alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.N., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORATAION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, St. Augustine, FL, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1682 

Issued: December 22, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Ronald S. Webster, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On August 4, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of a February 6, 

2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The appeal was 

docketed as No. 15-1682. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for 

decision as the case record submitted to the Board is incomplete. The imaged record forwarded 

to the Board contains only the first page of the February 6, 2015 final decision on appeal. This 

page indicates that OWCP found an overpayment of $38,389.73 due to an incorrect pay rate, and 

waiver of the overpayment was denied. The single page is clearly not the entire decision, as it 

refers to an enclosed memorandum providing the “reasons” for the decision. OWCP also 

indicated that the overpayment would be recovered “in the manner described in the attached 

enclosure.” 

A proper review of the case and adjudication of the issues by the Board requires a 

complete record of the relevant evidence.1

 The record is incomplete as the actual decision on 

 1 See Terence M. Gore, Docket No. 94-0464 (issued June 26, 1995). 
2

appeal has not been properly imaged, identified, and submitted to the Board as part of the case 

record. The case will be remanded to OWCP for proper reconstruction and assemblage of the 

record. After such proper assemblage of the record, OWCP should issue a merit decision to 

protect appellant’s appeal rights. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated February 6, 2015 is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for 

action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: December 22, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 25, 2014

No. 04-13-00886-CR

Jimmy TURNER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR6595B

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due July 23, 2014.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2011294EN.01000101.xml

| 6.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6337 — Citic Dicastal Wheel Manufacturing/KSM Castings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 294/01

On 28 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6337. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6337. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
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, 333- 05615)
                of HMSR Inc. of our report dated March 20, 2001, except as to
                information presented in Note Q which is as of May 29, 2001,
                relating to the financial statements which appears in this
                Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A2.


                                                /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




                PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                Boston, Massachusetts
                January 18, 2002
# C_2015371EN.01001901.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Deutsche Post AG v Commission

(Case T-421/07 RENV) (1)

1

((State Aid - Postal delivery - Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - Interest in bringing proceedings - Reopening of a closed procedure - Effects of a judgment anulling a measure))

(2015/C 371/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Seddemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, T Maxian Rusche and R Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium); and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: T. Ottervanger, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) [EC] concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Deutsche post AG (State aid C 36/07(ex NN 25/07)).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic Of Germany in favour of Deutsche Post AG (State aid C 36/07(ex NN 25/07)) in so far as it initiated the formal investigation procedure in respect of the public measures concerned, with the exception of the State guarantees granted in favour of Deutsche Bundespost Postdienst and Deutsche Post; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic Of Germany in favour of Deutsche Post AG (State aid C 36/07(ex NN 25/07)) in so far as it initiated the formal investigation procedure in respect of the public measures concerned, with the exception of the State guarantees granted in favour of Deutsche Bundespost Postdienst and Deutsche Post;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post in respect of the action for annulment, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post in respect of the action for annulment, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice;

| 3. | Orders UPS Europe NV/SA and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders UPS Europe NV/SA and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01003202.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/32

---

Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-510/07)

(2008/C 22/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and B. Schima, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (1);

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has frequently not complied with the obligation to stock petroleum products under Directive 68/414/EEC, as amended and then codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (2), as regards the products in the second category under that directive, namely gas oil, diesel oil, kerosene and jet-fuel of the kerosene type. The Commission points out, particularly, in that regard, that a sometimes considerable discrepancy exists between the figures relating to internal consumption of the products in question provided by the defendant in its monthly returns and the data available to the Commission via Eurostat.

2

---

(1)  OJ English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1968 II, p. 586.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8.

2

---
State of North Carolina v. Reuben Maina Mithamo, Defendant.

No. COA16-519

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135948 & (15) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135948 

 COA: 279141 

Kalamazoo CC: 97-000264-FC 

WILLIE D. SANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. 

s0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. James Cummings

407P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Ms. Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. James Cummings, Beaufort, Pro Se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of November 2016 by Defendant for Appeal:

*324"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Philip Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a
packet of cigarettes)**

**(Case T-140/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a packet of cigarettes – Refusal of registration – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26-27)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 24 February 2006, (Case R 0075/2005-4) concerning registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Philip Morris Products SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark representing a packet of cigarettes for goods in Class 34 – Application No 2681351 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Philip Morris Products SA to pay the costs. |
In the MATTER OF Tommie Junior SMITH, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program

No. 88A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Elizabeth M. Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, For Smith, Carson, et al.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, For Smith, Carson, et al.

