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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19E0014. PEEK v. HARRINGTON.

Having read and considered the “Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to

File Interlocutory Appeal” the same is hereby DENIED. Such an extension is not

allowed under the Rules of the Court of Appeals. See Rule 16 (d).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 28, 2018

09/28/2018
# C_2008092EN.01000601.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation

(Case C-425/06) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(a) and (d) - Leasing - Artificial division of the supply into a number of parts - Effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Exemptions - Abusive practice - Conditions)

(2008/C 92/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

Applicant:

Defendant: Part Service Srl, in liquidation

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation 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) — Leasing transaction split into a number of separate contracts with the effect of obtaining a tax advantage — Interpretation of the concept of abuse of rights as defined in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others

Halifax and Others

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The Sixth Council Directive 77/338/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, must be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim of the transaction or transactions at issue. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Sixth Council Directive 77/338/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, must be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim of the transaction or transactions at issue.

| 2. | It is for the national court to determine, in light of the ruling on the interpretation of Community law provided by the present judgment, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to constitute an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national court to determine, in light of the ruling on the interpretation of Community law provided by the present judgment, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to constitute an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2010301EN.01002302.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission

(Case T-131/07) (1)

1

(Inland waterway transport - Community-fleet capacity - Conditions for putting new vessels into service (‘old for new’ rule) - Commission decision not to grant the specialised vessels exemption - Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999)

2010/C 301/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt (Niederwalluf, Germany) (represented by: F. von Waldstein, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG (2007) D/200972 of 28 February 2007 not to grant to the vessel ‘Niclas’ the specialised vessels exemption, pursuant to Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The application is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed;

| 2. | Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

May 22, 2014 
 Bill Hunter 

Dear Bill, 
 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 of the (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. Pending your official appointment, we will include your designation as one
of our director designees in the Company’s S4 Registration Statement being prepared for the merger approval. 
 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 Governance 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 Governance 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/ Bill Hunter

	Amit Munshi	 		 	Bill Hunter
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7507
MICKEY L. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GOHAR ABBASI, Medical Doctor, Defendant - Appellee, and G. MARSHAL, Head Nurse; MRS. CROCKETT, EMT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-383-3) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mickey L. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Jones Blain, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mickey L. Phillips seeks to appeal from the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation issued in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Phillips seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant Appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Phillips’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
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 Annual Report of Globetel Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirement 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/ Timothy M. Huff
-------------------------
Timothy Huff
Chief Executive Officer
March 23, 2005
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 amended Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Clarke, the 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:



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 operations of the Company.



/s/ John A. Clarke

John A. Clarke

President and Chief Executive Officer



April 4, 2008





= "LAST PAGE ONLY"  =  0,  =  1) 0 = 1 9/22/2004 6:02 PM"
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT

TO




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 17th day of
July, 2010, by and between PSB Group, Inc., a bank holding company organized under the laws of the
State of Michigan (the “Company”), Peoples State Bank, a banking association chartered under the
laws of the State of Michigan (the “Bank”) and Henry R. Thiemann (“Executive”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated April 26,
2010, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated Jun 30, 2010
(collectively, the “Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, upon the terms
and conditions set forth herein;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants set forth herein,
the parties hereto hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows:



     1. The last sentence of Section 13 that provides “In the event any such approval is not
finally obtained by July 14, 2010, this Agreement shall be terminated and of no further force or
effect,” is hereby deleted in its entirety.



     2. Except as expressly modified as set forth herein, all of the remaining terms, conditions
and provisions of the Employment Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in
full force and effect.



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



PSB GROUP, INC.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	By:

	 	/s/ David A. Wilson
 

Its: Senior Vice President and CFO
	 	 
	 	/s/ Henry R. Thiemann
 

Henry R. Thiemann
	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	PEOPLES STATE BANK

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ David A. Wilson
 	 	 
	 	Its:  Senior Vice President and CFO
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0048 STATE OF MONTANA ,

P la intiff and Appellee , v. SKY M. LITTLECOYOTE ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including July 29 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0048
# C_2009032EN.01000302.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — A.T. v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

(Case C-285/07) (1)

1

(Directive 90/434/EEC - Cross-border exchange of shares - Fiscal neutrality - Conditions - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Legislation of a Member State making the continued use of the book value of the shares transferred in exchange for the new shares received, and therefore the fiscal neutrality of the transfer, conditional on the carryover of that value in the tax balance sheet of the acquiring foreign company - Compatibility)

(2009/C 32/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.T.

