linguistic knowledge by means of one particular type of certificate, issued only by one particular Belgian body following an examination conducted by that body in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union;

| 2) | Orders the Kingdom of the Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Kingdom of the Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---
1

Parsons, Nick

From: Vasquez, Paul J. <PJVASQUE@GAPAC.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:35 PM

To: Parsons, Nick

Attachments: Response to EPA Additional Questions - Attchments - APR RTR - Updated 12Jun2014.pdf

Hi Nick, I hope things are going well for you – moved and settled in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Attached is our response to your questions and additional information you requested. Please review and let me know if 

we need to discuss any of the information. 

The CBI version will be mailed to the CBI officer. 

Thanks.
Positive attitude, faith lead DLA employee with disabilities to DoD recognition
 
  By Beth Reece
                                              DLA currently employs over 2,800 people with disabilities and was recognized in July by the Department of Defense as a model employer of people with disabilities.
# C_2014315EN.01005401.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/54

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Paul Hartmann v Commission

(Case T-233/13) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann SA (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Paul Hartmann SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Paul Hartmann SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
# C_2013123EN.01002201.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/22

---

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Pro-Aqua International/OHIM — Rexair (WET DUST CAN’T FLY)

(Case T-133/13)

2013/C 123/37

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pro-Aqua International GmbH (Ansbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rexair LLC (Troy, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 December 2012 (in case R 211/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 December 2012 (in case R 211/2012-2);

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘WET DUST CAN’T FLY’ for products and services of classes 3, 7 and 37 (Community trade mark registration No 6 668 073)

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-7323.

#### Joshua Vandemark, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1095, 131 S. Ct. 806,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9484.

178 L. Ed. 2d 539,

December 6, 2010.

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

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 825.
# C_2015354EN.01000502.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-89/14) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market - Simple or compound interest - National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force))

(2015/C 354/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A2A SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999, do not preclude national legislation, such as Article 24(4) of Decree-Law No 185/2008 of 29 November 2008, on urgent measures to support families, work, employment and business, and to restructure the national strategic framework to combat the crisis, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No 2 of 28 January 2009, which, by means of a reference to Regulation No 794/2004, provides for the application of compound interest to the recovery of State aid, even though the decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery was adopted and notified to the Member State concerned before that regulation entered into force.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
# C_2015107EN.01002701.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/27

---

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

(Case T-531/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 107/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 992/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74488, 333-62933,333-81955, 333-32872, 333-56120 and 333-83404, 333-12850and 333-120852) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113504 , 333-106895,and 333-1123245) of Quixote Corporation of our report dated September 13,2004 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule,which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, IllinoisSeptember 12, 2006

----
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:31 a.m. on 
Monday, June 22, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's corporate activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Julie L. Williams 
(Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Chairman 
Donna Tanoue, that Corporation business required its consideration of 
the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no 
earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest 
did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to 
public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(9)(B) and (c)(10) of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 
(c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: June 22, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17024 Filed 6-22-98; 4:57 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
Amendment No. 1 to Amended and Restated  Incentive Plan



  
 Exhibit 4.2 

 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED LIGHTPATH TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 October 20, 2004 
  
 The Amended and Restated
LightPath Technologies, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by increasing the “Plan Maximum,” as defined in Section 6 of the Plan, from 465,625 shares of Class A Common Stock to 915,625 shares of Class A
Common Stock, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15 of the Plan. This Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated LightPath Technologies, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors on May 11, 2004, and approved by
the stockholders of LightPath Technologies, Inc. on and effective as of October 20, 2004.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Panamersa Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James E. Finegan, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ James FineganJames E. Finegan, Treasurer





Dated:   June 28, 2011
No. 10-7201.

#### Audrey S. Wagstaff, Petitioner v. Department of Education.

562 U.S. 1148, 131 S. Ct. 979,

178 L. Ed. 2d 771,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 341,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 564.