alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Commission v Premium**

**(Case T-316/06)**

Arbitration clause – Contracts entered into under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of information technology
– Repayment of part of the advance payment made by the Community – Default interest

1.                     *Budget of the European Communities – Community financial assistance – Duty of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions
for granting the assistance (see para. 38)*

2.                     *Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Council Decision 91/394) (see
paras 48, 58, 65, 70-71, 78, 81)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION under Article 238 EC claiming that the defendant should be ordered to repay part of the advance payments made by the Community, together with default interest, because of failure to comply with certain contractual obligations. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.      Orders Premium SA to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 57 605.74, together with default interest:

–      at the rate of 3.36% per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

–      at the rate of 3.47% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

–      at the rate of 2.74% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000;

–      at the rate of 4.26% per annum for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002;

–      at the rate of 3.29% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003;

–      at the rate of 2.27% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

–      at the rate of 2.05% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

–      at the rate of 2.11% per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

–      at the rate applicable under French law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of
the principal sum;

2.      Orders Premium to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 30 988.74, together with default interest:

–      at the rate of 3.95% per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

–      at the rate of 2.85% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

–      at the rate of 3.6% per annum for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001;

–      at the rate of 2.95% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2002;

–      at the rate of 2.15% per annum for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004;

–      at the rate of 2.4% per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

–      at the rate of 2.5% per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

–      at the rate applicable under Danish law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of
the principal sum;

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Premium to pay the costs. |
# C_2008142EN.01003703.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-403/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 142/69)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
LOAN
FORGIVEN AND
GENERAL RELEASE
AGREEMENT


 


Bojana
Banjac, on
behalf of herself,
as well
as on behalf
of her
heirs, personal representatives
and assigns and
each of them,
for good and
valuable consideration the
receipt and sufficiency
of which
is hereby acknowledged,
and intending to
be legally bound
hereby, does hereby
forgive that certain
loan in an
amount of $6,623
loaned to
BLUE FASHION CORP.
(the “Company”) as
of July
4, 2014  and
further remise, release
and forever discharge
the Company and
its past and
present officers, directors,
employees, agents, subsidiaries,
divisions, predecessors, successors
and assigns (collectively,
“Company Releasees”), of
and from any
and all manner
of actions, causes
of action, suits,
debts, accounts, bonds,
covenants, agreements, understandings,
contracts, controversies, judgments, damages,
claims, liabilities, and demands
of any kind or
nature whatsoever,
whether such
be presently known
or unknown or
suspected or
unsuspected, whether
in law or
in equity (“Claims”)
which against
the Company Releasees
or any of its
past or present officers,
directors, employees, agents,
subsidiaries, affiliates,
divisions, predecessors, successors
or assigns ever
had, now have,
claimed to have
had, now claim
to have, or hereafter
can, shall or
may claim to have for
or by reason of any
cause, matter or thing
whatsoever, from
the beginning of
the world
to the date
of the execution
of this Loan
Forgiven and
General Release
Agreement, for
any Claims arising
out of, relating
to, or based
upon the Loan.


 


The
undersigned hereby declare
and warrant
that the terms
of this Loan
Forgiven and
General Release
Agreement have
been completely read;
that there are
no other written
or oral understandings
or agreements, directly
or indirectly connected
with this
Loan Forgiven
and General
Release Agreement,
other than those
expressly contained herein;
that the terms
of this Loan
Forgiven and
General Release
Agreement are
fully understood and
voluntarily accepted for
the purpose of making
a full and
final settlement
of any
and all Claims
related to the
Loan.


 


This
Loan Forgiven
and General
Release Agreement
shall be
governed by and
construed in accordance
with the
laws of the
United States.
 This Loan
Forgiven and
General Release
Agreement may
be executed in
counterparts, each
of which
shall be
deemed to be
an original hereof.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, intending
to be legally
bound, the undersigned
have duly executed this
Mutual General
Release effective as
of this July
4, 2014.


 


	Lender Name: Bojana Banjac
	 
	Sign: /s/ Bojana Banjac
	 
	Borrower: Blue Fashion Corp.
	 
	Sign: /s/ Bojana Banjac
	Name, Title: Bojana Banjac, President
STATE v. Michael Antonio BULLOCK

194A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2016

Jon H. Hunt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bullock, Michael Antonio.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of August 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of August 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 16th day of September 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135859 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ROY MARK BAUMGART,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135859 

 COA: 279142 

Oakland CC: 2004-056818-CZ 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF 

TREASURY and DEPARTMENT OF 

Court of Claims: 03-000132-MK 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellants. 

________________________________________/ 

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 we are not 

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

l0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
NO. 07-08-0153-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 26, 2008

	______________________________

	MICHAEL GOFF, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY;

	NO. 43,950-B; HONORABLE ROY T. SPARKMAN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Following an open plea of guilty, appellant, Michael Goff, was convicted of possession and transportation of chemicals with intent to manufacture a controlled substance.  The trial court assessed punishment at 10 years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal.  The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed.  Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on July 30, 2008, but has not yet been filed.  Further, no motion for extension of time has been filed.

	By letter, dated August 6, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s retained attorney of the failure and also explained that, if no response was received by August 18, 2008, the appeal would be abated pursuant to Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  We have received no response and accordingly now abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3).  On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine the following:

1.	Whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2.	If so, whether appellant’s counsel has abandoned the appeal;

3.	Whether appellant’s present counsel, given her failure to file a brief, will pursue the appeal;

4.	If not, whether appellant is indigent and the appointment of new counsel is necessary.

	Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and is indigent and that new counsel should be appointed, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.  If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in an order appointing counsel, a copy of which shall be immediately forwarded to the Clerk of this Court.  In any event, the trial court shall execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the issues identified above.  The trial court shall also execute any other orders that are necessary to address the aforementioned issues.  The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as well as any orders that it may issue shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  A supplemental reporter’s record shall be prepared of any hearings held in this matter.  The trial court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and any supplemental reporter’s record with the Clerk of this Court by September 26, 2008.

	It is so ordered.

 							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-79720, 33-79722, 33-79772, 33-94772, 33-94768,
333-05613, and 333-05615) of Point Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly HMSR Inc.) of
our report dated March 15, 2002, relating to the financial statements which
appears in this Form 10-K.

                                          /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2002
June 26, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HOKE HENRY EBERHARDT , Appellant
NO. 14

- 13

- 00936

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 0093 7

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 December 27, 2017

s1218

Order 

Clerk

December 27, 2017

155335 & (23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155335

COA: 334548

Wayne CC: 02-014334-FC

J’VON DECARRO BYNUM, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to supplement is GRANTED. The application 

for leave to appeal the January 6, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it 

is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by 

MCR 6.502(G).

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel at an 

earlier stage of the proceedings.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony DOVE

No. 131P01-13

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Anthony Dove, for Dove, Anthony.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of August 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Lenoir County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Ervin, J. recused

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of August 2016 by Defendant for Impartial Jurist:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
State of North Carolina v. Timothy Demond Wright, Defendant.

No. COA16-19

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

NO ERROR.
# C_2008209EN.01001001.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece) — Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-49/07) (1)

1

(Articles 82 EC and 86 EC - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Non-profit-making association representing, in Greece, the International Motorcycling Federation - Concept of ‘economic activity’ - Special legal right to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise motorcycling events - Exercise in parallel of activities such as the organisation of motorcycling events and the conclusion of sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts)

(2008/C 209/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE)

Applicant:

Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Non-profit-making automobile association (ELPA) representing the Fédération internationale de motocyclisme (the International Motorcycling Federation) in Greece and having the exclusive right to authorise events in the field of motor sport — Association engaging, in parallel, in economic activities such as advertising, the conclusion of sponsorship agreements and the financing of prizes

Operative part of the judgment

A legal person whose activities consist not only in taking part in administrative decisions authorising the organisation of motorcycling events, but also in organising such events itself and in entering, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, falls within the scope of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC. Those articles preclude a national rule which confers on a legal person, which organises motorcycling competitions and enters, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise such competitions, without that power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1043

MARA SABINSON,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on September 12, 2008, should

be amended as follows:

On page 7, line 4: after "(1st Cir. 2002)", add ", cert.

denied, 539 U.S. 937 (2003)".

On page 7, line 8: delete one space after "affidavits".

On page 8, line 4: change "non-discriminatory" to

"nondiscriminatory".

On page 8, footnote 2, line 2: insert space after "(2000)".

On page 8, footnote 2, line 5: change "Eastman Kodak" to

"Eastman Kodak Co.".

On page 8, footnote 2, line 6: after "(1st Cir. 1999)", add ",

cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1161 (2000)".

On page 8, line 14: after "(1st Cir. 1993)", add ", cert.

denied, 511 U.S. 1018 (1994).".

P. 9, l. 16: after "(1st Cir. 1994)", add ", cert. denied, 514

U.S. 1108 (1995).".
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, John Bode (“Bode”) and Tribune Publishing Company, LLC (the “Company”) entered into an Employment Agreement (the
“Agreement”) in September 2013; and 
 WHEREAS, in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiently of which are acknowledged by both parties, Bode and the Company desire to amend the Agreement; 
 NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby
agreed that the Agreement is amended in the following respects: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and nonqualified stock options (“Options”) shall be granted in Tribune
Publishing Company stock, not Tribune Company stock, said grants to occur at the time as grants are made to other executives of Tribune Publishing Company. For avoidance of doubt, Bode will not be granted any RSUs or any Options in Tribune Company
under the Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Other than as amended herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 

  

									
		 		 	TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC
				
	/s/ John Bode	 		 	By	 	/s/ Eddy Hartenstein
	John Bode	 		 		 	
					
	Date:	 	6/12/2014	 		 	Date:	 	6/11/14
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6553

P. MARK SHAFER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT HARTMAN, Acting Supervisor C & O Canal NPS; LISA

MENDELSON-IELMINI, Deputy Regional Director - NPS Capital

Region; JOHN DOE, Acting Deputy Regional Director NPS; U.S.

GOVERNMENT, Washington, DC, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:08-

cv-00577-PJM)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

P. Mark Shafer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

P. Mark Shafer appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986

(2000), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Shafer v. Hartman, No. 8:08-cv00577-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                       5,010,009
<SECURITIES>                                12,178,580
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,343,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,924,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,321,310
<PP&E>                                       2,018,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                 536,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,619,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,805,455
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,123
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,613,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,619,702
<SALES>                                     30,530,850
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,530,850
<CGS>                                       16,676,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,676,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,917,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,904,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,266,582
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,638,036
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,638,036
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62


</TABLE>
Raymond Alan Griffin v. Deborah Shandles, Assistant District Attorney of Wake County and Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge

No. 322P15-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016

Mr. Raymond Alan Griffin, Pro Se.

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

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 6th of June 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

*16"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Adrian Donahue HICKS, Defendant.

No. COA15-1098.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al.

155A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 22, 2016

James A. Roberts, III, Attorney at Law, Jessica E. Bowers, Attorney at Law, For Hartford Fire Insurance Company.

Matthew C. Bouchard, Attorney at Law.

W. Sidney Aldridge, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, et al.

Judson A. Welborn, Attorney at Law, Natalie M. Rice, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For United Bank & Trust Company, et al.

J. Whitfield Gibson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Scott McAllister, Manager/Pro Se, Vincent S. Tryer, Jr., Manager/Pro Se, For Helm Builders, LLC.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney at Law, For Shrijee LLC.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 22nd of June 2016 by Defendant (Hartford Fire Insurance Company):

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of June 2016."

*389Defendant shall have up to and including the 25th day of July 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.