alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009082EN.01000501.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dietmar Klarenberg v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

(Case C-466/07) (1)

1

(Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Concept of legal transfer - Legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking - Organisational autonomy following the transfer)

(2009/C 82/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dietmar Klarenberg

Applicant:

Defendant: Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Applicability of Directive 2001/23/EC in the event of a legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking which integrates, into its organisational structure, the part of the business that has been transferred without preserving the latter's organisational autonomy — Concept of ‘transfer’ for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that that directive may also apply in a situation where the part of the undertaking or business transferred does not retain its organisational autonomy, provided that the functional link between the various elements of production transferred is preserved, and that that link enables the transferee to use those elements to pursue an identical or analogous economic activity, a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 8.12.2008.

1

---
In the Matter of: Q.C.R. and L.Q.W.

No. 58P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, For Williams, Latoya.

E.B. Borden Parker, Helen S. Baddour, Attorneys at Law, Goldsboro, For Wayne County DSS.

Gavin B. Parsons, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For GAL.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2016 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the *916following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Baker & Miller PLLC on behalf of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (WB595-3—9/6/2005) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2002-2004 Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of the requests may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration. 

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9. 

*Contact:*                     Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.                

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-18568 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
# C_2008128EN.01002702.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-62/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Warren H. Summers

No. 126P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Warren H. Summers, Pro Per.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
STATE v. COFFIN.

No. COA08-539.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Durham (01CRS50252).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
IN RE A.L.L.

No. COA08-1265.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Guilford (06JT627, 06JT628).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
  
  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 CPI International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 27, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, O.
Joe Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
  (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.
   /s/
      O. JOE CALDARELLIO.
      Joe CaldarelliChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      6, 2008
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 13, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-1704

Lower Tribunal No. 02-12509C

________________

Hector Caraballo,

Appellant,

Vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William

Thomas, Judge.

Hector Caraballo, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Nikole Hiciano, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Hector Caraballo appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to void his

plea in case number F02-12509C. Although the State has filed its Answer Brief
maintaining its position that the record was sufficient to support the trial court’s

denial of Caraballo’s motion to void the plea, the State does not object to

remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing so that the trial court can reconsider

the issue.

Caraballo claims in his Initial Brief that the court translator did not properly

translate the plea agreement. However, for practical considerations as outlined in

the State’s motion to expedite, we reverse and remand the case for an evidentiary

hearing so Caraballo’s claim that the court translator erroneously interpreted the

plea agreement and thus misadvised him regarding the nature of the plea

agreement and/or sentence can be considered.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

2
**Exhibit 99.24****CONSENT OF D. KAPPES**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled “Technical Report NI 43-101Los Filos Project, Mexico” (the “Los Filos Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Los Filos Reportand the properties described therein.Date: March 28, 2008         /s/ Daniel W. Kappes   Name:  Daniel W. Kappes   Title:  President, Kappes, Cassiday & AssociatesRegistered Professional Engineer Nev. 3223
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6159

MICHAEL EDWARDS HANKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CAROLE F. WALLACE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00485-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edwards Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell

Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Although it appears from the pleadings Hankins has filed that

his middle name is “Edward,” the district court’s docket and

memorandum opinion spell Hankins’ middle name as “Edwards.” For

consistency, we have retained that latter spelling on our docket

and in this opinion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edwards Hankins* seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hankins

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135901 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: 135901 

 COA: 282552 

Wayne CC: 73-001147

RAYMOND GRAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 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
----

(2004/C 70 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3245/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Increased costs of hospital treatment and waste-disposal arising from restrictions on cost-saving re-use of surgical instruments

Source: ‘De Morgen’ (Belgium), for 17 October 2003.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the background information contained in the answer given to written question E-3177/03 of Mrs Corbey (1).

----

(1)  See page 232.

----
Exhibit 10.13


 


NORTHERN
TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


 


DESCRIPTION
OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS


 


The
following is a description of oral compensation arrangements between Northern
Technologies International Corporation and each of the executive officers of
NTIC:


 


	
  Name of

  Executive

  Officer

  	
   

  	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Base

  Salary

  	
   

  	
  Bonus

  Arrangements

  	
   

  	
  Stock

  Options

  	
   

  	
  Other

  
	
  G.
  Patrick Lynch

  	
   

  	
  President
  and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $230,000
  per year. See footnote (1) below

  	
   

  	
  See
  footnote (2) below

  	
   

  	
  Stock
  options to purchase shares of NTIC common stock are granted from time to time
  in the sole discretion of the NTIC Board of Directors.

  	
   

  	
  Under
  NTIC’s 401(k) Plan, participants, including executive officers, may
  voluntarily request that NTIC reduce pre-tax compensation by up to 15%
  (subject to certain special limitations) and contribute such amounts to a
  trust. NTIC contributed an amount equal to 3.5% of the amount that each
  participant contributed under this plan. 

   

  Executive
  officers receive other benefits received by other NTIC employees, including
  health, dental and life insurance benefits.

  
	
  Matthew
  C. Wolsfeld

  	
   

  	
  Chief
  Financial Officer and Secretary

  	
   

  	
  $170,000
  per year. See footnote (1) below

  	
   

  	
  See
  footnote (2) below

  	
   

  	
  See
  above

  	
   

  	
  See
  above

  



 






(1)           Annual base salaries for
NTIC’s executive officers are determined each year by NTIC’s Board of
Directors, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board.


 


(2)           Annual performance bonuses
for NTIC’s executive officers are determined each year by NTIC’s Board of
Directors, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board.   For fiscal 2011 as in past years, the total
amount available under the bonus plan will be up to 25% of NTIC’s earnings
before interest, taxes and other income (EBITOI) and will be $0 if EBITOI, as
adjusted to take into account amounts to be paid under the bonus plan, fall
below 70% of target EBITOI.  The payment
of bonuses under the plan are purely discretionary and will be paid to executive
officer participants in both cash and stock, the exact amount and percentages
of which will be determined by the Board of Directors, upon recommendation of
the Compensation Committee.
# C_2007020EN.01002601.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/26

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans v Commission

(Case T-360/06)

(2007/C 20/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Heijmans NV (represented by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul in whole or in part the decision addressed to the claimant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in whole or in part the decision addressed to the claimant;

| — | set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), whereby a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

The claimant first submits that there has been a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 2, 7 and 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the claimant, the Commission has not proved that the claimant is a unitary organisation of natural persons and of material and immaterial assets which acted contrary to Article 81 EC by regulating the fixing of bitumen prices in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the claimant contends, there is no basis in law on which the claimant can be held principally liable and that determination of liability is unreasonable.

In support of its action, the claimant also relies on the similar pleas and arguments submitted by the claimant in Case T-358/06 Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. v Commission.

Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V.

Commission

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        November 14, 2006 By:  /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.    Robert W. Zoller, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and President
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6860

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES ERNEST GANDY, JR

. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cr - 00040

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. James Ernest Gandy, Jr

. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: James Ernest Gandy, J r., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. G andy , No. 1:20

- cr - 00040

- CCE

- 1 (M.D.N.C. July 21, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6860 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2008171EN.01003001.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias, Greece) — Georgios Diamantis v Fanco AE

(Case C-315/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 171/48)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---