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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6562

JAMIE RAY FURLOUGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; RUFUS FLEMING,

Regional Director; G. P. WILLIAMS, Associate

Warden; MS. MILLARD, Associate Warden; P. A.

EDGE, Warden’s Designee; D. TRENT, Lieutenant,

Housing Unit Manager; MS. BIGGS; M. MCKRINSTRY, Law Library Supervisor; COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

L. ADAMS, Law Library Official; JANE DOE; JOHN

DOE,

Defendants.

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

Judge. (CA-98-322)

Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: February 7, 2000

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Ray Furlough, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Ray Furlough appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Furlough v. Garraghty, No. CA-98-322 (E.D. Va.

Mar. 23, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
----

(2004/C 33 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Language discrimination — native speakers

In its reply to Question E-2764/02 (1), the Commission acknowledges that ‘a “native speake” condition contained in recruitment announcements is not acceptable under Community rules on free movement of workers, as it is unlawfully discriminatory. Therefore the Commission considers that the use of this term in job advertisements is prohibited by Community law.’

In the same reply, the Commission states that it is investigating ‘such job advertisements which have been published by one Member State's public authorities’. On 11 November 2002, the investigations had ‘not been finalised’, but once they had, the Commission would then decide about the next steps to take.

On 7 April 2003, Cedefop advertised a vacancy for ‘an English mother-tongue secretary’ (see also: http://www.cedefop.eu.int/download/banner/secretary_EN_0403.pdf).

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

----

(1)OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 207.

(2)OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 221.

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of theChief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connection with theperiodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended January 24, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight S. Pedersen, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United StatesCode, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: March  9, 2004 |   |                                   |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                 |   |                                   |
|                 |   | By:                                    |   | /s/ Dwight  S. Pedersen |   |
|                 |   |                                   | Dwight S.  Pedersen |
|                 |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |        |                                        |  |  |  |  |

 

 

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

 

----
# C_2010148EN.01002501.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — BST v Commission

(Case T-452/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in industrial thread - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Non-contractual liability - Disclosure of confidential information - Damage - Causal link)

2010/C 148/43

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Belgian Sewing Thread (BST) NV (Deerlijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for (i) partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005 and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision and (ii) an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Fixes at EUR 856 800 the fine imposed on Belgian Sewing Thread (BST) NV by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Fixes at EUR 856 800 the fine imposed on Belgian Sewing Thread (BST) NV by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread);

| 2. | For the rest, dismisses the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the rest, dismisses the application for annulment;

| 3. | Dismisses the claim for damages. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the claim for damages.

| 4. | Orders BST to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by BST. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders BST to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by BST.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.35

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                          Senior Officer Incentive Plan

                           Effective December 12, 2000


         The Dime Bancorp, Inc. Senior Officer Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended in the following particulars:

         1. The textual language of Section 6(c) preceding clause (i) thereof is
amended to read as follows:

         "Subject to the following, the Committee shall, following the end of a
         Performance Period, determine the bonus amounts payable for that
         Performance Period to each Participant, and the bonus amounts so
         payable (including, where applicable, related earnings, if any,
         credited with respect thereto) shall be paid to Participants, in the
         sole discretion of the Committee, in cash, in shares of common stock of
         the Company or rights to purchase shares of common stock of the Company
         (in each instance subject to such restrictions as may be determined by
         the Committee, with such stock or stock purchase right payment effected
         through the provisions of an available stock incentive plan of the
         Company), or a combination of cash, stock or stock purchase rights, as
         soon as practicable following the end of the Performance Period to
         which they apply (or at such other later time designated by the
         Committee during the Applicable Period), provided that:"

         2. The following sentence is added at the beginning of the last
paragraph of Section 6(c)(iii) of the Plan:

         "Each of the minimum pro-rated bonus amounts payable pursuant to this
         Section 6(c)(iii) shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of
         Section 6(c) of the Plan, be paid in cash."