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

Defendant:

Intervening party: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Intervening party:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) and of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Shareholder receiving securities representing the capital of the acquiring company in exchange for securities of the acquired company — Taxation of the shareholder of the acquired company — Tax legislation of a Member State making the shareholder's attribution of the book value (Buchwertansatz) to the securities received in exchange conditional upon the acquiring company's own attribution of the book value to the securities exchanged (doppelte Buchwertverknüpfung)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in consequence of an exchange of shares, the shareholders of the acquired company are taxed on the capital gains arising from the transfer and the capital gain is deemed to correspond to the difference between the initial cost of acquiring the shares transferred and their market value, unless the acquiring company carries over the historical book value of the shares transferred in its own tax balance sheet.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
STATE v. Tae Kwon HAMMONDS.

No. 389A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 29, 2016.

Joseph E. Elder, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hammonds, Tae Kwon.

John R. Rittelmeyer, Raleigh, for Disability Rights North Carolina, et al.

Anne Bleyman, for Disability Rights North Carolina, et al.

Trey Robison, 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 28th of April 2016 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of April 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 6th day of May 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# CE2004070EN.01011201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/112

---

(2004/C 70 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Proposals to do away with the CAP and the Structural Funds — ‘Secret report’

Subject:

On 17 July 2003 the Portuguese newspaper Público and the French newspaper ‘Le Monde’ carried a story that, at a meeting of the Members of the Commission on 16 July 2003, the Commission President, Romano Prodi, had unveiled a report in which it was proposed to ‘divert’ the agricultural and structural policy budgets from their intended purposes and use them instead to finance what is termed the ‘Lisbon agenda’.

This ‘secret’ report, which the President apparently asked his advisers to produce more than a year ago, is said to have been drawn up under the responsibility of Michel Sapir.

Given that the proposals it contains are a serious matter, especially the idea of abandoning and renationalising the common agricultural policy and structural policy, violating the principles of solidarity among Member States and economic and social cohesion, can the Commission send me a copy of the report?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

(29 September 2003)

The report to which the Honourable Member is referring is in the public domain and is not secret. It has been on the Commission website (1) since it was sent to the Commission President on 17 July 2003.

1

The report was produced by a group of independent experts asked by the Commission President in July 2002 to examine all the EU's economic policy instruments with a view to stimulating discussion on the future strategies for ensuring rapid growth in an enlarged Union while maintaining stability and cohesion.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/pdf/agenda_for_growing_europe_en.pdf

1

---
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-57,366] 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Office Depot, Inc., Torrance, California. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-57,366; Office Depot, Inc. Torrance, California (September 1, 2005) 

Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of September 2005. 

Timothy Sullivan, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-18543 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 operations of the Company.The undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 11th day of May 2009.
 /s/ Mark Morrisson

Mark MorrissonChief Executive Officer and ExecutiveDirector/s/ Salesh Balak

Salesh BalakChief Financial Officer
 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent such
certification is explicitly incorporated by reference in such filing.
Exhibit (23)



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual  Report on
Form 10-K of  LaCrosse  Footwear,  Inc.  of our report  dated  February 5, 1999,
included in the 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-77516,  33-77518 and 333-2702)  pertaining to the LaCrosse
Footwear,  Inc. Employees' Retirement Savings Plan, the LaCrosse Footwear,  Inc.
Union Employees'  Retirement Savings Plan and the LaCrosse  Footwear,  Inc. 1993
Employee Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated February 5, 1999, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements  incorporated herein by reference,  and
our report  dated  February 5, 1999,  with  respect to the  financial  statement
schedule included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear,  Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1998.




                                             McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP



La Crosse, Wisconsin
March 29, 1999