alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-1840 

In Re: MICHAEL EDWARD MILLS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(3:93-cr-00132-REP-4)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edward Mills, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Mills petitions for a writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion

for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

(2000). He seeks an order from this court directing the district

court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that, by

order entered on August 26, 2008, the district court granted Mills’

§ 3582(c)(2) motion as to two counts of conviction. Accordingly,

because the district court has recently decided Mills’ case, we

deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
STATE of North Carolina v. Clay Dewayne LEAKS, Jr.

No. 168P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for Leaks, Clay Dewayne (Jr.).

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of May 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 20th of August 2015."
Marc Singer, Plaintiff, v. Marcel Stark, Robert Stark, Eva Stark, Stark Real Properties, LLC, Starsing, LLC and Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Defendants.

Marcel Stark, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Cassandra Singer, Third Party Defendant.

No. COA15-1168

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

DISMISSED.
LCA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. WMS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant.

No. COA15-1110.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
In the Matter of: I.C., J.C., J.C., and R.C.

No. COA16-157

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

13 December 2007

Case F-130/05

**Carlos Alberto Soares**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Restoration of career prospects – Absence of staff reports – Consideration of comparative merits – Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – Admissibility of the action – New and substantive fact)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Soares seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting his claim
for a favourable reconstitution of his career.

**Held:**The application is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

An official cannot, by submitting a request to the appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, revive
for himself the possibility of lodging a complaint and an appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon the expiry
of the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations, unless a new and substantive fact has occurred prior to the submission
of the request.

In that respect, the fact that an official’s staff report was drawn up after the disputed promotion procedure does not constitute
a new and substantive fact enabling him to contest a decision not to promote him, which has become definitive, as long as
he was aware that the report had not been drawn up and that he could not therefore be taken into account in that promotion
procedure. Since a decision not to promote an official can be disputed even in the absence of a staff report, there is nothing
to stop the official in question from lodging a complaint against that decision on the ground that the failure to draw up
his staff report placed him at a disadvantage.

(see paras 52, 57-58, 60)

See:

231/84 *Valentini* v *Commission* [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14

T-495/93 *Carrer and Others* v *Court of Justice* [1994] ECR‐SC I‐A‐201 and II‐651, para. 20; T-138/99 *Verheyden* v *Commission* [2000] ECR-SC I‐A‐219 and II‐1001, para. 43; T-70/98 *Hilden* v *Commission* [2002] ECR-SC I‐A‐57 and II‐265, para. 39
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3685 

To ensure that emergency services volunteers are not counted as full-time 

employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2013 

Mr. BARLETTA (for himself, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Mr. PERRY, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. LANCE, 

Mr. JOYCE, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. RENACCI, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. GERLACH, 

Mr. JONES, Mr. BACHUS, Mrs. NOEM, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. 

HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HANNA, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. WALORSKI, 

Mr. FINCHER, Mr. COTTON, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. PITTS, 

Mr. COLLINS of New York, Mr. MARINO, and Mr. BARR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To ensure that emergency services volunteers are not counted 

as full-time employees under the shared responsibility 

requirements contained in the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Volunteer 

5 Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3685 IH

1 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY SERVICES VOLUNTEERS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4980H(c)(4) of the Inter3 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(C) EXCEPTION.— 

6 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

7 this section, a qualified emergency services 

8 volunteer shall not be counted in deter9 mining the number of full-time employees 

10 who are employed by an employer. 

11 ‘‘(ii) DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED

12 EMERGENCY SERVICES VOLUNTEER.—The 

13 term ‘qualified emergency services volun14 teer’ means any bona fide volunteer, as de15 fined by paragraph (11)(B)(i) of section 

16 457(e) performing fire fighting and pre17 vention services, emergency medical serv18 ices, or ambulance services for an eligible 

19 employer, as defined by paragraph (1) of 

20 such section.’’. 

21 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec22 tion, or the amendment made by this section, shall be con23 strued to modify the treatment of qualified emergency 

24 services volunteers (as defined in subparagraph (C) of sec25 tion 4980H(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

26 as added by subsection (a)) in any capacity other than 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3685 IH

1 the treatment of such volunteers under the shared respon2 sibility provision for employers with respect to health cov3 erage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

4 Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008327EN.01000201.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-247/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Effects of certain projects on the environment - Heating installation - Energy production - Partial incineration of dangerous products)

(2008/C 327/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: T. Harris, I. Rao and J. Maurici, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, 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 (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Authorisation of a heating installation for the production of energy which partly incinerates dangerous waste without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment — Waste disposal and waste recovery operations

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01019701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/197

---

(2004/C 78 E/0202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2948/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Whistleblowing provisions

Subject:

How many people have used Commissioner Kinnock's whistleblowing provisions since they were announced?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

(2 December 2003)

The whistleblowing procedure was put in place by the Commission as part of the reform in order to enable and encourage officials and other staff to express their concern about any malfunctioning coming to their attention while guaranteeing whistleblowers every protection.

Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 (1) requires officials and other staff to inform their Head of Service or Director-General, or the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) or Secretariat-General direct, of any evidence giving rise to the presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud.

