alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010008EN.01000301.xml

| 14.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/3

---

Special Report No 16/2009 ‘The European Commission’s management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey’

2010/C 8/03

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 16/2009 ‘The European Commission’s management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy and a CD-ROM version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DERRICK JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv98/RS/EMT

UNKNOWN OFFICER, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

The court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s response to its order to show cause (see Docs. 7, 9). In

light of his response, Plaintiff shall be given thirty (30) additional days in which to submit the initial

partial filing fee in the amount of $9.54. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of docketing of this order Plaintiff shall

submit the initial partial filing fee in the amount of $9.54.

2. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order as directed may result in a recommendation

of dismissal of this action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of June 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

 ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### EVE PEARSON BAILEY WILLIFORD v. PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 18 March 1964.)

Insurance § 49—

Where, in an action to recover on a policy for the destruction of the insured automobile by fire, the court categorically instructs the jury on the issue of coverage that plaintiff was not entitled to recover unless the fire occurred prior to the expiration of the policy and unless it was accidental within the meaning of the policy, insured may not complain of the refusal of the court to submit a separate issue as to whether the loss was accidental.

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, J.,*October, 1963 Civil Session, Nash Superior Court.

The plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover $1,750.00, the value of her automobile destroyed by fire during the night June 30-July 1, 1962. The defendant’s policy, insuring against loss, expired at 12:01 a.m., July 1.

The defendant denied liability on two grounds: (1) The fire occurred after the policy had expired; (2) the plaintiff, or someone under her control, intentionally burned the insured vehicle; hence the loss was not accidental within the meaning of the policy.

Both parties introduced evidence. The court submitted two issues: (1) Coverage, and (2) amount of the loss. The defendant tendered another issue: whether the loss was accidental. The jury found the defendant’s policy covered the loss and fixed the amount at $1,645.00. From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Narron, *Holdford & Holdford by William H. Holdford for plaintiff appellee.*

*Battle-, Winslow, Merrell, Scott & Wiley by Robert L. Spencer for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The parties agreed the policy sued on provided coverage only for direct and accidental loss of, or damage to, the insured vehicle. The defendant stressfully contends the court committed error in refusing to submit a separate issue whether the fire resulted from accident. The court in its charge, however, gave the defendant the benefit of both its defenses:

> “So the question for you to determine is whether there was a fire to her vehicle prior to 12:01, July 1st, 1962, and, if so, whether it was accidental within the meaning of the policy. If there was a fire causing her loss or damage to her automobile, which was direct *487and accidental, prior to 12:01 a.m., July 1, 1962, then it-would be the duty of the company to pay the actual cash value of the damage sustained. Otherwise, there would be no duty on the part of the company to pay anything for loss by fire.”

. In repeating the substance of the foregoing instructions, the court charged the jury to answer the first issue, “no,” if the plaintiff had failed to carry the burden of showing the loss by fire before 12:01, July 1, and that the loss was accidental.

The trial was hotly contested. The evidence was sharply conflicting. The jury resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiff. The record discloses

No error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1413

H. LEIGHTON LASKEY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY 

COUNCIL, for the City of Baltimore; LAW DEPARTMENT, for the 

City of Baltimore; CHRIS LUNDY, Defense Counsel; FRANK 

CONAWAY, Clerk of the Court’s Baltimore City Circuit; 

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00853-WDQ)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil action without prejudice pursuant to 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On appeal, we confine 

our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s informal 

brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Laskey does not fairly argue that 

Younger abstention is inappropriate in his case. Rather, he 

baldly alleges that the state court clerk falsified court

records in his state court action, that the action should have 

been dismissed earlier for lack of prosecution, and that 

Appellees are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of access 

to the judicial system. These allegations are raised for the 

first time on appeal, see Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 

(4th Cir. 1993) (declining to address on appeal claims not 

presented to district court), and in any event, find no support 

in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. Laskey v. Maryland, No. 1:14-cv-00853-WDQ (D. Md. 

Apr. 21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DUANE JARRELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00137-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to file a

responsive memorandum of law. (Doc. 18.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, counsel

certifies that Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of

Time (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his response memorandum by

March 17, 2011. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 14 day of February, 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CPSM, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence Calarco, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

            (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 result of operations of the Company.

 

/s/Lawrence Calarco

Lawrence Calarco

Chief Executive Officer

 

November 14, 2017

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CPSM, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Dargan II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

            (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 result of operations of the Company.

 

/s/Charles Dargan II

Charles Dargan II

Chief Financial Officer

 

November 14, 2017
Document

Exhibit 10.3
























April 18, 2020


Michelle Keefe
[personal address]


Re:  Waiver of Compensation 




Dear Michelle:


        This letter serves to memorialize your agreement to reduce your annual base salary from $567,000 (the “Original Base Salary”) to $460,000 from May 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020 (the “Waiver Period”), subject to extension of the Waiver Period by mutual written agreement of you and Syneos Health, Inc. (the “Company”).  


        Although your annual base salary will be reduced during the Waiver Period, your Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) target bonus opportunity for 2020 will continue to be calculated based on your Original Base Salary.  In addition, if you experience a severance-qualifying termination of employment during the Waiver Period, the MIP and salary portion of your cash severance payment will be calculated based on your Original Base Salary.  


        However, you agree that none of the foregoing will constitute an event giving rise to a Good Reason for purposes of the Syneos Health Inc. Executive Severance Plan, any outstanding Company equity award held by you or any other agreement between you and the Company.  


