alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.72

                  SYNDICATED FOOD SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                            3560 CYPRESS GARDENS ROAD
                           WINTER HAVEN, FLORIDA 33884

                                 MARCH 26, 2002

VIA FACSIMILE AND
REGISTERED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Gil Condinho
300 Sheoah Boulevard, No. 1114
Winter Springs, Florida 32708

Re:      Termination of all Relationships with Syndicated Food Services
         International, Inc. and each of its subsidiaries and affiliates (the
         "Company")

Dear Mr. Condinho:

The Board of Directors of the Company has voted to terminate your employment and
all relationships with the Company for cause, effective March 22, 2002, and,
specifically, among other things, not performing your duties as an employee
appropriately or consistent with normal and standard efforts of a person who is
in a management position of a public company.

1.       Your employment with the Company is terminated effective immediately.

2.       All understandings and writings between you and the Company are null
and void and are of no further force or effect; except you are still responsible
to the Company for your wrongful acts or omissions to act. The Company reserves
all rights in law and in equity as against you for damages, which it has
incurred and may in the future incur as a result of your acts or omissions.

3.       You will not be entitled to any payments or benefits from the Company,
other than as may be specifically required by law in the particular
circumstances.

4.       You are not to make any disparaging remarks concerning, or undertake to
disparage, the Company or any of its officers, directors (past or present) or
representatives. In addition, you will not disclose any of the confidential
information of the Company, including its finances, operations, customers or
relationships with customers or vendors and will not impair or endeavor to
adversely affect any relationships of the Company with third parties.

<PAGE>

5.       You will immediately return all copies and original Company records and
those of its subsidiaries and affiliates to Mr. Thomas P. Tanis, Jr., Syndicated
Food Service International, Inc., 3560 Cypress Gardens Road, Winter Haven,
Florida 33884, Tel. No. (770) 754-6131, and not retain any of the same, as well
as see to the return of all Company equipment such as cellular telephones and
computer equipment.

Very truly yours,

Syndicated Food Services International, Inc.

/s/ Thomas P. Tanis, Jr.

Thomas P. Tanis, Jr., on behalf of the Company

cc:      Roman Fisher, Director
         Frank Dolney, Director
         David W. Sloan, Esq.
**Exhibit 32.01****Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries****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 Annual Report of Quintiles TransnationalCorp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004, filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Dennis B. Gillings, Executive Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Dennis B. Gillings           Dennis B. Gillings *Executive Chairman and* *Chief Executive Officer*      March 7, 2005       Date     This certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,whether made before or after the date of this Report,irrespective of any general incorporation language contained insuch filing.     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other documents authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

(2004/C 33 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2271/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Progress in the Zakynthos city drainage project

A drainage project in Zakynthos city has been financed by the Cohesion Fund. An amending decision set a date of 30 December 2000 for the completion of work. In view of the enormous delays, the Commission has stopped payments on the project. According to the information I have, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has announced an investigation into the matter.

Could the Commission say what proportion of the project has already been completed, what payments have been made, whether it has received the findings of the investigation by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and what further action it intends to take in relation to this project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

On 30 October 2001 the paying authority sent the Commission an intermediate payment application for this project. Pending receipt of additional information it still awaits a decision.

On 19 December 2001 the Commission informed the Greek authorities that payments for the project would be blocked since it did not appear possible to terminate it within the time limit set under the amending decision (31 December 2001). By 31 October 2001 only 41 % of the work had been completed.

On 29 November 2002 the Commission asked the Greek authorities for detailed information on the state of advance of the project on two fronts: physical realisation and financial management.

On 23 December 2002 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that the paying authority had been asked to check the project on the spot and that on receiving the report they would transmit particulars of the state of advance and prospects for completion.

These have not yet been received.

----
Timothy CLARKE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Erica Bohn v. Ashraf Gad Bakhom MIKHAIL, M.D.; Jessica Lyn Hardin, P.A.; and Coastal Carolina Neuropsychiatric Center, P.A.

No. 29P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for Clarke, Timothy (Representative), et al.

W. Cory Reiss, Wilmington, for Clarke, Timothy (Representative), et al.

C. Andrew Childers, for Clarke, Timothy (Representative), et al.

John D. Martin, Wilmington, for Mikhail, Ashraf Gad Bakhom (M.D.), et al.

Colleen N. Shea, Wilmington, for Mikhail, Ashraf Gad Bakhom (M.D.), et al.

Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, for Mikhail, Ashraf Gad Bakhom (M.D.), et al.

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of January 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# C_2010288EN.01002902.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Switzerland v Commission

(Case T-319/05) (1)

(External relations - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport - Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Rights of the defence - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of proportionality)

(2010/C 288/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Swiss Confederation (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, U. Soltész and P. Melcher, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Benyon, M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C.-D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, acting as Agents, assisted by T. Masing, lawyer); and Landkreis Waldshut (represented by M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 on a procedure relating to the application of Article 18(2), first sentence, of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (Case TREN/AMA/11/03 — German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport) (OJ 2004 L 4, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Swiss Confederation to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Swiss Confederation to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Landkreis Waldshut to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Landkreis Waldshut to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004 (previously Case C-70/04).

---
In the Matter of J.S.

No. COA15-1129.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Salvatore MARSICO and David Hand v. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 304P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, for Marsico, Salvatore, et al.

