alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2008 – M v Ombudsman**

**(Case T-412/05)**

Non-contractual liability – Decision by the Commission to take no action on a complaint calling into question the conduct of a Member State – Decision by the European Ombudsman concerning the handling of the complaint – Errors made by the Commission in its finding of instances of maladministration – Naming of the applicant – Infringement of the right to respect for private life, and of the principles of proportionality and the right to be heard
– Non-material damage – Causal link

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
(Art. 288 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court
of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 43-48)*

2.                     *European Ombudsman – Duty to comply with the principle of confidentiality – Duty not to name persons not subject to his jurisdiction
(see paras 126-133)*

3.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law protecting individuals (Art.
288, second para., EC) (see paras 133-145)*

4.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Real and certain damage caused by an illegal act (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see
paras 146-158)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for compensation for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of being named in the decision of the European Ombudsman of 18 July 2002 concerning the complaint registered with the reference 1288/99/OV and as a result of the negligent conduct of the Ombudsman concerning the investigation of that complaint and the conclusions he reached in that decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Mr M compensation of EUR 10 000; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7736** 

ANDRE COOPER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv - 00112

- FPS

- MJA )

Submitted : April 28, 2016 Decided: May 5, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Andre Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andre Cooper , a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge a nd denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Cooper v. O’Brien , No. 5:14

- cv - 00112

- FPS

- MJA (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 16, 2015)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.8(c)



FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
(this Amendment) is made as of this 30thday of April, 2003 to that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of May 15, 2002 (the Employment Agreement), by and between DAVID E. ULLMAN (Employee) and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (Employer).



FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy
of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows:



1. Subject to earlier termination otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the last day of the Employment Period shall be January
31, 2005.



2. Effective March 3, 2003,
Employees Base Salary shall be $240,000.



Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of the
Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafter be deemed
a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.



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



|JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. |  |                         |  | 
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|                            
|By:                          |  | /s/ ROBERT N.
WILDRICK  |  | 
|                             |  | Robert N. Wildrick      |  | 
|                             |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.6

                             AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT

      The Agreement Regarding Initial Employment Terms, dated as of July 1,
1997, between The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB and Anthony Burriesci, is
hereby amended, effective as of July 24, 1997, to replace the clause "Transfer
of Control" where it appears therein with the clause "Change in Control."

                                          AGREED AND ACCEPTED

                                          THE DIME SAVINGS BANK OF
                                           NEW YORK, FSB


                                          By: /s/LAWRENCE J. TOAL
                                              ------------------------------

                                          /s/ANTHONY BURRIESCI
                                          ----------------------------------
                                                ANTHONY BURRIESCI
STATE v. Reco KAMSON.

No. 275P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Reco Kamson, Taylorsville, Attorney at Law, for Kamson, Reco.

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

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of August 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         I, Gary A. Brukardt, President and Chief Executive Officer of Renal
Care Group, Inc., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Renal Care
Group, Inc.; and

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report.

Date: April 29, 2004

                                        /s/ Gary A. Brukardt
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary A. Brukardt
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       20
MOSBY v. INGRAM, et al.

No. 354P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Christopher Mosby, Brunswick, for Mosby, Christopher.

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

Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of January 2016 by Petitioner for Petition for Appellate Review:

> *471"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
State of North Carolina v. Freddie Soots, Defendant.

No. COA15-1262

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

NO ERROR.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 19, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-30235 Summary Calendar

_____________________ GERALD BOURG, ET AL., Plaintiffs, GERALD BOURG; REID SPANGLER; MICHAEL SPEARS; JESSE MENDOZA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; ET AL, Defendants, UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP, INC. SEVERANCE PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.

__________________ GERALD BOURG, ET AL., Plaintiffs, GERALD BOURG; REID SPANGLER; MICHAEL SPEARS; JESSE MENDOZA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP.; ANADARKO ENERGY SERVICES CO.; UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP, INC. SEVERANCE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR,* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 6:00-CV-622 and 6:00-CV-2269

__________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by that judge in her ruling of January 25, 2005. AFFIRMED.
null

451.76187
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 479 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS , RICHARD FREYMANN,

AND JUAN GONZALEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion 1 

### Per Curiam Relators, State Farm Lloyds , Ri chard Freymann, and Juan Gonzalez, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages brought agai nst relators by the real part ies in i nterest , Ignacio Gonzalez Jr. and Gloria Gonzalez , u n til sixty days after they provide relators with

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

a notice letter for t he i r claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages and attorney’s fees. See T EX

. I NS

. C ODE A NN . § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). In addition, relators request that this Court iss ue immediate temporary relief staying respondent’s order denying the plea in abatement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.10 (“Temporary Relief”).
T he Court, having examined and fully considered th e petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the o pinion that th e petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris , No. 13

- 14

- 00347

- CV, 2014 WL _____ (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. procee ding) (mem. op.), available at http://www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13

