alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

29 November 2007

Case C-9/06 P

**Tomás Salazar Brier**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 in Case T-83/03 *Salazar Brier* v *Commission* [2005] ECR‐SC I‐A‐311 and II‐1407, seeking the annulment of that judgment.

**Held:**Appeal dismissed.

**Summary**

1.        *Appeals – Grounds – New submission of an argument – Admissibility – Limits*

*(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))*

2.        *Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting*

*(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))*

1.        It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of Justice, that, on appeal, an appellant may put forward any relevant argument, provided only that the subject-matter
of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not changed in the appeal.

2.        Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State,
that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential
that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic
representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that
he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent
representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that respect, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work
for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the
meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent
representation of that State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article
4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent
representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as
work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State.
For the same reason, activity in the service of a publicly owned company falling within one of the categories of commercial
undertakings cannot be considered to be work done for a State.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ebony Nicole PEARSON.

No. COA15-700.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# CE2004078EN.01017701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/177 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/177

---

(2004/C 78 E/0183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2847/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Plans to develop Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc

Subject:

There are plans to build a polo field and accommodation for 2000 people in the Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc area in the south of Mallorca. The polo field would be situated on fossilised dunes (semi-arid zone) on a saltwater table, next to an area of wetlands and coastal dunes containing Phoenician juniper which has been designated a special protection area for birds under Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and a priority habitat for conservation under Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

1

2

Is the Commission aware of this development project?

Has the Commission been consulted by the Spanish State on this project as required under Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive?

Does the Commission believe that this project to construct accommodation and a polo field is compatible with the provisions of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the project referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has checked that the site in question has been classified as a special protection area (SPA) for birds pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

It should be noted that the Spanish authorities have also proposed the ‘Es trenc — Salobrar de Campos ES0000037’ site, which covers an area of 1 442 hectares, as a site of Community importance (SCI) for future inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under the terms of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities to seek their comments on how the abovementioned Directives have been enforced in this particular case and to determine whether the project in question is likely to have a significant effect on the site in terms of the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure laid down in Article 6 thereof would have to be applied.

In any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is complied with in this case.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

2

---
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248 

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-1312 

September 05, 2008 

Mr. John Steven Mostyn 

The Mostyn Law Firm 

200 Westcott 

Houston, TX 77007 

Ms. April F. Robbins 

Brackett & Ellis 

100 Main Street 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

Mr. Clint W. Lewis 

Lewis & Associates 

4180 Delaware Suite 402 

Beaumont TX 77706 

RE: Case Numbers: 08-0142, 08-0208, & 08-0427 

Style: IN RE DELTA LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS 

 IN RE HURRICANE RITA HOMEOWNERS’ CLAIMS 

 IN RE SOUTHEAST SURPLUS UNDERWRITERS GENERAL AGENCY, INC. 

Dear Counsel: 

Today the Multidistrict Litigation Panel delivered the enclosed opinions in the abovereferenced cause. 

Sincerely, 

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk 

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk 

Enclosures 

cc: Ms. Marialyn Price Barnard
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10189]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1601-DR), dated 08/23/2005. *Incident:*
                         Tropical Storm Cindy. *Incident Period:*
                         07/05/2005 through 07/06/2005. *Effective Date:*
                         08/23/2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/24/2005.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/23/2005, applications for Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: 
                    ( print page 54433) *Primary Parishes:* Jefferson, Lafourche, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles. The Interest Rates are: PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.750Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is #10189. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Cheri L. Cannon, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 05-18203 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theperiodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended April 16, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patricia M. Newman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solelyfor purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: May  31, 2005 |   |   |                                  |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   |   |                                  |   |
|                |   | By:    | /s/ Patricia M. Newman                |   |
|                |   |   | Patricia M. Newman                    |   |
|                |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Allen REESE.

No. 71P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Reese, Christopher Allen.

*850Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of February 2015 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 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01024402.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/244 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/244

---

(2004/C 78 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/03

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Approving the setting up of a driving school

Subject:

The royal decree adopted by Belgium on 23 March 1998 sets out the arrangements for approving the opening of a driving school in Belgium. It would seem that, in practice, this decree prevents the setting up of any new driving school.

By taking this step, is Belgium not in breach of EU law, particularly competition law? If so, what does Belgium have to do to conform with EU rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

(22 December 2003)

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not appear to fall within the scope of the rules of Community competition law.

The Belgian Royal Decree of 23 March 1998 is a State measure.

The rules of Community competition law which are not addressed to undertakings but to the Member States, are the rules regarding State Aid (Articles 87 and 88, EC Treaty) and public or privileged undertakings (Article 86, EC Treaty). The provisions of the relevant Royal Decree do not appear to fall within the scope of those rules.

However, in certain cases Community competition law can also be applied to State measures if these measures impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour by undertakings. It is, therefore, required that the undertakings concerned adopt an anti-competitive behaviour which in itself constitutes a violation of Community competition rules. The requirements for the accreditation of driving schools, laid down in the Royal Decree, do not appear to impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour of driving schools.

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 20, 2008

Decided August 25, 2008

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 06-3522 & 06-3896

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH AHMAD BEY,

Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 04 CR 950

Wayne R. Andersen, 

Judge.

O R D E R

In an unpublished order, we held that Deborah Ahmad Bey’s three-month sentence

of imprisonment for making false statements in her bankruptcy jury trial was unreasonably

short, and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Ahmad Bey, 244 F. App’x 57, 58 (7th

Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court granted Bey’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our

judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of Gall v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). See Bey v. United States, 128 S. Ct 2089 (2008). In Gall, the Supreme

Court held that appellate courts may not presume sentences outside the guidelines range

are unreasonable, and that we may not use a rigid formula for determining whether an outof-guidelines sentence is justified. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 594-95, 597. But we did not use either

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Nos. 06-3522 & 06-3896 Page 2

of those approaches prior to Gall. See United States v. McIlrath, 512 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir.

2008). Nor did we apply either approach previously in resolving this case. Our earlier

analysis is therefore unaffected by Gall, and our earlier order that the district judge

resentence the defendant remains correct.
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 9, 2008.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, Theodore B. Smyth, Raleigh, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attys.

Joseph W. Eason, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of December 2008 by Defendant (International Garment Tech) for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (International Garment Tech) shall have up to and including the 9th day of January 2009 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of December 2008."
Robert Alan LILLIE v. Michael BALL, Superintendent of Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution.

No. 421P10-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert Alan Lillie, for Lillie, Robert Alan.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 9th of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina 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 13th of July 2015."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 9th of July 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Alamance County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01043401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/434 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/434

---

(2004/C 78 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Environmental impact assessments in Ireland

Subject:

On 22 July, the Commission announced (IP/03/1070) that it was referring Ireland to the European Court of Justice concerning the possibility, inter alia, that Irish authorities allow a decision to be made before rather than after an environmental impact assessment has been fully assessed in line with the EIA Directive.

What specific cases in Ireland is the Commission concerned about in this regard?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

(28 October 2003)

The Commission's concerns derived from its examination of the way in which the impact of the Kildare Bypass motorway project on an internationally important wetland, Pollardstown Fen, and an associated aquifer were assessed.

More specifically, despite advice from the statutory nature conservation authority that the information provided by the developer was seriously deficient, certain important studies on the likely impacts were only undertaken after the decision approving the project was already taken.

Whilst the Commission did not challenge the specific project, it decided to challenge the underlying approach taken on the basis that it was not compliant with the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

1

---
ex10-1.htm



Exhibit 10.1


 


Note Termination Agreement










 


This Note Termination Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of October 23, 2010 by and between Generation Zero Group, Inc., ("GNZR") a Nevada corporation and Seven Palm Investments, LLC ("SPI"). SPI and GNZR are together referred to as the "Parties".










RECITALS:










 



	 	
A.

	
SPI is the holder of a 50% interest in that certain Promissory Note ("Note") dated June 1, 2007 by and between GNZR f/k/a Velocity Oil & Gas, Inc. as the borrower and Capersia Pte. Ltd.










	 	
B.

	The Note was amended several times prior to SPI obtaining an interest in the Note.











	 	
C.

	The Note is convertible into GNZR common stock at a conversion price of $.001 per share.

















	 	
D.

	
The Parties acknowledge that the conversion price of the Note may have a negative effect on GNZR for a variety of reasons.











	 	
E.

	
The Parties desire to cancel SPI's interest in the Note and terminate the conversion feature in order to remove the negative effect the conversion feature may have on GNZR.















 


NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION of the Recitals and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:





 





	 	
1.  

	SPI's interest in the Note shall be cancelled and deemed paid in full.













	 	
2.  

	
SPI represents to GNZR that: (i) SPI is the owner of the 50% interest in the Note; (ii) no other party is required to consent to this Agreement; (iii) no other party has any interest in SPI's interest in the Note; and (iv) SPI has full authority to cancel SPI's interest in the Note.








	 	
3.  

	
GNZR shall have no other obligations with respect to repayment of SPI's interest in the Note and GNZR shall not be required to honor or permit any attempted conversion of the Note after the date hereof by SPI or any party claiming to be the owner or beneficiary of SPI's 50% interest in the Note.










 


 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement for the purpose of being legally bound by its terms.
STATE v. Fernando HURTADO.

No. 17P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Southern Pines, for Hurtado, Fernando.

Whitney Hendrix Belich, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of March 2016 by Defendant to Withdraw Notice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review:

> *501"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."