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

(2004/C 33 E/276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Budget chapter Β3-4000 for 2002

In 2002, the Commission allocated funding under budget chapter B3-4000 to programmes concerning ‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘industrial relations’, ‘social dialogue’ and ‘financial participation’. A number of applications were successfully submitted to the Commission for project funding.

How many applications were submitted for project funding under the above programmes and what percentage of applications were rejected?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

In 2002, the Commission received a total of 307 applications under budget heading B3-4000, of which 125 proposals were approved. This represents an acceptance rate of 41 per cent.

The corresponding figures per sub-programme were as follows:

----
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50411 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN V. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CR-128-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 20, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Juan Martinez has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Martinez’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. Martinez’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Buford Cleveland WEST, III.

No. COA15-860.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
June 12, 2001


EXHIBIT 10.3



December 1, 2010



Barry L. McCabe

East Greenville, PA



Dear Barry:

It is our pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2011 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program. 

In these challenging times our objectives are simple and something that each of us can help contribute to:

Leverage our investments in sales, marketing and design initiatives as well as enhanced operational capabilities to drive top line growth and improved levels of profitability while continuing to make the right investments in products, service and technology to position Knoll for long term success as demand recovers. 

Our success in 2011 and beyond will be a direct result of your ability to help us accomplish these long term goals while meeting our short term 2011 operating profit plan. 

If you achieve your individual goals and Knoll makes its 2011 operating profit plan you can qualify for a total target incentive payment of $295,000.

This award is subject to our approval and that of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll's performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.

We have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2011 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2012. 

Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.

Sincerely,

/s/ Andrew B. Cogan/s/ Lynn M. Utter

Andrew B. CoganLynn M. Utter

CEOPresident and COO
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED, et al. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE.

No. 315PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

James E. Scarbrough, Concord, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

James R. Demay, Raleigh, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, for Town of Carthage.

Jennifer Welch, Raleigh.

James M. Carpenter, General Counsel, for N.C. Home Builders Association, Inc.

John T. Benjamin, Jr., Raleigh, for Leading Builders of America.

William E. Hubbard, Raleigh, for Leading Builders of America.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 25th of September 2015 by NC Home Builders Association, Inc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
# C_2008301EN.01006306.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/63

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2008 — NBC Fourth Realty v OHMI — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)

(Case T-293/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/118)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2008142EN.01000801.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy)) — Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07) v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen)

(Joined Cases C-55/07 and C-56/07) (1)

1

(Directive 97/81/EC - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Discrimination - Administrative obstacle limiting opportunities for part-time work)

(2008/C 142/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Bozen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Ruth Volgger (C-56/07)

Applicants:

Defendant: Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz, Autonome Provinz Bozen (formerly Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen)

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Bolzano — Interpretation of Community law and, in particular, Article 137 EC and Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — National legislation requiring employers to send a copy of part-time employment contracts to the competent national authorities, which imposes a fine for failure to do so — Obligation of the Member States to eliminate legal and administrative obstacles which may limit the opportunities for part-time work — Principle of equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which requires that copies of part-time employment contracts be sent to the authorities within 30 days of their signature.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2008301EN.01006204.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/62

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-38/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/110)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
Services Agreement dated September 15, 2010



 Exhibit 10.20 
 PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 Stack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Services Agreement

 This Service Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into effect as of September 15, 2010 (the “Effective Date”)
between PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation with its principal offices at 10450 Science Center Drive, San Diego, California 92121, and Stack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Stack”), a Delaware corporation
with its principal offices at 5 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054. 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS the Company desires use of the offices of Stack Pharmaceuticals for the support of commercialization and development of the Company’s health
care assets upon the terms and conditions set forth below. 
 The parties further acknowledge and agree that retroactive to May 1, 2009,
the Company has paid Stack Pharmaceuticals $10,500, on a monthly basis for services under this agreement and that such monthly payment represents the entire payment obligation of the Company and that the company obligations under the Agreement have
been fully paid as of the effective date. 
 Services to be Provided by Stack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

 

	 	•	 	 Furnished office workspace for nine Pacira employees on a 60%-100% allocation of time basis of a 40 hr workweek 



 

	 	•	 	 Use of conference rooms for meetings 


  

	 	•	 	 Use of the kitchen 


  

	 	•	 	 Use of phone system 


  

	 	•	 	 Use of printers 


  

	 	•	 	 Fax and wireless and wired high speed internet connection 


 Service Costs 
 Company shall pay Stack Pharmaceuticals, Inc., $10,500 per month for the
services provided. Each month shall be paid by the first day of the month in which services are to be provided. 
 Term 

The term of this agreement shall be one year renewable upon consent of both parties. 
 Complete Agreement 
 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be modified or amended except in writing by both parties. This agreement supersedes any prior agreement. 







 Governing Law 
 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of The State of New Jersey, without regard to its conflicts of law provisions. 