- 14

- 00348

- CV. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petit ion for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.8( d ).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 2nd day of September, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              MAY-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,974,477
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      15,066,565
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               250,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 11,497,106
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    107,274,631
<ALLOWANCE>                                    770,942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             148,898,038
<DEPOSITS>                                 134,398,605
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,683,893
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,888
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,801,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             148,898,038
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,740,434
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              534,430
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,274,864
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,298,232
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 597
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,976,044
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  240,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,470,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,091,881
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     678,863
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   678,863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,270
<LOANS-PAST>                                   248,327
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 96,381
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               671,807
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  142,256
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,639
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              780,190
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           780,190
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2818/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Commitment and absorption of Cohesion Fund appropriations for Greece in 2003

Can the Commission provide information on the current situation as regards the commitment and absorption of Cohesion Fund appropriations for Greece in 2003? Does the Commission consider the situation to be satisfactory?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, as at 30 September 2003, commitments for Greece in 2003 under the Cohesion Fund were EUR 167 million, to which a further EUR 29 million currently being implemented can be added, plus an additional amount of around EUR 53 million for new projects at the final examination stage.

The Commission has requested the Greek authorities to submit new applications for part-financing as quickly as possible so that EUR 612 million, which is the indicative amount that Greece is supposed to commit under the 2003 budget, can be committed. The Greek authorities have reconfirmed their intention of submitting sufficient new applications very shortly to meet the EUR 612 million target.

----
# CE2004070EN.01009102.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/91

---

(2004/C 70 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2374/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Contracting and subcontracting by the Commission

Subject:

In view of the recent OLAF investigation into the alleged misappropriation of about EUR 900 000 by senior Eurostat staff, the fact that the Commission has launched a reform of the accounting system, which is deemed to be inadequate, and that Eurostat subcontracted services to Eurogramme, Eurocost and Planistat, can the Commission specify what services have been contracted out and subcontracted in the last five years, how much they cost, and what the mechanisms for allocating contracts and selecting successful contractors are?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

(22 September 2003)

The Commission's modernisation of the accounting system aims to provide the institutions by 2005 with an accrual accounting system that complies with the most recent international accounting standards for the public sector in accordance with the Financial Regulation (1).

1

On the other matters raised, the Commission is collecting the very extensive information needed to answer the Honourable Member's question. It will communicate its findings in due course. It should be noted that, as part of the follow-up to the discharge for 2001, the Commission has mandated the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to examine the legality and the regularity of contracts awarded by Eurostat since 1999 and to include in its investigation contracts awarded by other Commission departments. Its findings will be announced in the autumn.

With regard to Planistat, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to Written Questions P-1705/03 by Ms Stauner (2), P-1807/03 by Mr Bösch and P-1978/03 by Ms Stauner.

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

1

(2)  See page 56.

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 5, 2016

p0928

Order 

Clerk

October 5, 2016

153387

MICHELE PRICE a/k/a MICHELE BURKE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153387

COA: 329004

Wayne CC: 15-002017-NH

ELENI CALLIS, D.D.S.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

JERRY A. ARONOFF, D.D.S.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2016 

order 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.
STATE of North Carolina v. David Lynn PAIGE, Defendant.

No. COA15-1326.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY v. PEACOCK FARM, INC., Rodolphe T. Lynch, and Willard A. Rhodes.

No. 230A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 18, 2015.

Howard, Stallings, From, Hutson, Atkins, Angell & Davis, P.A., by John N. Hutson, Jr., Raleigh, and Matthew M. Lawless, for plaintiff-appellee.

Van Camp, Meacham & Newman, PLLC, Pinehurst, by William M. Van O'Linda, Jr., for defendant-appellant Rodolphe T. Lynch.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the *554trial court so that additional proceedings may be held not inconsistent with the opinion.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2





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 Sustainable Environmental Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia Glaser, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: November 22, 2010






/s/ Cynthia Glaser

Cynthia Glaser

Principal Accounting Officer
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3682 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the community based outpatient clinic of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier 

Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Lyle C. Pearson 

Community Based Outpatient Clinic’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3682 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. LYLE C. PEARSON COMMUNITY BASED OUT2 PATIENT CLINIC. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The community based outpatient 

4 clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at 

5 1961 Premier Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Lyle C. Pearson Commu7 nity Based Outpatient Clinic’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

11 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lyle C. Pearson Commu12 nity Based Outpatient Clinic’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Tony Harold POPE, Administrator of the Estate of Susan Lanier Fries v. BRIDGE BROOM, INC.

No. 157P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Fred W. DeVore, III, Charlotte, for Pope, Tony Harold (Administrator of the Estate of Susan Lanier Fries).

Colin E. Scott, Charlotte, for Bridge Broom, Inc.

Derek P. Adler, Charlotte, for Pope, Tony Harold (Administrator of the Estate of Susan Lanier Fries).

Kelly Ireland Valente, Charlotte, for Bridge Broom, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of May 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:

> *862"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."