Edwin A. Pressly, Attorney at Law, Statesville, For Smith, Carson, et al.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Claimant on the 11th of March 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of March 2016 by Claimant to Consolidate Appeals:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Claimant's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
# C_2008301EN.01000801.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2008 — K-Swiss Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-144/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Time-limit for instituting proceedings before the Court of First Instance - OHIM decision - Notification by express courier - Calculation of the time limit for bringing an action)

(2008/C 301/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: K-Swiss Inc. (represented by: H.E. Hübner, Advocate)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-14/06 K-Swiss v OHIM dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Notification by express courier — Date from which the time-limit begins to run

K-Swiss

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders K Swiss Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders K Swiss Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Joshua Sanchez

No. COA15-1401

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

NEW TRIAL.
Agreement) Company) (TSI
Holdings).
 Departure Date
 Departure Date
  Separation Benefits
 Severance Period),




---



##### 



Release
 Representatives Released Parties)
 2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Equity Option Plans
 No Other Compensation or Benefits
 Return of Company Property.
 Nondisclosure of Confidential Information.
  4




---



##### 



Executive Severance Agreement
 5




---



##### 



Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Obligations
 Non-Solicitation Covered Employee
 Non-Competition
  Non-Disparagement; Cooperation.
   6




---



##### 



Waiver of Rights.
 Applicable Law.
 Entire Agreement/Severability
 Acceptance.
 7




---



##### 



Revocation Period) th
 Voluntary Assent.
      No Admission
 Counterparts.
 Section 409A (Section 409
 8




---



##### 



Breach of Agreement
 Third Party Beneficiaries
 Notices th
 9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



Acknowledged and accepted by:
TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL, LLCBy:

/s/ Scott
MilfordName:
    Scott MilfordTitle:
    Senior Vice President-Human Resources/s/ Alexander A. AlimanestianuAlexander A. Alimanestianu STATE OF NEW YORK
    
    
    ))
    
    
    SS.:COUNTY OF NEW YORK
    
    
    )
 ALEXANDER A. ALIMANESTIANU
 /s/ JOSHUA S HACKMANNotary PublicJOSHUA S HACKMAN
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORKNEW YORK COUNTY 
LIC. #021-440807545
COMM. EXP. 6/15/13 11
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-370-CV

IN RE JAMES EDWARD BELLS 	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.2  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  October 7, 2008
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-131859, 333-128184, 333-121955, 333-114315, 333-111595, 333-105127, 333-102829, 333-64176, 333-67213, and 333-25987) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-97719, 333-86817, 333-67223, 333-28403, 333-26557, 333-20939, and 333-17209) of Viewpoint Corporation of our report dated March 17, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

New York, New YorkMarch 17, 2006
Harrison v. Gemma Power Systems, LLC, et al.

216A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 1, 2016

Fred D. Poisson, Jr., Attorney at Law, E. Stewart Poisson, Attorney at Law, for Harrison, Kerry Ray.

Roger L. Dillard, Jr., Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Jessica Lyles, Attorney at Law, for Gemma Power Systems, LLC, et al.

*393The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of June 2016 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of July 2016."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 5th day of August 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# CE2004084EN.01050102.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/501 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/501

---

(2004/C 84 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Problems regarding the Attica suburban railway project

Subject:

Great concern is being expressed in Greece regarding progress made by the suburban railway project with numerous reports recently appearing in the Greek press describing the situation as extremely serious. It is regarded as unlikely that the project will be completed in time for the Olympic Games. In particular, the Doukissi Plakentia — Olympic Stadium section is a very long way behind schedule because of work being carried out simultaneously on the Attica Highway and the metro. Serious problems are arising regarding the Neratziotissa station where the suburban line will meet the HSAP electric line, designs having failed to take account of the Attica Highway running below the station, which is now creating major construction problems.

In view of the fact that funding under the third CFS has been earmarked for the suburban rail project, is the Commission aware of the problems arising and the fact that the project is behind schedule? What is its general assessment regarding progress made?

---