alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LLOYD v. BAILEY, et al.

No. 181PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Sean F. Perrin, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Lloyd, Justin.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Lloyd, Justin.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2015 by Plaintiff to Consolidate and/or Stay:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
The Hon orable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 West ernDistrict of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3071

___________ Gregory Teamer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Paul Konstance, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 30, 1997 Filed: October 3, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Grego ry Teamer, a Missouri prisoner formerly incarcerated at Algo a Corr ectional Center (ACC), appeals from the District Court & s adverse grant o f 1 summary j udgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action against Pau l Konstance, a corrections officer at ACC.-2-

This court reviews de novothe District Court & s grant of summ ary judgment. See Davis v. Scott , 94 F.3d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is appropriat e only when the moving party demonstrates there is no genuine issue of material fact, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In his complaint, Teamer alleged he su ffered injuries and was subjected to cruel andunusual punishment when Konstance held Teamer and allowed William Bible , anot her inmate, to hit Teamer. To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim, Teame r needed to show Konstance acted with deliberate indifference of Teamer & s safety ; specifically, that Konstance acted or failed to act despite knowing that Teamer faced a risk of being assaulted. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837-38 (1994). The eviden ce submitted by the parties, taken in the light most favorable t o Teamer, see Miller v. Solem , 728 F.2d 1020, 1023-24 (8th Cir .), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 841 (1984), shows tha

t he and Bible were fighting when they fell into Konstance, and Konstance re strained Teamer, placing himself between Teamer and Bible, but no one re strainedBible. Bible then reached over Konstance & s shoulder and “sucke r punche[ d]” Teamer, which Teamer admitted was a surprise. We conclude thi s evidence cannot support the conclusion that Konstance knew Bible continued to pose a danger to Teamer, once Konstance had interceded. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Konstance. After carefully reviewing Teamer & s remaining arguments, we find they ar e without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.-3-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# CE2004084EN.01022501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/225 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/225

---

(2004/C 84 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/03

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   The ‘Buy American Act’ in the American defence budget

Subject:

Is the Council aware that a law has been included in the American defence budget of the House of Representatives that extensively commits the Pentagon to buying American defence materiel, viz. the so-called ‘Buy American Act’?

What is the Council's position in relation to the ‘Buy American Act’ that has been incorporated into US Defense Authorization Bill FY 2004?

What efforts has the Council made in seeking to prevent the act's adoption?

To what extent does the act amount to a violation of international trade treaties?

What impact will the act's adoption have on the arms industry in Europe and on cooperation in the area of arms production between the EU and the USA?

What countermeasures will the Council take if the act is definitively adopted?

Does the Council intend, if the act were to be adopted, to recommend to EU Member States that they adopt the same arrangements as those that the act would impose on the Pentagon?

Does the Council consider that adoption of the ‘Buy American Act’ will put the already strained relations with the United States under even more pressure?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

The Council is aware of a bill adopted by the US House of Representatives which contained amendments to existing procurement laws requiring the Pentagon to favour US manufacturers.

The EU has been following developments very closely and has repeatedly conveyed its concerns on this issue to the US Administration, not least during political dialogue meetings held in the framework of the New Transatlantic Agenda. The US Administration has repeatedly assured the EU that it did not support the bill as proposed by the House of Representatives.

The Council understands that the legislation which was given final approval by Congress on 12 November 2003 does not contain the provisions which would have been potentially harmful for the EU industry.

---
# C_2009153EN.01000402.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-497/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Tendering procedure - Payment in kind - Payment of the tenderers in fruits other than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender - Causal link)

2009/C 153/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and R. Fioretti, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2006 in Case T-226/01 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for compensation for the alleged loss caused by the Commission’s Decisions C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and C(96)2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted within the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18)

CAS Succhi di Frutta

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.

1

---
# C_2008142EN.01000401.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt (Belgium)) — Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken

(Case C-197/06) (1)

1

(Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Estate agent)

(2008/C 142/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars

Applicants:

Defendant: Willem Van Leuken

Defendant:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Obligation on an estate agent established in one Member State and engaged in agency activities in another Member State to satisfy the conditions governing the exercise of that profession which are imposed by the legislation of that latter State in pursuance of the directive — Requirement imposed even in the case where there is a contract of collaboration between that estate agent and an estate agent who is authorised by that latter State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceedings by a service provider established in another Member State, and in a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 30, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 30, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0419. IN THE INTEREST OF J. M., A CHILD (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2021104J044
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  H ELFRIED E. S ARTORI ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. D OUGLAS V ARGO ; D AVID G ARRAGHTY ; G EORGEH INKLE ; C LAUDEN OIROT ; D ANIELT. M AHON ; J AMES K ING ; No. 03-6131



#  R ONALD J. A NGELONE ; V ERNON S MITH , Dr.; K ARENW ALLACE ; S TEVE H ARRIS ; N. N. W HITE ; N. N. C HATHAM , Dr.; N. N. K AZI ; F RED R OACH , Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-02-990-AM) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: March 4, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Helfried E. Sartori, Appellant Pro Se.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Helfried Sartori appeals the district court’s November 13, 2002order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider its October 11, 2002 order denying reconsideration of its dismissal of his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice. Sartoritimely filed one Rule 59(e) motion addressing the district court’s September 18, 2002 order dismissing his complaint, which tolled the period for noting an appeal. See Panhorst v. United States , 241 F.3d367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). Rather than noting an appeal after the district court denied his first Rule 59(e) motion, on October 11, 2002, Sartori filed a second Rule 59(e) motion. Because a second Rule 59(e) motion will not again toll the period for noting an appeal, and Sartori did not note his appeal until December 26, 2002, his appeal from the district court’s September 18 dismissal order is untimely. See Charles v. Daley , 799 F.2d 343, 347-48 (7th Cir. 1986) (collecting cases). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to the September 18, 2002 order as untimely. To the extent Sartori’s notice of appeal is timely as to the court’s denial of his second Rule 59(e) motion on November 13, 2002, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Sartori’s second Rule 59(e) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. Sartori v. Vargo , No. CA-02-990-AM (E.D. Va., filed Nov. 12, 2002; entered Nov. 13, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 2 S ARTORI v. V ARGO
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDCD.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, the 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, including 
consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the 
competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDCD.
    Date: October 21, 2005.
    Open: 7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m.
    Agenda: Reports from Institute staff.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5 Research Court, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Closed: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5 Research Court, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Robert J. Wenthold, PhD, Director, Division of 
Intramural Research, National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders, 5 Research Court, Room 2B28, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-402-2829.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee 
by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this 
notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone 
number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of 
the interested person.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. 
Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and 
sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 9, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-18394 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce W. Duncan,Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 

 

 
| /s/                                             | Bruce W. Duncan |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| Bruce W.  Duncan                                |
| Chief  Executive Officer of  Equity Residential |
| November 13,  2003                              |

 

----
----

(2004/C 65 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2981/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Breach of Directive 89/48/EEC

Can the Commission list the law diplomas awarded in the Member States on completion of higher-education studies of at least three years' duration (or those awarded by any other university college, higher-education establishment or other establishment with the same level of training) which are covered by the provisions of Directive 89/48/EEC (1) and which, in accordance with that Directive, grant access to the profession of lawyer in a Member State other than that in which the diplomas were acquired?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The Commission does not have a list of the diplomas which give access to the profession of lawyer in the different Member States and can be recognised in accordance with Directive 89/48/EEC (2). This Directive leaves Member States free to regulate professions within their territories and to establish the level and type of qualifications required for a given profession. To the Commission's knowledge, some Member States grant access to the profession of lawyer by their nationals conditional not only on possession of a law degree but also on completing a period of supervised practice and on passing an additional examination. Information on the diploma required in each Member State, can be obtained from the national ‘contact points’ for diplomas and professional recognition: the list of these contact points is published on the Commission's website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/index.htm. Lastly, Directive 98/5/EC (3), although it does not list the diplomas required for access to the profession of lawyer, contains a list of the titles of lawyer existing in all Member States.

----

(1)OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration.

(3)  Directive 98/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

----
# C_2008051EN.01006101.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/61

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 — Steinmetz v Commission

(Case F-131/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Amicable settlement - Performance of an agreement - Refusal to reimburse expenditure in connection with a mission - Manifest inadmissibility - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Apportioning costs - Unreasonable and vexatious costs)

(2008/C 51/113)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Steinmetz (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 21 February 2005 not to give full effect to the amicable settlement reached between the parties in Case T-155/05, which was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Steinmetz is ordered to bear his own costs, with the exception of an amount of EUR 500. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Steinmetz is ordered to bear his own costs, with the exception of an amount of EUR 500.

| 3. | In addition to its own costs, the Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear Mr Steinmetz's costs in the sum of EUR 500. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In addition to its own costs, the Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear Mr Steinmetz's costs in the sum of EUR 500.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 86.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      282
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,699
<PP&E>                                           1,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                         509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,790
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,558
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (429)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (441)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
Bruce HENDERSON, Employee, Plaintiff, v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA15-985.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.