alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009180EN.01001002.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-564/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Patent lawyers - Obligation to take out professional indemnity insurance - Obligation to appoint an approved agent in the Member State in which the services are to be performed)

2009/C 180/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and H. Krämer, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and G. Kunnert, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirements imposed by national legislation on patent lawyers lawfully established in other Member States in relation to the performance of services, on a temporary basis, in the Member State concerned — Obligation to enrol in the national register, to hold for those purposes professional indemnity insurance, to agree to be bound by all the national disciplinary rules other than those related to professional qualifications and to act in cooperation with a local agent

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by obliging patent lawyers lawfully established in another Member State who wish temporarily to perform services in Austria to appoint an approved agent resident in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by obliging patent lawyers lawfully established in another Member State who wish temporarily to perform services in Austria to appoint an approved agent resident in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.03.2008.

1

---
# C_2008116EN.01003201.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/32

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Tiralongo v Commission

(Case F-55/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Former temporary agent - Actions - Action for damages - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 116/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by: F. and R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Re:

Order requiring the Commission of the European Communities to compensate the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the unlawful conduct of the European Anti-Fraud Office in particular in connection with the extension of his temporary staff contract

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | Each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007, p. 43.

1

---
Wiggins v. Burke.

S16A1150

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: October 31, 2016

**PER CURIAM**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion*.

All the Justices concur.
State of North Carolina v. Fitzgerald Mckinley Rice

No. COA15-1258

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 10.13(d)**

 

**SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT**

 

THIS SECONDAMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 4th day of April,2005 to that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of May15, 2002 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between CHARLES D. FRAZER (“Employee”)and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).

 

FORGOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are herebyacknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the EmploymentAgreement, hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

 

1.Subject to earlier termination otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement,the last day of the Employment Period shall be January 31, 2007.

 

2.Effective February 27, 2005, Employee’s Base Salary shall be $200,000.00.

 

Exceptas specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in fullforce and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict betweenthe terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of the EmploymentAgreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalizedterms used but not defined herein shall have those respective meaningsattributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafterbe deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executedthis Amendment as of the date first above written.

 
| JOS. A. BANK  CLOTHIERS, INC. |                          |               |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------|
|                          |                          |               |
| By:                           | /s/ Robert N. Wildrick        |               | /s/ Charles D.  Frazer |   |
|                          |  Robert N. Wildrick,     | CHARLES D.  FRAZER |
|                          |  Chief Executive Officer |               |
|                               |                               |                    |  |  |  |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                               METATOOLS, INC. 

                      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF 
                           NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                   ------------------------------------------
                                                                      1996           1995            1994
                                                                   -----------    ----------      -----------
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED (1)
<S>                                                                <C>            <C>             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding for the period..............    11,791,000     3,557,000        3,170,000
Common equivalent shares, including items pursuant to
 Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83...............................             -     1,858,000        2,477,000
                                                                   -----------    ----------      -----------
Shares used in per share calculation............................    11,791,000     5,415,000        5,647,000
                                                                   ===========    ==========      ===========
Net loss before preferred stock dividend requirement 
 and amortization of issuance costs.............................   $(9,239,000)   $ (500,000)     $(2,212,000)
Preferred stock dividend requirements and amortization
 of issuance costs..............................................             -       (89,000)        (239,000)
                                                                   -----------    ----------      -----------
Net loss available for common
 stockholders...................................................   $(9,239,000)   $ (589,000)     $(2,451,000)
                                                                   ===========    ==========      ===========
Net loss per common share.......................................   $      (.78)        $(.11)           $(.43)
                                                                   ===========    ==========      ===========
</TABLE>

(1)  Primary and fully diluted calculations are substantially the same.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135427(27) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

BOBBIE J. BRASHERS, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135427 

 COA: 279999 

Kalamazoo CC: 06-000638-NI 

DEBORAH J. VANDERROEST,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 9, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.

 WEAVER and KELLY, JJ., would grant the motion for reconsideration. 

d0828 

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

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

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Greivin GUSTAVINO, Defendant.

