alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006294EN.01001801.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-360/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 294/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and M. Velardo, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. De Bellis and I. Braguglia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the period prescribed, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Fifth Chamber):

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12. 11. 2005.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), each of the undersigned officersdoes hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 10, 2007 | /s/ David J. Moore                           |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer         |
|                | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|                |                                         |
|                |                                         |
| Dated: May 10, 2007 | /s/ Jonathan K. Hsu                          |
|                | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating    |
|                | Officer and Chief Financial Officer          |
|                | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

* *

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
Order filed April 28, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 14
- 00440
- CR

____________ EX PARTE VIDAL ALEXANDER REYES , Appellant
On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No . 10

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1946698



### ORDER
This court has determined that it must review the exhibits admitted at trial . The c ourt reporter for the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 10 is directed to deliver to the c lerk of this court the exhibits admitted at trial , on or before May 12, 2015.
PER CURIAM
# C_2007013EN.01000102.xml

| 19.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4168 — Österreichische POST/TRANS-O-FLEX)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 13/02)

On 12 December 2006, 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 German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32006M4168. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4168. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
AFS-12-353-E May 25, 2012

Exemption No. 10544 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0507

Mr. Hal W. Raber Director of Operations Executive Jet Management 4556 Airport Road Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Raber:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 2, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Executive Jet Management (EJM) for an exemption from § 135.299(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow EJM pilots to accomplish a line operational evaluation in a Level C or Level D flight simulator in lieu of a

line check in an aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EJM.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 6913 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that the range of activities evaluated during a line check extends beyond the capabilities of a simulator and encompasses an environment that cannot be replicated by a simulator. In addition, the FAA encouraged part 135 operators to maintain adequate numbers of line check airmen and found that maintaining line qualification gives the line check airmen irreplaceable experience essential to conducting an effective line check.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6913;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6913 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Adm inistrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Executive Jet Management for an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.299(a) and (b).

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSEPH EDWARDS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-124

LT Case No. 2020-CF-2890

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed August 9, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Marion County,

Lisa D. Herndon, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Darnelle P. Lawshe, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          50,521
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             183
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    367,142
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         378,773
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           367,142
<LOANS>                                      1,049,873
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,644,548
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,058,583
<SHORT-TERM>                                   162,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,390
<LONG-TERM>                                    301,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,644,548
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,380
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,189
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   684
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,253
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,903
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,231
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,022
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,521
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,521
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,056
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.84
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,945
<LOANS-PAST>                                    20,236
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,346
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,038
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,145
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,253
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,253
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Charles Gerst, Appellant, v. Buffalo Commercial Insurance Company, Respondent. Charles Gerst, Appellant, v. Buffalo German Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
SCWC-11-0001019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

BENJAMIN N. PULAWA, III,

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant,

vs.

OAHU CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., 

Respondent/Employer-Appellee, 

and

SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-11-0001019; CASE NO. AB 2009-496 (2-96-12947))

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant Benjamin N. Pulawa, III’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on December 18, 2014, is

hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding

scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 28, 2015.

Dan S. Ikehara

for petitioner

Brian G.S. Choy and

Keith M. Yonamine

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0001019

28-JAN-2015

09:38 AM
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

83-1 

January 4, 1983 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4003(f) Investigatory Authority; Cooperation with other Agencies; Civil Actions Maintainable against PBGC 

OPINION: 

 We are in receipt of the Order of Sequestration ("Order") issued in the above-referenced divorce action. For the

reasons stated below, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") will not pay the plan participant's benefit over

to the Friend of the Court of * * * County. 

The PBGC is a wholly-owned United States government corporation which insures the payment of guaranteed

pension benefits to participants in certain pension plans under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974 ("ERISA"). This PBGC obligation occurs only on termination of those pension plans. * * * is entitled to a

guaranteed benefit from the PBGC. The Order requires the entire benefit to be paid over to the Friend of the Court. 

The PBGC is not subject to state court divorce actions under Title IV of ERISA. Section 4003(f) of ERISA contains

the following jurisdictional limitations on actions brought against the PBGC: 

Any participant, beneficiary, plan administrator, or employee adversely affected by any action of the corporation,

or by a receiver or trustee appointed by the corporation, [*2] with respect to a plan in which such participant,

beneficiary, plan administrator or employee has an interest may bring an action against the corporation, receiver or

trustee in the appropriate court. For purposes of this subsection the term "appropriate court" means the United States

district court. . . . 