        Other than as described in this letter, all other terms and conditions of your service remain unchanged. 
        
        Please indicate your acceptance and acknowledgement of, and agreement to, the foregoing by signing below.  


Sincerely,
Syneos Health, Inc.
By:  /s/ Jonathan Olefson      
Name:  Jonathan Olefson      
Title: General Counsel          


Agreed and Acknowledged:


/s/ Michelle Keefe                     
Name: Michelle Keefe 


© 2020 All rights reserved | Confidential | For Syneos HealthTM use only syneoshealth.com | 1
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

									
	 TEN COM - as tenants in common
	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -	  	..................Custodian....................
	 TEN ENT  - as tenants by the entireties
	  		  	        (Cust)                     (Minor)
	 JT TEN      - as joint tenants with right of
	  		  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	      survivorship and not as tenants
	  		  	Act..................................................
	      in common
	  		  	                        (State)

  

			
	Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


			
	
	For Value
Received,                                       
  hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


					
			
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
	  		  	
	 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	  		  	
	 		
	 	  		  	
	
	  

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)

	
	  

	
	  



							
		
	  
	  	Shares
	 of the stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

		
	  
	  	Attorney
	 to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises.



											
						
	 Dated
	 	  
	 		  		  		  	

  

			
		 	  

		 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

 THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER, UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS,
RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS AND SERIES AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED, SO FAR AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, AND OF THE AUTHORITY, IF ANY, OF THE BOARD TO DIVIDE THE SHARES INTO CLASSES OR SERIES AND TO
DETERMINE AND CHANGE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF ANY CLASS OR SERIES. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT NAMED ON THIS CERTIFICATE. 

 
  

THE SIGNATURE TO THE ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND TO THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT
OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER, AND MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A COMMERCIAL BANK OR TRUST COMPANY OR A MEMBER FIRM OF A NATIONAL OR REGIONAL OR OTHER RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE IN CONFORMANCE WITH 

A SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM. 
  

 
 COLUMBIA FINANCIAL PRINTING CORP. -
www.stockinformation.com
# C_2009278EN.01001601.xml

| 18.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/16

---

Special Report No 12/2009 ‘The effectiveness of the Commission’s projects in the area of Justice and Home Affairs for the western Balkans’

2009/C 278/07

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2009 ‘The effectiveness of the Commission’s projects in the area of Justice and Home Affairs for the western Balkans’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy and a CD-ROM version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SYLVIA ARDLEY, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09cv185-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney fees

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). (Doc. 40). The court has previously granted two

separate motions for attorney fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Plaintiff’s counsel

now moves the court for an additional $3,743.50 in attorney fees (equal to 25 percent of

plaintiff’s youngest child’s $14,974.00 in past due benefits).

The Commissioner has filed a response (doc. 41) indicating that he does not contest

a fee of 25 percent of plaintiff’s child’s past due benefits. Although the attorney award of

$3,743.50 is uncontested, the court must still make an independent determination of the

reasonableness of any fee awarded pursuant to § 406(b). See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535

U.S. 789, 807-08, 122 S. Ct. 1817, 1828 (2002) (holding that courts may award a

reasonable fee not to exceed twenty-five percent of pastdue benefits and should consider

the character of the representation and the results the representation achieved in

determining the reasonableness of a contingency fee agreement). The court finds upon

consideration of the factors cited with approval in Gisbrecht that the requested fee award

is reasonable. The representation of plaintiff in this case was not substandard, and the

attorney for plaintiff, does not appear to have been responsible for any delays in this

matter. Moreover, counsel represented plaintiff on a contingency fee basis for an extended

period of time, obtaining additional past-due benefits in the amount of $14,974.00. While

Case 1:09-cv-00185-MP-GRJ Document 42 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

the hourly rate almost certainly exceeds market rates, by working on a contingency fee

basis counsel accepted the risk of not being compensated for his efforts. As such, the

requested fee is not a windfall. Furthermore, the plaintiff has made no objection to his

attorney's fee request. The Commissioner withheld $3,743.50 of plaintiff's child’s past-due

benefits for attorney fees. Pursuant to the fee agreements in this case, plaintiff's counsel

seeks this amount in attorney fees.

Accordingly, the motion for attorneys' fees (doc. 40) is GRANTED. Pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 406(b), plaintiff's attorney is awarded fees in the amount of $3,743.50. Defendant

is ordered to pay the fee from plaintiff's past-due benefits being held by defendant.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 1:09cv185-MP-GRJ

Case 1:09-cv-00185-MP-GRJ Document 42 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KIMBERLY ANNETTE KLINE-PARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00111-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Second Motion for Enlargement of

Time. (Doc. 20). Defendant requests a thirty day extension of time to file his response

to Plaintiff’s Memorandum. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, counsel certifies that Plaintiff’s

counsel does not object to the requested relief. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s Second Motion for

Enlargement of Time (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his response

memorandum by January 26, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22 day of December, 2010. nd

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
# C_2009156EN.01002401.xml

| 9.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/24

---

Call for applications ‘Consumer policy’

2009/C 156/13

The call for applications for financial support to European consumer organisations in 2009 has been published on the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers’ website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/consumers/consumers_calls.html

---
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 1 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 2 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 3 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 4 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 5 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 6 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 7 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 8 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 9 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 10 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 11 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 12 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 13 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 14 of 15

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 21    Filed 04/12/10   Page 15 of 15
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Rodger L. Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Knology, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Knology, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 30, 2004