1

The Commission decision of 4 April 2002 restates the obligation on all official or other staff to inform at once their superiors, the Secretary-General or OLAF direct of any evidence they have suggesting some illegal practice and also offers them the possibility of disclosing information outside the Commission or the European Anti-fraud Office in certain well-defined circumstances.

The Commission does not collect general statistics about the number of people having used the whistleblowing procedure. OLAF receives information from a large number of sources which may include whistleblowing by Community staff. However, the categories referred to in the OLAF activity report (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/reports/olaf/2002.en) make the distinction between Commission, other institutions, freephone, etc but do not make it possible to link the incoming information via an instrument put in place by the Commission with whistleblowing.

OLAF has told the Commission, concerning the information it receives, that since 1 June 1999, 76 investigations have been opened on the basis of allegations coming from ‘Commission information sources’.

The Commission President announced to Plenary on 18 November that the Commission's Action Plan following the Eurostat affair will include provisions to strengthen information flows between OLAF and the Commission.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests, OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136655 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RUSSELL LABARGE, JR Robert P. Young, Jr. ., Conservator for Stephen J. Markman, Leo Saffaleo, and MONA AL-FALAHAT, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 136655 

 COA: 281923 

Livingston CC: 06-022024-CZ

WALGREEN COMPANY., a/k/a WALGREENS,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

RDC ENTERPRISES, INC., LINDHOUT

ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, A.I.A., P.C.,

ICON IDENTITY SOLUTIONS, INC., and 

J.G. MORRIS, L.C.C., d/b/a J.G. MORRIS

COMPANY, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 1, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court. 

s0828 

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
# C_2008051EN.01003906.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-266/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/72)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
Cynthia Walker, D.D.S. v. The N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners

No. 95PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Ryan McKaig, Ms. Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Attorneys at Law, For Walker, Cynthia (D.D.S.)

Ms. Carolin Bakewell, Attorney at Law, For The N.C. State Board Of Dental Examiners

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th of March 2016 by Plaintiff 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:

*19"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of June 2016.
EXHIBIT 10.2

CAPTARIS, INC.

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

This Amendment to Change of Control Agreement (this Amendment) is entered into as of March 23, 2007 by and between Captaris, Inc., a
Washington corporation (Captaris), and David P. Anastasi (Executive).

RECITALS

A. Captaris and Executive entered into a Change of Control Agreement (the CIC Agreement), dated as of March 15, 2005.

B. Captaris and Executive desire to amend the terms of the CIC Agreement.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:



| | 1. | Amendment
| | -- | ---------

Section 6.1(d) of the CIC
Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

(d) immediate vesting of all equity awards granted by the Company
to the Executive outstanding as of the Change in Control Date; and



| | 2. | Full Force and Effect
| | -- | ---------------------

Except as otherwise
amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the CIC Agreement, as amended remain unchanged.



| | 3. | Counterparts
| | -- | ------------

This Amendment may be executed
in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.



EXECUTIVE/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASIDavid P. Anastasi




CAPTARIS, INC.By:

/s/ PATRICK J. SWANICKName:

Patrick J. SwanickTitle:

Chairman, Compensation Committee




-2-
STATE v. AUGUSTINE, Golphin, and Walters.

No. 139PA13-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 7, 2016.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, for Augustine, Quintel, et al.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr.

James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel, et al.

Cassandra Stubbs, for Augustine, Quintel, et al.

William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Robert P. Mosteller, for Retired Members of the North Carolina Judiciary.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., for North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Irving Joyner, for North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Theresa A. Newman, for North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*324*Amended*

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Defendants for Temporary Stay of the Mandate:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of January 2016."

BEASLEY, J., and ERVIN, J., recused.
STATE v. Ron Fitzgerald KENNEY.

No. 343P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 7, 2015.

Ron Fitzgerald Kenney, Laurinburg, for Kenney, Ron Fitzgerald.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of October 2015."
LIPE v. STARR DAVIS COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 445P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for Travelers Casualty & Surety.

Hatcher B. Kincheloe, Charlotte.

Michael B. Pross, for Lipe, Shirley, et al.

Cathy A. Williams, for Lipe, Shirley, et al.

Jeri L. Whitfield, for N.C. Chamber and N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, for N.C. Chamber and N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 23rd of December 2014 by NC Chamber and NC Association of Defense Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. Jesus Rafael RODRIGUEZ.

No. 379P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Jesus Rafael Rodrigues, Spruce Pine, for Rodriguez, Jesus Rafael.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
<LEGEND>
                  Bank Holding  Companies and Savings and Loan Holding Companies
                  Article 9 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,978
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,590
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     72,705
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              67
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                65
<LOANS>                                        362,134
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (3,352)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,717
<DEPOSITS>                                     369,932
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,530
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,579
<LONG-TERM>                                     32,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 463,717
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,103
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,873
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,976
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,347
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,936
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,040
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      685
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 503
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,697
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,697
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,656
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.71
<LOANS-NON>                                        411
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,302
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,780
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      113
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,352
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,352
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>