alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                               46714
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       659347
<ALLOWANCES>                                         91002
<INVENTORY>                                         549266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1332699
<PP&E>                                             3078225
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1937367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3184466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1259594
<BONDS>                                            1052865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         496236
<COMMON>                                             19023
<OTHER-SE>                                          356749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3184466
<SALES>                                            6112023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   6112023
<CGS>                                              3623994
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3623994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2039352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     26746
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  240304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     238859
<INCOME-TAX>                                         90050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 148809
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        148809
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.03)




</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135987 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: 135987 

 COA: 280337 

Wayne CC: 87-010364-01

REGINALD JEROME BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2007 

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). 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 99.25
 CONSENT OF A. STECHISHEN
   1.
    
    The technical report dated November 17, 2006, entitled The Red Lake
Gold Mines Property, Red Lake Mining Division, Northern Ontario (the
Red Lake Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Red Lake Report and the Red Lake Gold
Mines, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ Anthony StechishenName:
    Anthony Stechishen, P. Geo.Senior Regional Exploration Geologist
**Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐419/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Obligation to recover

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with the obligation to recover aid granted – Grounds of defence
– Absolute impossibility of implementation – Assessment criteria (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3))
(see paras 39-40)*

2.                     *State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Commission’s
power to leave the calculation of the exact amount to be repaid to the national authorities (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 44,
46, 48)*

3.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Grounds of defence
– Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissible (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC) (see para. 52)*

4.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 53-55)*

5.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions – Introduction of a procedure ensuring the
immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision (Art. 88(2), second para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999,
Art. 14(3)) (see paras 58-59)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take measures to comply with Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 of 14 September 2005 on the recovery of aid granted to Olympic Airlines. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 September 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 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 result of
operations of the Company.



/s/    PAMELA FREDETTEPamela FredetteChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President


March 27, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2009 – Vivartia v OHIM – Kraft Foods Schweiz (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)**

**(Case T-204/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ – Earlier Community figurative mark MILKA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 48-50)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2006 (Case R 540/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG and Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis, formerly Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ for goods in Class 30 – Application No 2474674 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks MILKA for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.      Dismisses the action;

2.      Orders Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis to pay the costs.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01


                           MOTIVEPOWER INDUSTRIES
                           CORPORATE LEGAL ENTITIES
                           SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES


         MotivePower Industries Inc.
                  MotivePower Investments Limited
                           Touchstone Company
                           Motor Coils Manufacturing Company
                           Microphor Company
                  MotivePower Foreign Sales Corporation
                  Boise Locomotive Company
                  MotivePower Industries de Mexico*
                           MPI Sureste, S.A. de C.V.
                           MPI Noreste, S.A. de C.V.
                           MPI Pacifo-Norte, S.A. de C.V.
                           MPI Commercial, S.A. de C.V.
                  Engine Systems Company, Inc.
                  Power Parts Company
                  Ontario Transit Ltd.
                  Trenes De Buenos Aires S.A.

         * The Mexican operations are in the process of forming the organization
         structure reflected above.
# C_2008285EN.01000902.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — Caffaro Srl v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

(Case C-265/07) (1)

1

(Commercial transactions - Directive 2000/35/EC - Combating of late payment - Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims)

(2008/C 285/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caffaro Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

Defendant:

In the presence of: Banca di Roma SpA

In the presence of:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Roma — Interpretation of Article 5 of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Recovery procedures for uncontested debts — National legislation laying down that a period of 120 days from the date of notification of the recovery order must elapse before recovery of the debt may be enforced

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision such as Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996 of 31 December 1996, converted into a law, after amendment, by Law No 30 of 28 February 1997, as amended by Article 147 of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title in respect of an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18585]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Carolina 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference 
call of the North Carolina Advisory Committee to the United States 
Commission on Civil Rights will convene at 2 p.m. (EDT) and adjourn at 
3:30 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, September 29, 2005. The purpose of the 
conference call is: (1) To discuss the Committee's study on Title I 
funding distribution by local school districts to individual schools 
and (2) to discuss a project on the desegregation status of school 
districts once subject to court jurisdiction.
    This conference call is available to the public through the 
following call-in number: (800) 473-8692, the conference chair name is 
Peter Minarik. Any interested member of the public may call this number 
and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for 
calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless 
lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers 
will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line 
connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the 
proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-
8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and 
contact name.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Peter 
Minarik, Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at 
(404) 562-7000 by Tuesday, September 27, 2005.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, September 14, 2005.
Ivy L. Davis,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 05-18585 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.36

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                             1992 Stock Option Plan

                         Effective as of March 27, 1998

      The Dime Bancorp, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended in the following particulars.

      1. Section 5 of the Plan is amended to add at the end thereof the
following new sentence to read as follows:

      "Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, and subject to the
      approval by the stockholders of Dime Bancorp, Inc. of certain amendments
      to the Dime Bancorp, Inc. 1991 Stock Incentive Plan (the "1991 Plan"),
      including, but not limited to, the increase in the number of shares of
      Stock available for distribution under the 1991 Plan by 5,000,000 shares,
      at the annual meeting of the stockholders of Dime Bancorp, Inc. on April
      30, 1998, no further grants of Options shall be made under the Plan."
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I,Patricia M. Newman, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this amendment to Form 10-Qof Westaff, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to take the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

 
| Date: September 15, 2005         |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ Patricia M. Newman                |   |
| Patricia M. Newman                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Westaff, Inc.                    |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135972 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: 135972 

 COA: 278028 

Macomb CC: 2003-003379-FC 

TYRONE TAYLOR, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 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). 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2008285EN.01004101.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/41

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)

(Case T-374/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark Epican - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2008/C 285/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Hodapp, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1324/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          86,907
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,613,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                   606,262
<INVENTORY>                                 17,532,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,568,313
<PP&E>                                      10,550,060
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,563,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,325,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,450,277
<BONDS>                                     23,039,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,435
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,062,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,325,025
<SALES>                                     56,439,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            56,439,032
<CGS>                                       44,793,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,793,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,625,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               360,103
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,929,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (213,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (29,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (184,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (184,140)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐217/06)**

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Public works contracts – Directive 71/305/EEC – Meaning and definition of a public works contract – Failure which has produced all its effects

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Infringement terminated before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned
opinion – Inadmissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 21)*

2.                     *Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Scope (Council Directive 71/305) (see para. 23)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3 and 12 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1971 L 185, p. 5) – Award, after private negotiation and without publication of a notice of invitation to tender, of a works contract for the performance of works specified in resolution No 48 of the Municipal Council of Stintino of 14 December 1989, in particular: ‘the design and execution of works relating to the technical and structural modernisation, maintenance and completion of the water supply and drainage networks, the road network, and structures and facilities serving the centre of population, the external villages and the tourist zones of the territory of the commune of Stintino, and including the cleaning and decontamination of the coast and tourist centres of that commune’. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that by allowing execution of at least one of the operations entrusted by the commune of Stintino to the company Maresar Soc. Cons arl under the Agreement No 7/91 signed on 2 October 1991 and additional measures subsequently agreed by the same parties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, and in particular Articles 3 and 12 thereof; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |