alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 26, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30392 Summary Calendar

FABIAN HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DOUG DOURRETTE, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, DOUG DOURRETTE, Assistant Warden; STERLING, Lieutenant Colonial; RONNY CONSTANCE, Captain, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-638

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Doug Dourrette, Lt. Col. Sterling, and Capt. Ronny Constance appeal from the district court’s summary judgment denial of qualified immunity on inmate Fabian Harper’s failure to protect claim. We have jurisdiction to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity after accepting all of Harper’s factual allegations as true and to determine, as aNo. 04-30392 -2- matter of law, whether their conduct was objectively reasonable. See Colston v. Barnhart , 130 F.3d 96, 98-99 (5th Cir. 1997). The appellants contend that Harper’s failure to seek protection by means other than a verbal request provided them with insufficient facts from which to infer that there existed a significant risk of serious harm and, therefore, their inaction was objectively reasonable. However, for purposes of this appeal, Harper’s factual allegation must be taken as true that as the result of his oral request for protection, the appellants possessed the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. See Farmer , 511 U.S. at 842. The pertinent question is therefore whether the appellants, possessing actual knowledge of a substantial risk to Harper’s safety, responded reasonably to that risk. See id . at 844. The appellants have not made that showing; their own affidavits attest that an inmate who makes a verbal request for protection is not returned to his cell but is instead sent to Administrative Segregation until his request is reviewed by the Threat Review Board. They have therefore failed to show an entitlement to qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1119

In Re: WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:96-cr-00010-TWB-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Henry Coleman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Henry Coleman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has refused to review a motion that he filed pursuant to Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. , 322 U.S. 238 (1944). He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to review his

motion. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the

district court considered the motion and dismissed it as unsubstantiated on January 7, 2009. Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted on Coleman’s motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST

SHARE APPRECIATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT




     This FIRST AMENDMENT TO SHARE APPRECIATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”), is
entered into this 31st day of May, 2005, between Equity Office Properties Trust, a Maryland real
estate investment trust (the “Company”), and Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Gezondheid,
Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen, a stichting formed according to the laws of the Kingdom
of The Netherlands (“PGGM”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and Jan H. W. R. van der Vlist (the “Grantee”) entered into a Share
Appreciation Rights Agreement dated September 20, 2004, and having a Deemed Grant Date of June 15,
2003 (the “2003 SARs Agreement”) regarding part of the consideration for Grantee’s service as a
Trustee of the Company, and



     WHEREAS, on September 20, 2004, the Grantee transferred all of his rights under the 2003 SARs
Agreement and the associated SARs to PGGM, and



     WHEREAS, the Company and PGGM now believe it is necessary to amend the 2003 SARs Agreement in
such a manner that it will comply with United States income tax laws relating to the payment and
taxation of deferred compensation;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and the promises and mutual covenants set
forth in this First Amendment, the Company and PGGM hereby agree to amend the 2003 SARs Agreement
as follows:




	 	1.	 	Paragraph 4(a)(iii) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:






	 	 	 	“(iii) the remaining Option SARs on or after June 30, 2005.”






	 	2.	 	Paragraph 4(b)(ii) is deleted in its entirety and replaced by new Paragraphs
4(b)(ii) and 4(b)(iii) to read in their entirety as follows:






	 	 	 	“(ii) an additional one-fifth (1/5) of the initial Restricted SARs grant made
hereunder (rounded to the nearest whole SAR) on or after June 30, 2005.
	 
	 	 	 	“(iii) an additional one-fifth (1/5) of the initial Restricted SARs grant made
hereunder (rounded to the nearest whole SAR) on or after the third and each
subsequent anniversary of the Deemed Grant Date.”





 









 






	 	3.	 	Capitalized terms used and not defined in this First Amendment shall have the same meanings
given to such terms in the 2003 SARs Agreement.
	 
	 	4.	 	Except as expressly set forth above, the terms and conditions of the 2003 SARs Agreement
are hereby reconfirmed and agreed to continue in full force and effect.
	 
	 	 	 	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned have executed this First Amendment as of the day
and year first written above.






