alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2135

ENNIO MANOLO DE LEON ESTRADA, Petitioner,
versus JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary; ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-794-351; A73-524-000) Submitted: May 4, 2007 Decided: June 6, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda A. Dominguez, L A DOMINGUEZ LAW, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, Daniel J. Davis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ennio Manolo De Leon Estrada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the reinstatement of an order of deportation entered in 1995. Soon after his deportation, Estrada illegally reentered the United States. Estrada was arrested in 2006 during an interview regarding his application for adjustment of status. The prior order of deportation was reinstated pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (2000), 8 C.F.R. § 1241.8 (2006). Estrada seeks review of this order. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), the Attorney General may reinstate a prior order of removal from its original date, and the order “is not subject to being reopened or reviewed . . . .” Our examination of the record convinces us that this statute was properly applied to Estrada. SeeFernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales , 126 S. Ct. 2422, 2425 (2006) (holding § 1231(a)(5) has no improper retroactive effect when applied to an alien who was deported and who illegally returned before the effective date of the statute); Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti , 263 F.3d 102, 108-10 (4th Cir. 2001) (same). Therefore, under the plain language of the statute, we lack jurisdiction to review the reinstated order of removal. We deny the petition for review. 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.- 3 - PETITION DENIED
# C_2009082EN.01000502.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-475/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Electricity tax - Directive 2003/96/EC - First subparagraph of Article 21(5) - Time at which the tax becomes chargeable)

(2009/C 82/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Kozek, M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed time limit, the measures necessary to comply with Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA Relevance) (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adapt, by 1 January 2006, its system of electricity tax, with regard to the time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable, to the requirements of the first subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adapt, by 1 January 2006, its system of electricity tax, with regard to the time at which the electricity tax becomes chargeable, to the requirements of the first subparagraph of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
# C_2008171EN.01003005.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-325/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 171/52)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 10.4





Exhibit 10.4




Summary of Board and Committee Compensation




The Board of Directors of the Company approved cash director fees, committee member fees and
chairperson fees to be paid to non-management directors of the Company in the 2011 fiscal year.
Director fees, committee fees and chairperson fees are only paid to non-management directors as
summarized below:




Each non-management director will receive a director fee of $15,000 per Board
meeting attended in person or by tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed
$60,000 per year.




Each non-management director who serves on a committee of the Board of Directors
will receive a fee of $1,250 per committee meeting attended in person or by
tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $5,000 per year.




Each non-management director who serves as the chairperson of a committee of the
Board of Directors shall receive a fee of $625 per committee meeting attended in
person or by tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $2,500 per year.
STATE v. Larry Ricardo TART.

No. 407P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Larry Ricardo Tart, Asheville, for Tart, Larry Ricardo.

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

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of December 2015 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
Form 8-K (7-17-14) Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1


July 15, 2014


Mr. William C. Cobb
c/o H&R Block, Inc. 
One H&R Block Way
Kansas City, Missouri 64105


		
	Re: 
	Letter Agreement Regarding Modifications to Employment Agreement




Dear Mr. Cobb:
This letter agreement (this “Agreement”) sets forth our agreement to amend various provisions in that certain Employment Agreement by and among you, H&R Block Management, LLC, and H&R Block, Inc., dated as of April 27, 2011, as amended by that certain Letter Agreement dated as of January 4, 2013, (the “Employment Agreement”).  Except as provided herein, this Agreement shall not alter the terms of the Employment Agreement.   Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.
The parties to this Agreement hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 
		
	a.
	The phrase “end upon the fifth anniversary hereof” in Section 2 shall be deleted and replaced with “end upon September 1, 2016.” 


		
	b.
	The phrase “a maximum bonus equal to 175% of the target bonus” in Section 3(c) shall be deleted and replaced with “a maximum bonus equal to 200% of the target bonus.” 


		
	c.
	The length of the term of the covenants set forth in Sections 6(b) (Non-Hiring), (c) (Non-Solicitation) and (d) (Non-competition), shall be increased to be during the Term and for a period of two years after your last day of employment. 


		
	d.
	The following sentence shall be inserted at the end of Section 7(m): “To the extent future laws or applicable stock exchange listing standards require more expansive clawback provisions, such provisions shall be automatically incorporated into this Agreement and, to the extent more onerous, be deemed to supersede the current provisions of this Section 7(m).”




[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.  Signature page to follow.]

1








This Agreement may be executed in identical multiple counterparts, all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement.




Very truly yours,


H&R Block Management, LLC




By: /s/ Aileen M. Wilkins 
 
Name: Aileen M. Wilkins
Title:   Chief People Officer






H&R Block, Inc.




By:/s/ Aileen M. Wilkins 
 
Name: Aileen M. Wilkins
Title:   Chief People Officer


Acknowledged and agreed as of the date first set forth above:




/s/ William C. Cobb 
 
William C. Cobb

2
Richard B. Spoor, Individually and Derivatively v. John M. Barth, Jr., John M. Barth, John Does 1-5, and J.R. International Holdings, LLC

No. 42P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Barry Nakell, Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorneys at Law, For Spoor, Richard B.

Judson A. Welborn, J. Whitfield Gibson, Attorneys at Law, For Barth, John M. (Jr.).

