alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

8 October 2008

Case F-81/07

**Florence Barbin**

**v**

**European Parliament**

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2006 promotion procedure – Consideration of comparative merits)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Barbin seeks annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not
to promote her to grade AD 12 pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure.

**Held:**The decision of the European Parliament of 20 November 2006 not to promote the applicant pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure
is annulled. The Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Promotion – Complaint by an unsuccessful promotion candidate – Decision to reject – Total absence of statement
of reasons*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))*

Although the appointing authority is not under an obligation to provide unsuccessful candidates with reasons for its decision
on promotion, it must, on the other hand, give reasons for its decision to reject a complaint lodged by an official who has
not been promoted, the statement of grounds for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons for
the decision against which the complaint was directed, so that consideration of the grounds of the one overlaps with that
of the other.

The total absence of a statement of reasons before an action is brought cannot be remedied by explanations provided by the
appointing authority after the action has been initiated. At that stage, such explanations no longer fulfil their function,
which is to enable the party concerned to determine whether it is appropriate to bring an action and to enable the court to
check the correctness of the reasons stated. Moreover, the possibility of remedying the total absence of a statement of reasons
after an action has been initiated would prejudice the rights of the defence, since the applicant would be deprived of the
opportunity to present his pleas against the statement of reasons, of which he would have no knowledge until after the action
was brought. The principle that parties should be equal before the Community judicature would be undermined.

(see paras 27-28)

See:

188/73 *Grassi* v *Council* [1974] ECR 1099, para. 13; 121/76 *Moli* v *Commission* [1977] ECR 1971, para. 12; 75/77 *Mollet* v *Commission* [1978] ECR 897, para. 12; 195/80 *Michel* v *Parliament* [1981] ECR 2861, para. 22; C-343/87 *Culin* v *Commission* [1990] ECR I‐225, paras 13 and 15; C-150/03 P *Hectors* v *Parliament* [2004] ECR I‐8691, para. 50

T-52/90 *Volger* v *Parliament* [1992] ECR II‐121, paras 40 and 41; T-117/01 *Roman Parra* v *Commission* [2002] ECR-SC I-A-27 and II‐121, para. 32; T-66/05 *Sack* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-0000, para. 66, currently the subject of an appeal before the Court of Justice, C‐38/08 P
---

EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “ Periodic Report”), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 
 Dated: May 15, 2009
 
 /s/ Larry T. KuglarLarry T. KuglarChief Executive Officer
# C_2009055EN.01002602.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Thierry v Commission

(Case T-223/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2004 promotion procedure - Dismissal of an application for a witness to be examined - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2009/C 55/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michel Thierry (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05 Thierry v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and requesting that that order be set aside.

Thierry

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Michel Thierry is ordered to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission in the context of the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Michel Thierry is ordered to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission in the context of the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION 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, Tamer Husseini, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of Celeritek, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such AnnualReport fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Celeritek, Inc.       By: /s/ TAMER HUSSEINI     Name: Tamer Husseini     Title: Chief Executive Officer
     I, Margaret Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of Celeritek, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such AnnualReport fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Celeritek, Inc.       By: /s/ MARGARET E. SMITH     Name: Margaret E. Smith     Title: Chief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4076 

To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane and 

other home heating fuels in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2014 

Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. PETRI, Mr. WALZ, Mr. 

RIBBLE, Mr. KIND, Mr. LATTA, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. DENT, and Mr. 

DUFFY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To address shortages and interruptions in the availability 

of propane and other home heating fuels in the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home Heating Emer5 gency Assistance Through Transportation Act of 2014’’ 

6 or the ‘‘HHEATT Act of 2014’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4076 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY 

2 TRANSPORTATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, a covered emergency exemption issued by the 

5 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall remain 

6 in effect until May 31, 2014, unless the Secretary of 

7 Transportation, after consultation with the Governors of 

8 affected States, determines that the emergency for which 

9 the exemption was provided ends before that date. 

10 (b) COVERED EMERGENCY EXEMPTION DEFINED.— 

11 In this section, the term ‘‘covered emergency exemption’’ 

12 means an exemption issued under section 390.23 of title 

13 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or extended under sec14 tion 390.25 of such title that— 

15 (1) was issued or extended during the period 

16 beginning on February 5, 2014, and ending on the 

17 date of enactment of this Act; and 

18 (2) provided regulatory relief for commercial 

19 motor vehicle operations providing direct assistance 

20 supporting the delivery of propane and home heating 

21 fuels. 