No. COA15-1193.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,033
<SECURITIES>                                     8,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                       520
<INVENTORY>                                      7,318
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,076
<PP&E>                                          21,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,676
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,157
<SALES>                                         45,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,346
<CGS>                                           28,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   520
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,243
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,656
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Antonio Roddy MOORE, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA16-422

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

REMANDED.
# C_2008301EN.01006704.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/67

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Chevalier Carmana and Others v Court of Justice

(Case F-14/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/133)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 37.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Annual Report of Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that information contained in such Annual
Report of Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Point Therapeutics, Inc.



By:

/s/    DONALD R. KIEPERT,
JR.Name:

Donald R. Kiepert, Jr.Title:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

March 15, 2007


I, Richard N. Small, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act and that information contained in such Annual Report Point Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Point Therapeutics, Inc.



By:

/s/    RICHARD N.
SMALLName:

Richard N. SmallTitle:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 15, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Point
Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2009312EN.01002701.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Bowland Dairy Products v Commission

(Case T-212/06) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Rapid alert system - Supplementary notification - Competence of the national authorities - Commission’s opinion not binding - Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute - Inadmissibility)

2009/C 312/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bowland Dairy Products Ltd (Barrowford, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Milligan, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC and A. Robertson, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, J.-P. Keppenne and L. Parpala, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the alleged refusal by the Commission to circulate, under the rapid alert system provided for in Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), a supplementary notification declaring that the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency was content for the curd cheese produced by the applicant to be marketed and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of that refusal.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders Bowland Dairy Products Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bowland Dairy Products Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

          - (A-588-804, A-559-801)

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 21, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Zev Primor at 202-482-4114 or Fred W. Aziz at 202-482-4023, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

## Extension of Time Limits

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) may extend the period of time for making its determination by not more than 90 days, if it determines that the sunset review is extraordinarily complicated.  As set forth in 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order.  The sunset reviews subject to this notice are transition orders.  Therefore, the Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, that these sunset reviews are extraordinarily complicated and require additional time for the Department to complete its analysis.

The Department's preliminary results of these full sunset reviews were scheduled for September 19, 2005, and the final results were scheduled for January 27, 2006.  They are now being extended until December 19, 2005, and April 27, 2006, respectively.  These dates are 90 days from the original scheduled dates of the preliminary and final results of these sunset reviews.

This notice is issued in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and (C)(v) of the Act.

Dated:  September 15, 2005.

Barbara E. Tillman,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 05-18852 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]

(BILLING CODE:  3510-DS-SP)
STATE v. Donald Jay YOUNG.

No. 468P13-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Donald Jay Young, Tillery, for Young, Donald Jay.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of November 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
# C_2010063EN.01000201.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — Republic of Poland) — Insolvency proceedings opened against MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.

(Case C-444/07) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Refusal of recognition by a Member State of a judgment opening insolvency proceedings handed down by the competent court of another Member State and of the judgments concerning the course and closure of those insolvency proceedings)

2010/C 63/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Główny Urząd Celny w Saarbrücken

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk-Północ — interpretation of Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Attachment by the authorities of a Member State of funds held in a bank account of an undertaking after insolvency proceedings in respect of that undertaking have been opened in another Member State, notwithstanding the provisions of the national law of the State in which those proceedings have been opened — Refusal of recognition by a Member State, in which secondary insolvency proceedings have not been opened, of the insolvency proceedings opened by a court of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, in particular Articles 3, 4, 16, 17 and 25, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main action, after the main insolvency proceedings have been opened in a Member State the competent authorities of another Member State, in which no secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened, are required, subject to the grounds for refusal derived from Articles 25(3) and 26 of that regulation, to recognise and enforce all judgments relating to the main insolvency proceedings and, therefore, are not entitled to order, pursuant to the legislation of that other Member State, enforcement measures relating to the assets of the debtor declared insolvent that are situated in its territory when the legislation of the State of the opening of proceedings does not so permit and the conditions to which application of Articles 5 and 10 of the regulation is subject are not met.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32
 
 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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company 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 operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ HARVEY P. EISENName:
Harvey P. EisenTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
August 9, 2011
 
 /s/ IRA J. SOBOTKOName:
Ira J. SobotkoTitle:
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
August 9, 2011