         3. Section 7(i) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

         "(i) Payment Obligation. Bonus payments hereunder to a Participant
         shall be made by the employer responsible for the payment of base
         salary to the Participant, provided, however, that the Bank shall be
         jointly and severally liable for all cash amounts payable under the
         Plan and the Company shall be jointly and severally liable for all
         amounts payable under the Plan in the form of shares of common stock of
         the Company or rights to purchase shares of common stock of the Company
         (whether or not subject to restrictions as may be determined by the
         Committee)."
# CE2004084EN.01003601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/36

---

(2004/C 84 E/0039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Costs of using Microsoft software

Subject:

Can the Commission indicate the total annual cost of running the computer systems using Microsoft software, and can it confirm that it has considered using Linux Open Office which could save money and also increase security given that Microsoft programmes come with an in-built backdoor used by US intelligence agencies?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

(31 October 2003)

The Commission estimates the current total annual cost of Microsoft products for its central office automation infrastructure to be around EUR 226 per user.

The Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that this amount corresponds to approximately 7 % of the total yearly cost of EUR 3 173 per user required for the operation of the office automation environment; the remaining 93 % includes software from other editors, hardware, network connectivity and the infrastructure needed to connect to information systems.

It should be highlighted that Microsoft does not sell its products directly, but through Large Account Resellers (LARs) who can — and do — compete with each other. Therefore, the Commission's expenditure in this area is paid to a LAR selected on the basis of the Community public procurement Directives, and not to Microsoft. The ongoing LAR contract was awarded to Siemens, but a call for tenders is running at the moment for the selection of the Commission's (and several other Institutions) next LAR.

Furthermore, the Commission, in co-operation with the other Institutions closely follows the evolution of the Open Source Software solutions in general and, in particular, in the office automation area where it is presently carrying out a pilot exercise. A detailed exposé regarding Commission's activities in this area is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---
exv10w1










Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This amendment (this “Amendment”) is effective as of the 24th day of November, 2010, and is
made by and among Yadkin Valley Financial Corporation, a North Carolina corporation (the
“Company”), Yadkin Valley Bank & Trust Company, a North Carolina banking corporation (the “Bank”),
and Jan H. Hollar, an individual resident of North Carolina (the “Officer”).



     WHEREAS, the Officer, the Company and the Bank entered into an employment agreement (the
“Agreement”), dated June 22, 2010, whereby the Officer agreed to serve as an Chief Financial
Officer of the Company and of the Bank; and



     WHEREAS, the parties now desire to extend the term of the Agreement from 12 to 36 months.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company, the Bank and the Officer do hereby agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Paragraph 5 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
	 
	 	 	 	5. Term. The initial term of employment under this Agreement shall be for
the period commencing upon the effective date of this Agreement and ending three
calendar years from the effective date of this Agreement. On each anniversary of
the effective date of this Agreement, the term hereof shall automatically be
extended for an additional one year period beyond the then effective expiration date
unless written notice from the Employer or the Officer is received 90 days prior to
such anniversary advising the other that this Agreement shall not be further
extended; provided that the Directors shall review the Officer’s performance
annually and make a specific determination based on such reviews whether to renew
this Agreement prior to the 90 days’ notice.
	 
	 	2.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, except as modified herein, shall remain in
full force and effect and shall be binding on the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and
assigns.





(Signatures appear on the following page.)






 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the date first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	ATTEST:	 	 	 	YADKIN VALLEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Patricia H. Wooten
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ William A. Long	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Patricia H. Wooten
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	William A. Long	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	YADKIN VALLEY BANK & TRUST COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Patricia H. Wooten
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ William A. Long	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Patricia H. Wooten
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	William A. Long	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	OFFICER	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	/s/ Jan H. Hollar	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Jan H. Hollar
In the Matter of K.C., A Minor Child.

No. COA15-960.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2543

_____________________________

R.J.R.,

Appellant,

v.

G.R.S., In Re: The Matter of 

B.L.S.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

Darlene F. Dickey, Judge.

