alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,012                       0
<SECURITIES>                                    73,247                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,704                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,063                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,741                       0
<PP&E>                                          37,054                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,305                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,826                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,453                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            17                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,356                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,826                       0
<SALES>                                         15,852                  27,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,230                  53,235
<CGS>                                            1,529                   2,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,329                  18,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,222                  48,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (137)                    300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43                      55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,154)                (10,865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,412)                 (3,694)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,742)                 (7,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,742)                 (7,171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.16)                  (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.16)                  (0.43)


</TABLE>
# C_2008022EN.01000901.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Ursula Voß v Land Berlin

(Case C-300/06) (1)

1

(Article 141 EC - Principle of equal pay for men and women - Civil servants - Overtime - Indirect discrimination against women employed part-time)

(2008/C 22/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ursula Voß

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Berlin

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 141 of the EC Treaty — National legislation laying down, for both full-time and part-time workers, a reduction in the remuneration for overtime as against that received for normal working hours — Remuneration of a female part-time teacher, who is a civil servant, who works overtime (but not sufficient to bring the hours worked overall above the level of normal working hours for full-time civil servants), which is lower than that which would be received if the same number of hours were worked in the context of full-time employment — Indirect discrimination against female workers

Operative part of the judgment

Article 141 EC is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the remuneration of civil servants, such as that at issue in the main proceedings — which defines overtime, for both full-time civil servants and part-time civil servants, as hours worked over and above their normal working hours, and which remunerates those additional hours at a rate lower than the hourly rate applied to their normal working hours, so that part-time civil servants are less well paid than full-time civil servants in respect of hours which are worked over and above their normal working hours, but which are not sufficient to bring the number of hours worked overall above the level of normal working hours for full-time civil servants — where:

| — | in the group of workers subject to that legislation, a considerably higher percentage of women is affected as compared with the percentage of men so affected;
  and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the group of workers subject to that legislation, a considerably higher percentage of women is affected as compared with the percentage of men so affected;

and

| — | the difference in treatment is not justified by objective factors wholly unrelated to discrimination based on sex. |
| --- | --- |

—

the difference in treatment is not justified by objective factors wholly unrelated to discrimination based on sex.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1952

NORMAN WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD F. WADE, Doctor; THOMAS F. ALLGOOD, JR.; JOHN D. KASSELL; JOHN R. ETHRIDGE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-00-360-4-12) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Norman Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order that construed his civil action as filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) and dismissed it without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Wade , No. CA-00-360-4-12 (D.S.C. July 6, 2001). 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
STATE of North Carolina v. Harold Ray HARRIS.

No. 150P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Irving Joyner, Durham, for Harris.

Kevin Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 701.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of April 2008 by Defendant 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 June 2008."
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the Company.







|Dated:  May 14, 2010 |  | By:  _______________________          
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                     |  | RALPH M. AMATO
Chief Financial Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 3, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10847

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00182-CV-HL-5

CORRINE JACOX, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., 

Defendants, 

ROBERT M. GATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 3, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
 Although not specifically mentioned in Jacox’s notice of appeal, “[t]he appeal from a

1

final judgment draws in question all prior non-final orders and rulings which produced the

judgment.” Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Quebec) Import, Inc., 362 F.3d 775, 785 n.5 (11th Cir.

2004) (quoting Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 930 (11th Cir. 1989)). Although Jacox’s

notice of appeal referred to the February 14, 2008 order granting summary judgment rather than

the February 15 final judgment, we construe pro se pleadings liberally. Tannenbaum v. United

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

2

PER CURIAM:

Corrine Jacox appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the

defendants in this employment discrimination case. After review of the record and

the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough

and well-reasoned opinion of February 14, 2008.

Additionally, we briefly address Jacox’s motion to compel discovery.1

Jacox states in her appellate brief that the defendants were “never made to fully

disclose . . . in spite of motions to compel . . . Defendants were allowed by the

District Judge to decide what was relevant and what they would disclose.” We

read this as referring to the district court’s denial of her motion to compel

discovery. We review the denial of such a motion for an abuse of discretion. 

Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 2006). Jacox’s

motion to compel did not include a certification that Jacox had in good faith

conferred or attempted to confer with the defendants about their responses to her

requests for admission of facts prior to seeking court action as is required by
3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). Courts show leniency to pro se litigants,

however, pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules, and the

court is not required to rewrite deficient pleadings. GJR Investments, Inc. v.

County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, her

motion to compel failed to identify particular problems with the defendants’

responses to her requests for admission of facts, nor does she identify any specific

shortcomings in the responses in her briefs to this court. The district court did not,

therefore, err in denying Jacox’s motion to compel discovery.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Jesus Adan Cruz RIOS.

No. 405P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jesus Adan Cruz Rios, Brunswick, for Rios, Jesus Adan Cruz.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of December 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

JACKSON, J. recused.
Exhibit 23.02
Information Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP
     Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomeseffective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a materialfact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements thereinnot misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registrationstatement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such personknew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, anaccountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of theregistration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connectionwith the registration statement.
     Quintiles Transnational Corp. (“Quintiles”) dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP(“Andersen”) as its independent auditors, effective May 17, 2002. Foradditional information, see Quintiles’ Report on Form 8-K dated May 22, 2002.After reasonable efforts, Quintiles has been unable to obtain Andersen’swritten consent to the incorporation by reference into Quintiles’ registrationstatements (Nos. 33-91026 on Form S-8, 333-03603 on Form S-8, 333-16553 on FormS-8, 333-40493 on Form S-8, 333-60797 on Form S-8, 333-75183 on Form S-8,333-92987 on Form S-8, and 333-51272 on Form S-8) (collectively the“Registration Statements”) of Andersen’s audit report with respect toQuintiles’ consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and forthe two years in the period then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437aunder the Securities Act permits Quintiles to file this Annual Report on Form10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements,without a written consent from Andersen. As a result, with respect totransactions in Quintiles securities pursuant to the Registration Statementsthat occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission, Andersen will not have any liabilityunder Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of amaterial fact contained in the financial statements audited by Andersen or anyomissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, youwould be unable to assert a claim against Andersen under Section 11(a) of theSecurities Act.
**EXHIBIT**
**32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                        |                                                       |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                                                  |
| Date:                  October 25, 2006 | By:                                                                                                                                                                                               | /s/                *Guy                Pipolo*   |
|                                         | Name: Guy                Pipolo                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                                         | Title:                Chief                Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer                          (Principal Financial                Officer) |

----
# C_2009193EN.01003703.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Delplancke and Governatori v Commission

(Case F-38/05) (1)

1

2009/C 193/64

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 37.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136682 & (17) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136682 

 COA: 281785 

Emmet CC: 05-002454-FH 

CRAIG JOSEPH GRIFFITH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of 

establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004070EN.01014701.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/147

---

(2004/C 70 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2844/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Aid for low-cost airlines

Subject:

Bearing in mind the various forms of aid received by low-cost airlines (reductions, rebates and other subsidies), can the Commission outline its position and say what stage has been reached in its investigation into management practices at Charleroi airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

(15 October 2003)

The investigation launched by the Commission on 11 December 2002 is intended to determine whether or not the benefits granted by the Walloon Region and the airport managing company (BSCA) to Ryanair when it set up at Charleroi in April 2001 (reductions on landing charges, coverage of costs of Ryanair's staff, coverage of marketing expenses, financial incentives whenever a new route is opened, etc.) can be considered to be State aid and, if they are, whether or not these benefits are compatible with the common market.

The numerous comments received from interested parties (a dozen in total mainly from airlines and private airport operators), Ryanair and the Belgian authorities are being considered by the Commission.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54680-54681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 31

[REG-104143-05]
RIN 1545-BE32


Application of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act to 
Payments Made for Certain Services; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

[[Page 54681]]

SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-
104143-05) that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, August 
26, 2005 (70 FR 50228). The document contains regulations relating to 
payments made for service not in the course of the employer's trade or 
business, for domestic service in a private home of the employer, for 
agricultural labor, and for service performed as a home worker within 
the meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Carlino, (202) 622-0047 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104143-05) that is the 
subject of this correction is under section 3121(d)(3)(C) of the 
Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, REG-104143-05 contains an error that may prove to be 
misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104143-05), 
that was the subject of FR Doc. <greek-i>05-16944, is corrected as 
follows:


Sec.  31.3121(a)-2  [Corrected]

    On page 50231, column 2, Sec.  31.3121(a)-2, paragraph (d)(2), 
third line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language ``paragraph 
(d)(2), see Sec.  31.3102-1 in'' is corrected to read ``paragraph 
(d)(2), see Sec.  31.3121(a)-2 in``.

Cynthia Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 05-18468 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2023314EN.01001901.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/19

---

Action brought on 12 July 2023 — Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB

(Case T-401/23)

(2023/C 314/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is identical to that relied on in Case T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB.

---