alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018328EN.01001101.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

(Case C-96/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ - Definition of ‘working conditions’ - Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration - Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration - Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation))

(2018/C 328/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Pharmasset, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of our knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: February 14, 2008 |  | /s/ P. SCHAEFER PRICE        
|                        |  | P. Schaefer Price            
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |  | (principal executive officer)
|                        | 
|Date: February 14, 2008 |  | /s/ KURT LEUTZINGER          
|                        |  | Kurt Leutzinger              
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |  | (principal financial officer)
AMENDMENT NO 1

TO THE

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

WHEREAS, L-3 Communications Corporation (L-3) maintains the L-3 Communications Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the Plan); and

WHEREAS, L-3 desires to amend the Plan to change the timing of deferral elections;

NOW THEREFORE, effective September 1, 2004, the Plan is amended as follows:

1.
        Article I, Section 1(a) is amended to add the following to the end thereof:


Notwithstanding the following, an Eligible Employees election to defer his or her Incentive Bonus for the 2004 calendar year and his or her Base Salary and/or Incentive Bonus for the 2005 calendar year shall be made no later than September 30, 2004.

2.
        Article I, Section 3 is deleted and replaced with the following:


Time when Deferral Agreement Takes Effect. An Eligible Employees Deferral Agreement with respect to the deferral of Base Compensation shall take effect beginning with the first payroll period of the calendar year following the year in which the Deferral Agreement is made; provided, that, a Deferral Agreement that is made within 30 days after the individual first becomes an Eligible Employee shall take effect beginning with the first payroll period following receipt of the Deferral Agreement by the Administrator. An Eligible Employees Deferral Agreement with respect to the deferral of Incentive Bonus shall take effect only if the Eligible Employee is awarded at least $10,000 of Incentive Bonus for the calendar year for which the Deferral Agreement applies.



9/28/04
        
        
        /s/ Kenneth W. ManneDate
        
        
        Kenneth W. ManneVice President-Human Resources






---
Cornelius Joseph Roberto AUDATE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-867

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2022198EN.01003801.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — NV v eu-LISA

(Case T-661/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Staff of eu-LISA - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Reprimand - Implementing provisions concerning administrative inquiries - Plea of illegality - Article 110 of the Staff Regulations - Failure to consult the Staff Committee - Rights of the defence and right to be heard - Articles 12, 12a, 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations - Error of assessment - Principle of good administration - Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 198/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NV (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of eu-LISA of 3 February 2020 to impose on the applicant the penalty of a reprimand and, secondly, compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

140226

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140226 COA: 294471 Oakland CC: 2008-218952-FH IVAN JOE LOURIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 13, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,072,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,078,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,670,000
<PP&E>                                     982,957,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              59,196,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             968,680,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,946,000
<BONDS>                                    472,375,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 466,359,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               968,680,000
<SALES>                                    128,444,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           131,037,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,628,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,484,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          27,681,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             60,148,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                60,148,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.38
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

FRANKLIN IGHEKPE §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § 

§ NO. 3-05-CV-0479-P

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, §

Attorney General of the United §

States, ET AL. §

§

Respondents. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED this 15 day of July 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00479-P Document 16 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 120
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 846 

To provide for the confidentiality of information submitted in requests for 

deferred action under the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. WARREN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. REED, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. 

LUJA ́N, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the confidentiality of information submitted 

in requests for deferred action under the deferred action 

for childhood arrivals program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect DREAMer 

5 Confidentiality Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 846 IS

1 (1) DACA PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘DACA pro2 gram’’ means the deferred action for childhood ar3 rivals program described in the memorandum of the 

4 Department of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Exer5 cising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Indi6 viduals Who Came to the United States as Chil7 dren’’ issued on June 15, 2012. 

8 (2) INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION INFORMATION.— 

9 The term ‘‘individual application information’’ 

10 means any information, including personally identifi11 able information, submitted to the Secretary after 

12 June 15, 2012, as part of a request for consider13 ation or reconsideration for the DACA program. 

14 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

15 the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

16 SEC. 3. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED 

17 FOR DACA PROGRAM. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall protect indi19 vidual application information from disclosure to U.S. Im20 migration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and 

21 Border Protection for any purpose other than the imple22 mentation of the DACA program. 

23 (b) REFERRALS PROHIBITED.—The Secretary may 

24 not refer to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

25 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 846 IS

1 Justice, or any other law enforcement agency any indi2 vidual the case of whom has been deferred pursuant to 

3 the DACA program. 

4 (c) LIMITED EXCEPTION.—Individual application in5 formation may be shared with national security and law 

6 enforcement agencies— 

7 (1) to identify or prevent fraudulent claims; 

8 (2) for particularized national security purposes 

9 relating to an individual application; and 

10 (3) for the investigation or prosecution of any 

11 felony not related to immigration status. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
AGREED JUDGMENT Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE:

DIVINE N. NYIAWUNG, 

 Debtor 

DIVINE N. NYIAWUNG,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION,

 Defendant. 

Case Number: 22-40639-MXM

(Chapter 7)

Adv. No. 23-04036-MXM

AGREED JUDGMENT

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Signed July 18, 2024

_____________________________________________________________________

____________________________

United States Bankruptcy Judge
AGREED JUDGMENT Page 2 of 2

Upon consideration of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the Stipulation for Entry of 

Agreed Judgment filed by the parties (ECF No. 24), as well as the consent of the parties as 

evidenced by their signatures below, it is therefore

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the student loan debt owed by Divine N. 

Nyiawung to the Department of Education is dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8),

and is hereby DISCHARGED.

### END OF JUDGMENT ##

AGREED TO CONTENT AND FORM:

LEIGHA SIMONTON

Acting United States Attorney

 /s/ Dawn Whalen Theiss 

Dawn Whalen Theiss

Assistant United States Attorney

Texas Bar No. 24051755

1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor

Dallas, Texas 75242-1699

Telephone: 214-659-8628

Facsimile: 214-659-8807

dawn.theiss@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States

Department of Education

/s/ Kenneth L. Neeley

Kenneth L. Neeley

NEELEY LAW

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Kyle Schumacher

Kyle Schumacher

Josh Lane

Schumacher Lane PLLC

NEELEY LAW

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JAN C. HANKINS §

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-194-Y

 §

JO ANNE B. BARNHART §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 30, 2006, the United States magistrate judge issued

his proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“findings”) in

the above-styled and -numbered cause. In his findings, the magistrate

judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration of the United States (“the Commissioner”)

denying plaintiff Jan C. Hankins’s claim for disability insurance and

supplemental security income benefits be affirmed. The magistrate

judge’s order gave all parties until February 20 to serve and file

with the Court written objections to his proposed findings. 

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed her objections, asking this

Court to reject the findings of the magistrate judge. The defendant

did not file a response.

After carefully reviewing the findings, record, case law, and

Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that the findings should

be and are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this

Court for the reasons stated therein.

Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED March 3, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00194-Y Document 22 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 105
EXHIBIT 32.1




        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sockeye
Seafood Group, Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David F. Knapfel,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Registrant,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  May 14, 2005         /s/ David F. Knapfel
                              ----------------------------------------
                            By: David F. Knapfel, Chief Financial
                                Officer and Principal Accounting
                                Officer of Sockeye Seafood Group, Inc.
Exhibit
      32








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**








In
      connection with the report of Ready Credit Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tim J. Walsh, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Brian D. Niebur, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, 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 results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







/s/
      Tim J. Walsh





Tim
      J.
      Walsh


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      15,
      2006








/s/
      Brian D. Niebur





Brian
      D.
      Niebur


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      15,
      2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

S.B., the mother,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1904 

[September 15, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Alberto Ribas, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-5985 CJ-DP.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<Page>

                                                               Exhibit 10.9(i)-1

                                PLEDGE AMENDMENT

          This Pledge Amendment is dated July 22, 2003. The undersigned hereby
agrees that this Pledge Amendment may be attached to the Pledge Agreement, dated
as of March 11, 2003, between the undersigned and Bank of America, N.A., as
agent for the Lenders (as amended from time to time, the "Pledge Agreement";
capitalized terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined) and
that, as of the date set forth above and at all times thereafter, the shares
listed below on this Pledge Amendment shall be deemed to be part of the Pledged
Collateral and shall secure all Secured Obligations.

          In furtherance of the foregoing, to secure the payment and performance
of the Obligations (as defined in the Credit Agreement) and the obligations of
the undersigned under this Agreement and the Guaranty, the undersigned hereby
pledges and hypothecates to Agent, for the benefit of Agent and Lenders, and
grants to Agent, for the benefit of Agent and Lenders, a security interest in,
the following:

          (a) the shares of stock outstanding of the corporation ("Issuer")
identified on SCHEDULE I hereto held by the undersigned (the "Pledged Shares")
and the certificates, if any, representing the Pledged Shares, and subject to
Section 2(b) of the Pledge Agreement, all stock dividends, cash dividends, cash,
instruments, chattel paper and other rights, property or proceeds and products
from time to time received, receivable or otherwise distributed in respect of or
in exchange for any or all of the Pledged Shares;

          (b) all additional shares of stock of Issuer at any time acquired by
the undersigned in any manner, and the certificates representing such additional
shares (and any such additional shares shall constitute part of the Pledged
Shares under this Amendment and the Pledge Agreement), and all stock dividends,
cash dividends, cash, instruments, chattel paper and other rights, property or
proceeds and products from time to time received, receivable or otherwise
distributed in respect of or in exchange for any or all of such shares; and

          (c) all proceeds of any of the foregoing.


                                               PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.


                                               By /s/ Robert D. Campbell
                                                  ----------------------------
                                               Name:  Robert D. Campbell
                                               Title: Treasurer

<Page>

                                   SCHEDULE I

<Table>
<Caption>
                            Class of    Stock Certificate   Number of
     Stock Issuer            Stock            No(s).         Shares     Percentage
------------------------- ------------ ------------------- ----------- ------------
<S>                          <C>                <C>            <C>         <C>
Andrita Studios, Inc.        Common             1              100         100%
</Table>