22 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub23 section (a) may be construed to prohibit the Federal 

24 Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing or exVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:00 Feb 26, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4076.IH H4076

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4076 IH

1 tending a covered emergency exemption beyond May 31, 

2 2014, under other Federal law. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000920107
<NAME> TSB FINANCIAL INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         260,344
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         583,558
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,571,312
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         355,285
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           362,902
<LOANS>                                     24,259,899
<ALLOWANCE>                                    124,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,859,043
<DEPOSITS>                                  21,238,302
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,606,197
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            120,912
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,699
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,890,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              29,859,043
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,885,123
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              384,489
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                33,341
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,302,953
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,002,943
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,311,706
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          991,247
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   22,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              20,318
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                636,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                422,862
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     422,862
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   289,486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.76
<LOANS-NON>                                    139,566
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 79,722
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               124,624
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   26,709
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,655
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              124,070
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           124,070
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40313

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO GONZALEZ-CORDOVA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-1230-1

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo Gonzalez-Cordova

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420

F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that a Texas conviction for burglary of

a habitation was equivalent to burglary of a dwelling and United States v.

Gomez-Guerra, 485 F.3d 301, 303 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 156

(2007), which explained that the decision in James v. United States, 127 S. Ct.

1586 (2007) is not dispositive of this issue. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Patricia B. Hoover v. George Barry Hoover

No. 280P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Edmund L. Gaines, Ms. Leah G. Messick, Attorneys at Law, For Hoover, Patricia B.

Mr. George Barry Hoover, Pro Se.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of July 2016 by Plaintiff 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 8th of December 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Susanna CHRISTENSEN, Defendant.

No. COA15-791.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
The KIMBERLEY RICE KAESTNER 1992 FAMILY TRUST v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

No. 307PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

*684Peggy S. Vincent, Assistant Attorney General, Tenisha S. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, Hon. Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Thomas D. Myrick, Attorney at Law, Neil T. Bloomfield, Attorney at Law, Kara N. Bitar, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by State of NC on the 9th of August 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 22nd of July 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of August 2016 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,179,148
<SECURITIES>                                 4,693,649
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,028,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                   204,105
<INVENTORY>                                  2,733,315
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,382,823
<PP&E>                                     104,254,569
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,331,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,863,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,276,468
<BONDS>                                     37,171,471
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,854,975
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,008
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,140,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,023,283
<SALES>                                     12,311,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,311,094
<CGS>                                       10,107,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,671,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             599,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                776,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            776,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   776,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: M.F.B., L.B., III, M.E.W.B., Jr., and A.N.N.J.

No. COA16-388

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
State of North Carolina v. Cornell Perry Ashford, Defendant.

No. COA15-1245

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60051

Summary Calendar

 

JOSEPH SHELTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DENNIS E. PRESCOTT ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-316-S-D

- - - - - - - - - -

November 6, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Shelton, Mississippi prisoner #59619, appeals from

the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of

the defendants in his civil rights complaint brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts that the district court erred in

its determination that his allegations did not support his claim

that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment
No. 97-60051

-2-

for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. 

Shelton v. Prescott et al., No. 1:95CV316-S-D (N.D. Miss. Jan. 3,

1997).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 29, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert N. Wildrick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 
| April 13, 2005 | /s/ ROBERT N. WILDRICK  |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                | Robert N. Wildrick      |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
# C_2009006EN.01002103.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Ralf Schräder v OHIM — (SUMCOL 01)

(Case T-187/06) (1)

1

(Community plant variety rights - Plant variety SUMCOL 01 - Rejection of the application for a Community plant variety right - Lack of distinctive character of the candidate variety)

(2009/C 6/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen — Germany) (represented by: initially by T. Leidereiter, W.-A. Schmidt and I. Memmler, and later by T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Kiewiet and M. Ekvad, Agents, assisted by G. Schohe, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 2 May 2006 (Case A 003/2004), concerning an application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the plant variety SOMCOL 01

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
# C_2009019EN.01003603.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2008 — Kuiburi Fruit Canning v Council

(Case T-330/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 19/70)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---