N. Hunter Wyche, Jr., Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr., Michael J. Small, David B. Goroff, Attorneys at Law, For Barth, John M.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of February 2016 by Defendant (John M. Barth, Jr.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (John M. Barth, Jr.) on the 11th of February 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
EXHIBIT 14.(A).3





September 20, 2004

Kost Forer and Gabbay
Certified Public Accountant
3 Aminadav Street
Tel-Aviv 67067

Gentlemen:

                RE: ALBAHEALTH LLC (HEREINAFTER - "THE COMPANY")

In connection with our examination of the financial statements of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2003, we wish to advise you:

     1.   We are aware that the financial statements of the Company, which we
          have examined, will be included in the consolidated financial
          statements of TEFRON LTD and our reports with respect to the financial
          statements of the Company will be relied upon by you.

     2.   We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report relating to our
          examination of the financial statements of the Company covering the
          balance sheet as of December 31, 2003 and the related statements of
          income, members' equity, and cash flows for the year ended December
          31, 2003, in the annual report of TEFRON LTD on Form 20F/A, which is
          to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S.
          SEC) and to the incorporation by reference of such report into the
          Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-111932).

     3.   We are independent with respect to all entities in the TEFRON LTD
          group, under the rules of the American Institute of Certified Public
          Accountants and the U.S. SEC.

     4.   We are familiar with accounting principles generally accepted in the
          United States of America and the financial statements of the above
          Company have been prepared in accordance with such principles.

     5.   We are familiar with auditing standards generally accepted in the
          United States of America (U.S. GAAS) promulgated by the American
          Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and our examination with
          respect to the financial statements of the Company was conducted with
          U.S. GAAS.

     6.   We are familiar with Regulation S-X and other published accounting
          rules and regulations of the U.S. SEC and the financial statements of
          the Company are prepared in accordance with, and contain the necessary
          disclosures required by, such rules and regulations.

Sincerely,


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
# C_2008116EN.01000402.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-227/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Construction products - Directive 89/106/EEC - Absence of harmonised standards - National marks of conformity - Presumption of conformity)

(2008/C 116/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Wimmer, A. Hubert, L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents, and F. de Montpellier and G. Block, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National law imposing a de facto obligation for economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity in order to market those products in Belgium

de facto

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by encouraging economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by encouraging economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, October 28, 2005.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC., 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-18337  Filed 9-12-05; 11:52 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1858

___________

LeRoy K. Wheeler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

State of North Dakota; Tim Schuetzle; *

Leann K. Bertsch, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 5, 2008

Filed: September 16, 2008 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

North Dakota prisoner Leroy Wheeler appeals following the district court’s1

denials of his motion for injunctive relief and his motion for reconsideration in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action. We construe Wheeler’s motion for reconsideration as one

brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Broadway v. Norris, 193

F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999) (where motion for reconsideration was directed at

nonfinal order, appellate court construed motion as Rule 60(b) motion because only
-2-

Rule 60(b) motions encompass motions filed in response to orders). We have

jurisdiction to review only the district court’s order denying Wheeler’s Rule 60(b)

motion, because Wheeler’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry

of the court’s order denying his motion for injunctive relief, and Wheeler’s Rule 60(b)

motion was not filed within 10 days of the entry of the court’s order. See Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (NOA must be filed with district clerk within 30 days after order

appealed from is entered); Fed. R. App. 4(a)(4)(A) (if party files Rule 60(b) motion

no later than 10 days after judgment is entered, time to file appeal runs from entry of

order disposing of motion); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.

2006) (timely NOA is mandatory and jurisdictional; appellate court will raise

jurisdictional issues sua sponte); Broadway, 193 F.3d at 989 (appeal of Rule 60(b)

motion does not bring up underlying judgment or order for review).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Wheeler’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.

2001) (upholding denial of Rule 60(b) motion where motion largely reasserted

contentions made in earlier motions and failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances warranting post-judgment relief); Broadway, 193 F.3d at 988-990

(standard of review; Rule 60(b) is not vehicle for reargument on merits). Accordingly,

we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement Nos. 333-75755, 333-81718, 333-89474, 333-19777,
333-14799, 333-03877, 333-03881, 333-03677 and 333-02812 of
C-Cube Microsystems Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated
January 20, 2000 (February 10, 2000 as to Note 17),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of C-Cube
Microsystems Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
April 27, 2000
# C_2015016EN.01002501.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management)

(Joined Cases T-303/06 RENV and T-337/06 RENV) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word marks UNIWEB and UniCredit Wealth Management - Earlier national word marks UNIFONDS and UNIRAK and earlier national figurative mark UNIZINS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Series or family of trade marks - Likelihood of association - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Intervener’s applications for annulment and alteration - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure)

(2015/C 016/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit SpA, formerly UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: J. Zindel, lawyer)

Re:

Actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2) and of 25 September 2006 (Joined Cases R 456/2005-2 and R 502/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and UniCredito Italiano SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the actions.

| 2) | Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH’s applications for annulment and alteration.

| 3) | Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders Credit SpA to pay the costs, save those incurred by Union Investment Privatfonds.

| 4) | Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders Union Investment Privatfonds to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

---
# C_2012006EN.01001202.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products)

(Case T-308/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products - Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2012/C 6/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, California, United States) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented initially by M. Thewes and V. Wiot, and subsequently by M. Thewes and P. Reuter, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 1094/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Werner & Mertz GmbH and Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
ACCEPTED12-14-00303-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS3/4/2015 3:03:44 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK