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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6434

RICKY D. SANDERS, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF SUMTER, care of William T. Noonan; COUNTY OF LEE,

care of Jimmy Lacoste; DOCTOR WHITAKER, SLRDC Physician;

SOUTHEASTERN SERVICE GROUP, INCORPORATED, care of Annette

Stalvy; SIMON MAJOR, Director of SLRDC; LIEUTENANT NANCY

MCMILLIN, Shift Head Supervisor; C.O. BRUNSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(0:06-cv-01670-MBS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Circuit Judges.

Ricky Darren Sanders, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr.,

DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; John

Evans James, III, JOHN E. JAMES II LAW OFFICE, Winnsboro, South

Carolina; Lucy Grey Wilson McIver, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES,

HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina; Kathleen Devereaux

Cauthen, CAUTHEN LAW FIRM, Blythewood, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Because Sanders specifically objected to only one aspect of

the report of the magistrate judge after proper notice of the need

to file specific objections, only that issue is preserved for our

review. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th

Cir. 2007)

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Darren Sanders, Sr., appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v.

County of Sumter, No. 0:06-cv-01670-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 4, 2008

& entered Mar. 5, 2008). 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
# C_2009032EN.01000901.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl

(Case C-486/07) (1)

1

(Common organisation of the markets - Cereals - Maize - Determination of price - Reductions applicable)

(2009/C 32/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Applicant:

Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 21), Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18), and of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 191, p. 76) — Reductions applicable for higher levels of humidity than that of the standard quality — Applicability to sales of maize

Operative part of the judgment

The combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies and Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2486/92 of 27 August 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale by tender of maize held by the international intervention agencies, the price reductions in relation to the moisture content laid down for durum wheat in Table II of Annex II to Regulation No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, do not apply.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vanguard Minerals Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Price, in my capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.








/s/ James Price


Date:   November 19, 2010


James Price


President & Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

July 1, 2014 
 Julie McHugh 

Dear Julie, 
 We are very pleased to name you as one of our
director designees in connection with the merger between Epirus and Zalicus Inc. (to be renamed EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., for purposes herein, the “Company”). Your appointment to become a member of the Company’s Board of
Directors (the “Board”) is based on the following terms and conditions: 
 Effective Date: Your appointment is subject to (i) closing
of the merger and (ii) approval by the Board (the later of these dates becomes the Effective Date). You will serve as a member of the Board commencing on the Effective Date until the annual meeting for the year in which your term expires or
until your successor has been elected and qualified, subject however, to your prior death, resignation, retirement, disqualification or removal from office. 

Board Compensation: You will be eligible for a Retainer of $8,750 per in-person Board Meeting ($7,500 if telephonic). Compensation is based on
the assumption there will be four (4) general board meetings per year, provided that your final per meeting compensation will be paid quarterly and adjusted up or down if the number of actual meetings change, including final adjustment
for Q4 based on your in-person attendance record during the year. 
 Equity Compensation: Under our current equity plan (based on the current
pre-merger capitalization), you will be granted an option to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock with an exercise price equal to the market value of the common stock as of the next Board meeting following merger
closing. The grant will vest monthly over three years. Additionally, you will be granted an option to purchase an additional 35,000 shares of the Company’s common stock annually starting at the first anniversary of your Effective Date
and while you remain a Member of the Board, the grant will vest quarterly over a one year period and with an exercise price equal to the market value on your anniversary date. 

Committees: You have been asked to serve on the Board’s Audit and Comp Committees, and that such committee assignment will be as agreed between
you and the Company 
 Committee Compensation: You will be eligible for an annual retainer of $5,000 to serve on the Audit Committee and an annual
retainer of $2,500 to serve on the Comp Committee. 
 Expenses: The Company will reimburse Director for all reasonable travel (up to $12,000 per
year) and other related expenses incurred on behalf of the Company, upon submission by Director of appropriate documentation of such expenses. 
 Please
sign and return to me one copy of this letter acknowledging your agreement to serve as a Director on the Company’s Board under the terms set forth above. 

Let me know if you have any questions and we look forward to working with you. 

Sincerely, 
  

					
	 /s/ Amit Munshi
	 		 	 /s/ Julie McHugh

	Amit Munshi	 		 	Julie McHugh
In the Matter of K.C. & W.G.

No. COA16-87.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Vacated and Remanded.
# C_2008272EN.01002301.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT)

(Case T-300/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT - Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J.Krenzel and S.Beckmann, lawyers).

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Proma SAL (Villacañas, Spain).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1058/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
* 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. 08-50005

Summary Calendar

GLORIA CLARK VALICHKOFSKY

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LT FLOORS LP

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:06-CV-960

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gloria Valichkofsky appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of LT Floors LP as to her numerous and varied claims of

discrimination and retaliation. As the district court gave thorough and careful

consideration in correctly dismissing each of Valichkofsky’s claims, we AFFIRM

the judgment ofthe district court, entered December 14, 2007, for essentially the

reasons given in the courts Order entered on the same day.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
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 R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



Dated:  November 15, 2004





/s/ Louis L. Knickerbocker

Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ William C. Hitchcock

William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





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








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Grant King, Chief Executive 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:  December
24, 2009








/s/ Grant
      King
              Grant
      King
              Chief
      Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541. 

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-1818 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Cecelia W. Peoples and Ernest J. Robinson, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Thomas H. Tuck, Defendant.

No. COA16-293

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

REVERSED.
# C_2008223EN.01006201.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/62

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-136/07) (1)

1

(Staff - Officials - Previous complaint - Defect - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Lateness - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 223/117)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Béreldange, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: F. Rollinger; subsequently by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment, on the one hand, of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2007 to demote the applicant to Grade AD9, step 5, following a disciplinary procedure and, on the other, of the decisions to suspend him from his post, to open an administrative enquiry with regard to him and not to promote him to Grade AD 11 in 2007 — Claim for compensation for non-material and material harm

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008, p. 37.

1

---
# C_2008209EN.01001601.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/16

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain)) — Club Náutico de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

(Case C-186/07) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Services connected with the practice of sport or physical education - Application to the Canary Islands - Purely internal situation - Referral - Manifest inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

(2008/C 209/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain)

Parties

Applicant: Club Náutico de Gran Canaria

Applicant:

Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands) — Interpretation of the judgment of the Court in Case C-124/96 which found that national legislation placing restrictions on exemption from VAT of certain services closely connected with the practice of sport or physical education is incompatible with Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Application to the Canary Islands

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias, by decision of 26 November 2006, is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
In the Matter of G.R., A Juvenile.

No. COA15-658.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3739 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3739

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

 Ms. Edwards introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. UNIFORM DOLLAR LIMITATION FOR ALL TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION 
              FRINGE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$100'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``$245'',
            (2) by striking ``$175'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``$245'', and
            (3) by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) 
of section 132(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking the last sentence,
            (2) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2013'', and
            (3) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2012''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3682 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

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''.

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

SECTION 1. LYLE C. PEARSON COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The community based outpatient clinic of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in 
Mankato, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132454 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: 132454 COA: 272798 Houghton CC: 06-002116-FH JONATHAN ANDREW CURTO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0122 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 29, 2007

Clerk