alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6015

ALVIN O. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL; APRIL RYDOR; LIEUTENANT HARDERSON; LIEUTENANT SHOULDER; LIEUTENANT WRIGHT; TONY GRIMS; OFFICER DARNELL; J. LLOYD, Captain; CAPTAIN GRAMM; JOHN DOES, and other unknown defendants, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-495-7) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 1, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvin O. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Eckert Phillips, Stanardsville, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alvin O. Washington appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Because Washington did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. Washington may refile his action after exhaustion; therefore, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order as modified. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
June 12, 2001


EXHIBIT 10.1



December 1, 2009



 

Andrew Cogan

New York, NY



Dear Andrew:

It is my pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2010 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program. 

In these challenging times, our objectives are simple and something that each of us can help contribute to:

Protect our balance sheet and profitability while ensuring that we make the right investments in products, service and technology to position Knoll for long term success as demand eventually recovers. 

Our success in 2010 and beyond will be a direct result of your ability to help us accomplish these long term goals while meeting our short term 2010 operating profit plan. 

If you achieve your individual goals and Knoll makes its 2010 operating profit plan, you can qualify for a total target incentive payment of $800,000.

This award is subject to my approval and that of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll's performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.

I have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2010 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2011. 

Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Burt Staniar

Burt Staniar

Chairman
# C_2019383EN.01004601.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/46

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 23 August 2019 — PAGE Internacional Lda. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-630/19)

(2019/C 383/55)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PAGE Internacional Lda.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

Must Article 168(a) and Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of VAT neutrality and of proportionality be interpreted as meaning that the Portuguese legislature is entitled, under Article 21(1)(d) and 21(2)(d) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code), as approved by Decree No 394-B/84 of 26 December 1984, to limit the deductibility of the input VAT on expenditure on food to 50 %, even where the taxable person demonstrates that all that expenditure has been fully applied to the carrying on of its taxed economic activity?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
# C_2020019EN.01000801.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 30 August 2019 — LN v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

(Case C-655/19)

(2020/C 19/10)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LN

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 2 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax preclude a transaction, (1) one whereby a taxpayer, as creditor, acquires immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure and, sometime later, sells it in order to recover a sum of money which he had loaned, from being regarded as an economic activity in the form of the exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 2 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax preclude a transaction, (1) one whereby a taxpayer, as creditor, acquires immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure and, sometime later, sells it in order to recover a sum of money which he had loaned, from being regarded as an economic activity in the form of the exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis?

| 2. | Can an individual who has carried out such a legal transaction be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 2006/112? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can an individual who has carried out such a legal transaction be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 2006/112?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
#### In the Matter of Donald Tisdale, Petitioner, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority, dated June 2, 1983, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of misconduct and/or incompetence and dismissed him from his position as a bus operator.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence and the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222), in view of the fact that petitioner was a bus driver and his use of narcotics would present a danger to the public. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
China Interactive Education, Inc. - Exhibit 10.9 - Prepared By TNT
Filings Inc.




  




Exhibit 10.9


(English Translation)


Project
Development Agreement


Ya Guo Mei Digital Zhushi
Company (Collectively, “Party A”) and Wisegate International Limited
(Collectively, “Party B”) voluntarily entered into this agreement, on the
basis of mutual benefits, that Party A shall trust Party B to develop EPC
computer and learning products related software. The pending matters described
in this agreement shall be solved by both parties in friendly negotiation
manner on the fair basis. The articles of such agreement are as following:


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 1.

 	
 The project design shall be subject to
 request plan provided by Party A. In the event that the all changes or
 amendments (functions and data) commented by Party A shall be notified to
 Party B in advance and be discussed by both parties; In the event of delay
 delivery due to material revision requested by Party A, Party A shall bear
 the responsibility.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 2.

 	
 Development Time

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 First version of development cycle is
 2009/01/21-2009/08/27

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 3.

 	
 Responsibility & Obligation

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.1

 	
 The Party A shall be in charge of learning
 and synchronization thesaurus. The Party B shall be in charge of electronic
 dictionary and computer; The both parties shall be in charge of its own model
 testing. The entire test and check upon delivery shall be completed by Party
 A.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.2

 	
 The Party A shall be in charge of hardware
 including DENO model and prototype manufacture; Party B shall furnish
 technology support.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.3

 	
 The tools used for Party B’ development
 shall be provided by itself.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.4

 	
 Party B shall keep related materials, data
 and programs of such project confidential and shall not reveal, disclose or
 transfer any materials, data or procedures of Party A to the third party.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.5

 	
 The source program shall be comprehensively
 provided.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3.6

 	
 The Party B shall be paid by Party A in
 accordance with article 4.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 4.

 	
 Fee

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 4.1

 	
 Fee for materials and data:

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 a.

 	
 EPC Computer Software development fee

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 The total amount (include tax): RMB
 689,711.18

 












	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 4.2

 	
 Payment term: Party A shall pay all fee in
 installments, subject to Party B’s instruction. The tax arose from project development
 shall be borne by Party A.

 



Party A: Ya
Guo Mei Digital Zhushi Company


Date :
2009/01/21


Party B:
Wisegate International Limited


Date : 2009/01/21
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Howard
 Root        
| | Howard Root             
| | Chief
 Executive Officer
| | July 22,
 2009          

---
# C_2019383EN.01004602.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/46

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 26 August 2019 — Y v CAK

(Case C-636/19)

(2019/C 383/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y

Defendant: CAK

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Directive 2011/24/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that persons referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, (2) who receive benefits in their country of residence at the expense of the Netherlands but who are not insured in the Netherlands under the statutory health insurance scheme can rely directly on that directive for the reimbursement of costs of care provided?
  If not, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Directive 2011/24/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that persons referred to in Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, (2) who receive benefits in their country of residence at the expense of the Netherlands but who are not insured in the Netherlands under the statutory health insurance scheme can rely directly on that directive for the reimbursement of costs of care provided?

If not,

| 2. | Does it follow from Article 56 TFEU that, in a case such as the present one, not granting reimbursement for care provided in a Member State other than the country of residence or the country providing the pension is an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it follow from Article 56 TFEU that, in a case such as the present one, not granting reimbursement for care provided in a Member State other than the country of residence or the country providing the pension is an unjustified obstacle to the free movement of services?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (OJ 2011 L 88, p. 45).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 897 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 897

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 
use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid 
                       mine remediation programs.

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

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.

    (a) Reclamation Fee.--Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is 
amended by inserting ``and section 411(h)(1)'' after ``paragraphs (1) 
and (5)''.
    (b) Filling Voids and Sealing Tunnels.--Section 409(b) of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) 
is amended by inserting ``and section 411(h)(1)'' after ``section 
402(g)''.
    (c) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is 
amended by striking ``section 403'' and inserting ``section 402(g)(6), 
403, or 409''.

            Passed the Senate November 2, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 897

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 
use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid 
                       mine remediation programs.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 839 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 121
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 839

              To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

     Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Blumenthal) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             July 28, 2011

                Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Combating Designer 
Drugs Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

    Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in subsection (c) by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(18) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-E).
            ``(19) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D).
            ``(20) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-C).
            ``(21) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I).
            ``(22) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-
        T-2).
            ``(23) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine 
        (2C-T-4).
            ``(24) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
            ``(25) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C-N).
            ``(26) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-
        P).''.
                                                       Calendar No. 121

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 839

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

              To ban the sale of certain synthetic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 28, 2011

                       Reported without amendment
```
# C_2020201EN.01000301.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 12 November 2019 — SC Panavitrans SRL v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-828/19)

(2020/C 201/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Panavitrans SRL

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Question referred

Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purposes of refunding a tax found to be contrary to Community law, lays down a shorter limitation period than the general limitation period laid down in national law as regards tax claims?

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

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000715369  
<NAME>                             DYCO OIL & GAS PROGRAM 1983-2 LIMITED PTRSHP
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                125,733
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          61,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      186,889
<PP&E>                             31,338,791
<DEPRECIATION>                     31,219,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        430,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  21,249
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            334,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          430,516
<SALES>                                56,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       57,671
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          48,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         8,672
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     8,672
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            8,672
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Alexander U., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 791]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the Presentment Agency appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated October 18, 2010, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the Presentment Agency’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition for facial insufficiency *1135
      *(see Matter of Christopher M.,*94 AD3d 1119 [2012] [decided herewith]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.