Thus, it is apparent that there is no provision in ERISA for the state court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction

over the PBGC in this matter. 

 The PBGC's authority is limited by the terms of Title IV of ERISA and therefore the PBGC cannot submit to the

state court's jurisdiction. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact * * * of my staff at (202)

254-4895 or at the above address. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
# C_2006212EN.01000802.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-251/05) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 28 - Exemption with refund of the tax paid - Sale of goods taxed at zero-rate fitted with goods taxed at the standard rate - Residential caravans - Single supply)

(2006/C 212/14)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 28(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Zero-rated goods (caravans) supplied with standard-rated items — Criteria for determining whether the transaction must be regarded as a single supply for the purposes of VAT

Operative part of the judgment

The fact that specific goods are counted as a single supply, including both a principal item which is by virtue of a Member State's legislation subject to an exemption with refund of the tax paid within the meaning of Article 28(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates), and items which that legislation excludes from the scope of that exemption, does not prevent the Member State concerned from levying VAT at the standard rate on the supply of those excluded items.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

1

---
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantica, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Alan D. Gordon and Shelley Goff, 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. 

 

| *Date:*** | *August 14, 2007*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Alan D. Gordon***                                     |
|-----------|---------------------|----------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *            | * * | * * | *Alan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive Officer*** |
| * *  | * *            | * * | * * | *Atlantica, Inc.***                                       |
| * *  | * *            | * * | * * | * *                                                  |
| *Date:*** | *August 14, 2007*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Shelley Goff***                                       |
| * *  | * *            | * * | * * | *Shelley Goff, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer***   |
| * *  | * *            | * * | * * | *Atlantica, Inc.***                                       |
### SUBCHAPTER I—OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Lindsay A. French, appellant.

236 N. W. 2d 832

Filed December 24, 1975.

No. 40126.

Jeffrey H. Jacobsen, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Ralph H. Gillan, for appellee.

Pleard before Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Newton, J.

The defendant was convicted of the sale of heroin and hashish oil. He was tried for the sale of both substances at 12:20 a.m., on January 7, 1975, and for another sale of similar substances to the same party at 8:29 p.m., on the same day. The information contained *89one count pertaining to the sale of heroin and another pertaining to the sale of hashish oil, both on the date mentioned. It fails to mention the time of these sales or that two separate sales incidents occurred. Instructions were given on four counts, two relating to the early morning sales and two relating to the evening sales. The information is not in keeping with sections 29-1603 and 29-2002, R. R. S. 1943, which require that separate offenses be set out in separate counts. The in- . formation was vulnerable to objection as was also the evidence and the instructions relating to the second sales. No objections were made and the jury acquitted the defendant of the second or evening sales. Neither has this situation been referred to in the motion for a new trial nor the defendant’s assignments of error. Any objections have been waived, or cured by the verdict.

There was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict finding defendant guilty of the early morning sales. Defendant asserts the verdict is “reversibly inconsistent” because the jury chose to believe the informant as to the morning sales but not as to the evening sales. As to the latter, there was substantial evidence submitted by defendant of an alibi. It is evident that this could well have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. We have often held that: “In jury cases, the jurors are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given their testimony and, within their province, they have the right to credit or reject the whole or any part of the testimony of a witness in the exercise of their judgment.” State v. Godinez, 190 Neb. 1, 205 N. W. 2d 644. It was for the jury to determine how much or how little of the informant’s testimony was acceptable. Furthermore, it is generally held that: “Where the several offenses charged in a multicount indictment or information involve factual variations, such as different times, dates, places, property, or victims, the finding on one count will not ordinarily be held inconsistent with that on any other.” *90Annotation, Criminal Verdict - Inconsistency, 18 A. L. R. 3d, § 9, p. 290. See, also, Weinecke v. State, 34 Neb. 14, 51 N. W. 307; Wentz v. State, 108 Neb. 597, 188 N. W. 467; Asbra v. State, 144 Neb. 146, 12 N. W. 2d 845.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.