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Stanley M. Stevens
 	 
	 	 	Stanley M. Stevens 	 
	 	Its:	Executive Vice President 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS VOOR DE

GEZONDHEID, GEESTELIJKE EN

MAATSCHAPPELIJKE BELANGEN:

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Jan H. W. R. van der Vlist
 	 
	 	 	Jan H. W. R. van der Vlist 	 
	 	Its:	                     Director of Structured Investments
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1096/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1096/2013 of 4 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Poulet des Cévennes / Chapon des Cévennes (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1096/2013                     

# of 4 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Poulet des Cévennes                        / Chapon des Cévennes (PGI)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Poulet des Cévennes’                              / ‘Chapon des Cévennes’ was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Poulet des Cévennes’ / ‘Chapon des Cévennes’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.1.****Fresh meat (and offal)**U.K.

#### FRANCEU.K.

Poulet des Cévennes / Chapon des Cévennes (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 33, 5.2.2013, p. 10.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3481 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3481

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a temporary 
 increase in the new qualified hybrid motor vehicle credit for school 
                                 buses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a temporary 
 increase in the new qualified hybrid motor vehicle credit for school 
                                 buses.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN NEW QUALIFIED HYBRID MOTOR VEHICLE 
              CREDIT FOR SCHOOL BUSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 30B(d)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(vi) Temporary increase for school 
                        buses.--In the case of any new qualified hybrid 
                        motor vehicle which is a school bus (as defined 
                        in section 4221(d)(7)(C)), the dollar amounts 
                        specified in clause (iii) shall be increased 
                        by--
                                    ``(I) 200 percent for vehicles 
                                placed in service before January 1, 
                                2010,
                                    ``(II) 150 percent for vehicles 
                                placed in service after December 31, 
                                2009, and before January 1, 2011,
                                    ``(III) 100 percent for vehicles 
                                placed in service after December 31, 
                                2010, and before January 1, 2012, and
                                    ``(IV) 50 percent for vehicles 
                                placed in service after December 31, 
                                2011, and before January 1, 2013.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 30B(j)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(December 31, 2012, in 
the case of a school bus)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to vehicles placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1060/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1060/2014 of 8 October 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1060/2014                     

# of 8 October 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            391,723 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,665,554 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (242,396)
<INVENTORY>                                     1,062,501 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,687,168 
<PP&E>                                         21,366,102 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,904,636)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,599,142 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          19,855,651 
<BONDS>                                                 0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                             0 
<COMMON>                                           15,114 
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,704,365 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   37,599,142 
<SALES>                                        24,120,390 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,120,390 
<CGS>                                          19,177,461 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,177,461 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,305,970 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,614,595 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,253,158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,941,976)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,253,158)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.14)
        


</TABLE>
Devendra PATEL, Employee v. The STANLEY WORKS CUSTOMER SUPPORT, Employer, Constitution State Service Company, Carrier.

No. 445PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2007.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 178 N.C.App. 562, 631 S.E.2d 892 (2006), affirming an opinion and award filed on 21 December 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 October 2007.

Charles G. Monnett III & Associates, by Charles G. Monnett, III, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., by M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
Exhibit 32

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 21, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                     |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |    
|Date: March 21, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                     |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                     |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
STATE of North Carolina v. Ricky Jackson HENNIS, Sr.

No. 342P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State of NC.

J. Clark Fischer, Winston-Salem, for Hennis.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 646 S.E.2d 398.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 19th day of July 2007 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of July 2007 by Attorney General in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 49943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AK964-1410-HY-P; F-14893-B, F-14893-C, F-14893-D; BSA-2]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOI

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Mary's Igloo 
Native Corporation. The lands are located in Lot 2, U.S. Survey No. 
604, Alaska, and T. 3 S., Rgs. 30, 31, and 32 W., Kateel River 
Meridian; T. 4 S., R. 32 W., Kateel River Meridian; and Ts. 3 and 4 S., 
R. 33 W., Kateel River, Alaska, in the vicinity of Mary's Igloo Alaska, 
and contains 18,915.33 acres. Notice of the decision will also be 
published four times in the Nome Nugget.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until September 26, 2005 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: John Leaf, by phone at (907) 271-
3283, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#561c393e38091a33373016373d78343a3b78313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91dbfef9ffceddf4f0f7d1f0fabff3fdfcbff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons who use a 
telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to 
contact Mr. Leaf.

John Leaf,
Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. 05-16869 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL v. INNES & GAUNT.

No. 241P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Julia Anne Gaunt, Pro Se for Innes and Gaunt.

**SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA**

*504The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of May 2007 by Defendant for Petition for Judicial Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."