Notices 
 Any notice to be given
hereunder shall be in writing, mailed 
 to PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: 
 PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
 10450 Science Center Drive 

San Diego, California 92121 
 Attn: James Scibetta 
 and to STACK 

Stack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 5 Sylvan Way 
 Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 

Attn: Fred Ryan 
 Or to such
other address as may have been furnished at the date of mailing or emailing either by PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS or Stack in writing 
 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company and Stack have duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of September 16, 2010. 
  

			
	PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	/s/ James Scibetta
	 Name:
	 	James Scibetta
	 Title:
	 	CFO
	
	STACK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC
		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Fred M. Ryan
	 Names:
	 	Fred M. Ryan
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Independent Auditor's Consent

The  Board  of  Directors:

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-8,  file numbers 333-59476 and 333-100732, of our report
dated  June 9, 2003, relating to the financial statements of Rockport Healthcare
Group,  Inc.  appearing  in  the  Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003.

Hein + Associates LLP
Houston, Texas
June 30, 2003


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JABAR EUGENE CURRENCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00388-JRS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jabar Eugene Currence, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jabar Eugene Currence appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), seeking a

reduction to his sentence based on an amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Goines, 357

F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under § 3582(c) “is subject

to the discretion of the district court”); United States v. Legree,

205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). 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
# CE2004084EN.01073101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/731 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/731

---

(2004/C 84 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3129/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Guinea-Bissau, Commission support

Subject:

The media have reported that the former Portuguese Foreign Minister, at the end of a meeting with his EU counterparts, asked the Commission to ‘focus particularly on cooperation programmes with Guinea-Bissau’, a country which recently experienced a coup d'état and is now making the transition to democracy.

The Commission:

| — | how does it intend to examine the Portuguese Government's request; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it intend to examine the Portuguese Government's request;

| — | what information does it have to the way the Guinean political process is developing; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have to the way the Guinean political process is developing;

| — | what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to collaborate in the transition process in Guinea-Bissau? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to collaborate in the transition process in Guinea-Bissau?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is carefully monitoring the political transition process in Guinea-Bissau, further to the military coup of 14 September 2003, with particular reference to the EU Presidency declaration condemning this coup.

In the Framework of the Cotonou Agreement, the Commission is currently exploring the possibilities to positively influence developments in Guinea-Bissau.

---
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40636

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTOS TURCIOS-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-435-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Santos Turcios-Ortiz

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Turcios-Ortiz has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-40636 Document: 00511027561 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
STATE of North Carolina, v. Robert Lee BAKER, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA15-600.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed, Vacated and Remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4336

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAULA HANNA, a/k/a Paulette G. Hanna, a/k/a Paula Moore,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:01-cr-00749-PMD-1)

Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paula Hanna appeals the district court’s judgment

revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to fourteen

months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are

no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the sentence

is unreasonable. Hanna was advised of her right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but she has not done so. We affirm.

Counsel questions whether Hanna’s sentence is reasonable.

While the sentence Hanna received is five months above the advisory

sentencing guideline range, it is within the applicable statutory

maximum sentence. Moreover, our review of the record leads us to

conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the

statutory factors and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence

above the advisory guideline range. We therefore find that the

sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not

plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433,

437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard), cert. denied, 127

S. Ct. 1813 (2007); see also United States v. Finley, __ F.3d __,

__, 2008 WL 2574457, at *5 (4th Cir. June 30, 2008) (No. 07-4690)

(“In applying the ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, we first

determine, using the instructions given in Gall[ v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)], whether a sentence is

‘unreasonable.’”). 
- 3 -

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking

Hanna’s supervised release and imposing a fourteen-month sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. 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
Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 22, 2016

J. David Breemer, Keith P. Anthony, Attorneys at Law, For Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorneys at Law, For Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot M. Engstrom, Attorney at Law, For Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Stephanie H. Autry, Stephanie H. Autry, George B. Autry, Jr., Attorneys at Law, For Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of June 2016 by Amici Curiae to Withdraw and Substitute North Carolina Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of June 2016."
Ridley’s notice of appeal is untimely, even if it were considered an attempted restricted

1

appeal, because the notice of appeal was not filed within six months after the judgment was signed.

See Tex. R. Civ. P. 26.1(c). Ridley’s response argues that the 2005 order was entered without

his knowledge. But the civil procedure rule that allows the extension of certain deadlines when

a party proves late notice of judgment does not extend the time for perfecting a restricted appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 4.2(a)(2); Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00360-CV

Gordon Ridley, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 214,156-B, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 28, 2008, Gordon Ridley, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a

district court order of forfeiture entered on December 29, 2005. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

arts. 59.01-.14 (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). Ridley’s 2008 notice of appeal from the 2005 order

was untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. This Court requested a written response demonstrating 1

our jurisdiction over this appeal. Ridley’s response did not demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction.
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); see Verburgt

v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 18, 2008