Deborah R. Stagner, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for New Hanover County Board of Education.

Neal A. Ramee, Raleigh, for New Hanover County Board of Education.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of August 2015 by Petitioners 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 15th of December 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01002501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/25

---

(2004/C 78 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Serbia; assassination of the Prime Minister; instability

Subject:

On 12 March the Serbian Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic, was brutally murdered. The reason for the assassination seems to have been his determination to combat organised crime.

Can the Commission say:

| — | what information it has regarding who committed the crime; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has regarding who committed the crime;

| — | whether it considers that the Union should assist the Republic of Serbia at this time of emergency and political and social instability; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that the Union should assist the Republic of Serbia at this time of emergency and political and social instability;

| — | whether it will be willing to continue to provide this assistance with regard to fighting crime and consolidating democratic institutions in Serbia; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it will be willing to continue to provide this assistance with regard to fighting crime and consolidating democratic institutions in Serbia;

| — | how it will be able to do this? |
| --- | --- |

—

how it will be able to do this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

(8 May 2003)

The Commission has on various occasions, including during a personal visit by the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations, the day after the assassination and the attendance of President Prodi at the funeral of Prime Minister Djindjic, strongly condemned this horrible deed and voiced its strong support for Serbia and Montenegro at this critical junction.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on ongoing criminal investigations in Serbia. Serbia has taken decisive action against organized crime and political extremism in recent weeks, which appears to be bearing fruit.

The Commission immediately reacted by discussing possible further assistance with the authorities, enhancing the Union's already very generous support. It is obviously important to do what we can to underpin the democratic, political and economic reforms necessary for a properly functioning State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.

As an example of this continued assistance, the Community 2003 Annual Program for Serbia (CARDS — EUR 229 million in 2003), which is in the process of adoption, includes substantial aid for justice and home affairs and institution building. The Commission has also spelt out possible additional support measures, including macro-economic financial assistance, technical advice, coordination of Member States' efforts and enhanced trade opportunities, in a joint letter with Mr Javier Solana sent to Union's Foreign Ministers in advance of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 14 April 2003.

---
Carla KELLEY, Plaintiff, v. Michael D. ANDREWS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Durham County, and John Doe Surety, Defendants.

No. COA15-448.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIR~T CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DESHON M. CARMOUCHE

In Re: 

BEFORE: 

Deshon M. Carmouche, applying

19th Judicial District Court, 

Rouge, No. 03-08-0286. 

THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ. 

I

I

NO. 2022 KW 1388

MARCH 13, 2023

for supervisory

Parish of East

writs, 

Baton

WRIT DENIED. This application appe~rs to be filed in this

I

court in the first instance. Relator sljlould first seek relief

in the district court. 

1

MRT

WRC

Hester, J., concurs and would deny the writ application on

the showing made. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 September 2009 – AceaElectrabel v Commission**

**(Case T-303/05)**

State aid – Energy sector – Investment aid for the construction of a district heating system – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market – Obligation to repay first aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market – Concept of economic unit

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid – Characterisation
of adverse effect on competition and the effects on trade between Member States (Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC) (see paras 42-45,
51)*

2.                     *State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Measure benefiting a local business in
an economic sector which has been liberalised**(Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 59-61, 70-71)*

3.                     *State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market – Discretion of the Commission
(Arts 87(3) EC and 88 EC) (see paras 101-103, 110)*

4.                     *State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Commission decision making authorisation for the payment of aid subject to prior repayment
by the undertaking concerned of unlawful aid previously received (Arts 87(3)(c) EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 165-167)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/598/EC of 16 March 2005 concerning State aid that Italy (Regione Lazio) intends to grant for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 8). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA to pay the costs, except those referred to in point 3 below; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Electrabel to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission as a result of its intervention. |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136584 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136584 

 COA: 275691 

Wayne CC: 05-012835-01

RASHAD LEE MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

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
STATE v. Christopher Dennie ELLERBE.

No. 220P11-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Christopher Ellerbe, Maury, for Ellerbe, Christopher Dennie.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

BEASLEY, J. recused.
ORBAN, et al. v. PIKE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 32A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

Scott M. Tyler, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

Glenn E. Ketner, III, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

David G. Schiller, Raleigh, for Orban, Michael.

J. Daniel Albert, for Umberger, Annabelle, et al.

Paul R. Dickinson, Jr., for Lieberg, Collin.

Marc Ackerman, for Lieberg, Collin.

Richard A. Maniskas, for Lieberg, Collin.

Kurt F. Hausler, Charlotte, for Beickert, Edwin.

Brian D. Long, for Beickert, Edwin.

The following order has been entered on the consent motion filed on the 14th of March 2016 by Defendant to Hold Appeals in Abeyance Pending Settlement:

> *892"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of March 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                              114780
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       795932
<ALLOWANCES>                                         84781
<INVENTORY>                                         881258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1806451
<PP&E>                                             2849522
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1254077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3517041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2171509
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         421236
<COMMON>                                             19186
<OTHER-SE>                                           62350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3517041
<SALES>                                            1524955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1531195
<CGS>                                               959306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       959306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    688375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     44781
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   55782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (171832)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (171832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (171832)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.12)
        


</TABLE>
Lisa GREEN-HAYES v. HANDCRAFTED HOMES, LLC.

No. 246P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of July 2015 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 391P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 25, 2015.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of November 2015 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of November 2015."