April 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. N.S.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 

898 (Fla. 2003) (approving procedure that includes dismissal 

when, after counsel withdraws, the appellant fails to timely file his 

or her own brief in support of appeal of termination of parental 

rights).

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

R.J.R., pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
State v. Arkeem Hakim Jordan

163P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Arkeem Hakim Jordan, Pro se.

Ms. Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of May 2016 by Defendant for Writ of Error:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
# C_2009113EN.01000201.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Austria) — Gottfried Heinrich

(Case C-345/06) (1)

1

(Article 254(2) EC - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 2(3) - Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 - Aviation security - Annex - List of articles prohibited on board aircraft - Not published - Binding force)

2009/C 113/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gottfried Heinrich

Applicant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich — Interpretation of Article 254(2) EC and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (OJ 2003 L 89, p. 9) — Annex to the regulation, establishing detailed measures in respect of aviation security, and in particular a list of prohibited articles that cannot be brought on board an aircraft, not published

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 of 4 April 2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2004 of 15 January 2004, which was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union, has no binding force in so far as it seeks to impose obligations on individuals.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136480 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

 SC: 136480 

v COA: 274008 

Lenawee CC: 05-011977-FH,

05-011978-FH, 05-011979-FH,

05-011980-FH, 05-011981-FH,

05-011982-FH, 05-011983-FH,

05-011984-FH, 05-011985-FH,

TIMOTHY ALLEN HOLTZ, SR., 05-011986-FH, 05-011987-FH,

Defendant-Appellant. 06-012156-FH, 06-012157-FH 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

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

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

t0828 

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
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Mr. Craig T. Enoch

Winstead PC

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. William Richard Thompson III

Hankinson Levinger LLP

2305 Cedar Springs, Suite 230

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Grant Hugh Brenna

Assistant District Attorney

Administration Building, 5th Floor

411 Elm Street, Suite 500

Dallas, TX 75202-3384

RE:Case Number:  07-0147

Court of Appeals Number:  05-07-00198-CV

Trial Court Number:  

Style:IN RE  CALLA DAVIS, MELVIN HURST III, AND ANN B. HEARN

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a), the Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus and issued the enclosed opinion in the above-referenced cause.  The Motion to Strike Response to Mandamus is denied as amended.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0147Page 1**
II 

Calendar No. 195 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 720 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the Governor of a State, 

territory, or possession of the United States to order that the National 

flag be flown at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession in 

the event of the death of a member of the Armed Forces from that 

State, territory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the 

Governor of a State, territory, or possession of the 

United States to order that the National flag be flown 

at half-staff in that State, territory, or possession in 

the event of the death of a member of the Armed Forces 

from that State, territory, or possession who dies while 

serving on active duty. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

S 720 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Army Specialist Joseph 

3 P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF GOVERNORS TO ORDER THE NA5 TIONAL FLAG TO BE FLOWN AT HALF-STAFF 

6 IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF A MEMBER 

7 OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

8 (a) DEATH OF A MEMBER OF THE ARMED

9 FORCES.—Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is 

10 amended in the sixth sentence by inserting ‘‘or the death 

11 of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, terri12 tory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty’’ 

13 after ‘‘present or former official of the government of any 

14 State, territory, or possession of the United States’’. 

15 (b) FEDERAL FACILITY CONSISTENCY WITH STATE

16 PROCLAMATION.—Such section is further amended by in17 serting after the sixth sentence the following new sentence: 

18 ‘‘When the Governor of a State, territory, or possession 

19 issues a proclamation under the preceding sentence that 

20 the National flag be flown at half-staff because of the 

21 death of a member of the Armed Forces, the National flag 

22 flown at any Federal installation or facility in that State, 

23 territory, or possession shall be flown at half-staff con24 sistent with that proclamation.’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

Calendar No. 195 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 720 

A BILL 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize 

tive duty. tory, or possession who dies while serving on acber of the Armed Forces from that State, terrior possession in the event of the death of a memflag be flown at half-staff in that State, territory, of the United States to order that the National the Governor of a State, territory, or possession 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS