alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007069EN.01001801.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Minin v Commission

(Case T-362/04) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of Liberia - Freezing of funds of persons associated with Charles Taylor - Competence of the Community - Fundamental rights - Action for annulment)

(2007/C 69/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonid Minin (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: T. Ballarino and C. Bovio, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, L. Visaggio and C. Brown, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Marquardt and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently by S. Marquardt and A. Vitro, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Originally, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1149/2004 of 22 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (OJ 2004 L 222, p. 17), and, subsequently, annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2005 of 9 June 2005 amending Regulation No 872/2004 (OJ 2005 L 146, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

1

---
# C_2007095EN.01001102.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg — Germany) — Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-44/06) (1)

1

(Customs union - Community transit - Proof of the regularity of a transit operation or of the place of the offence - Three-month period - Period granted subsequent to the decision to recover the import duties)

(2007/C 95/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerlach & Co. mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling –Interpretation of Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) — Offence or irregularity committed in the course of an external Community transit operation (T1) — Period for provision of proof as to the place in which the offence or irregularity was committed indicated only after the decision to recover duty had been taken and in the course of complaint proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs cannot grant to the principal the three-month period to enable it to provide proof of the regularity of the transit operation or proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed after the decision has been taken to proceed to recovery of the import duties, during the proceedings relating to a complaint lodged against that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7710

JAMES MATTHEW MILLER,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:10-cv-00837-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Matthew Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant 

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Matthew Miller seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition and denying his motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Miller’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young, LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-39171) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-59163, No. 333-59157, No. 333-21997, No. 33-86634, and No. 33-94872)
pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan and to the 1998 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1999,
with respect to the financial statements of Lynx Therapeutics, Inc. included
in its Annual Report (Form 10K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
March 24, 1999
# C_2006331EN.01002406.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-68/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 331/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Jay D. Miller, certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Vital Images, Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | March 15, 2004 |                                  | /s/ Jay D. Miller |   |
|--------|---------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
|   |                | Jay D. Miller                         |
|   |                | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2006186EN.01000201.xml

| 9.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/2

---

NEW NATIONAL FACES OF EURO COINS INTENDED FOR CIRCULATION

NEW NATIONAL FACES OF EURO COINS INTENDED FOR CIRCULATION

(2006/C 186/02)

Image

The euro coins intended for circulation are legal tender throughout the euro area. In order to provide professionals who handle the coins and the public with information, the Commission publishes the characteristics of the designs of all new coins (1).

1

Country of issue: Vatican City State

Date of issue: April 2006

Description of designs:

1 EURO CENT, 2 EURO CENT, 5 EURO CENT

The coin portrays the bust of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Either side of the portrait are, to the left, the designer's initials ‘DL’ and, to the right, the mint mark ‘R’. The legend ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’ followed by the year 2006 is engraved in a semi-circle above the portrait. The twelve stars of the European flag encircle the design.

10 EURO CENT, 20 EURO CENT, 50 EURO CENT

The coin portrays the bust of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Either side of the portrait are, to the left, the designer's initials ‘DL’ and, to the right, the mint mark ‘R’. The legend ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’ followed by the year 2006 is engraved in a semi-circle below the portrait. The twelve stars of the European flag encircle the design.

1 EURO, 2 EURO

The internal part of the coin portrays the bust of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. The year 2006 surmounted by the mint mark ‘R’ appears to the right of the coin. The legend ‘CITTÀ DEL VATICANO’ is arranged in the form of an arc of a circle broken by the portrait. The twelve stars of the European flag are positioned around the outer circle of the coin.

Edge lettering of the 2 euro coin:

2 ★, repeated six times, alternately upright and inverted.

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, pp. 1-30, for a reference to all the national faces of coins issued in 2002.

1

---
#### § 700.209 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart apply only when the Commission determines that, unless it acts under the provisions of this subpart, there is a reasonable likelihood that replacement dwelling(s) will not be available on a timely basis to person(s) to be displaced.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1019 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1019

                For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 1999

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.

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

SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND 
              NATIONALITY ACT.

    (a) In General.--In the administration of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, Regine Beatie Edwards shall be classified as a child 
within the meaning of section 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act, upon approval 
of a petition filed on her behalf by Stan Edwards, a citizen of the 
United States, pursuant to section 204 of such Act.
    (b) Limitation.--No natural parent, brother, or sister, if any, of 
Regine Beatie Edwards shall, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007092EN.01000402.xml

| 27.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4591 — Weather Investments/Hellas Telecommunications)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 92/08)

On 4 April 2007, 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:

| — | 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 32007M4591. 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 32007M4591. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2006331EN.01005101.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/51

---

(2006/C 331/113)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

Past publications

OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2006194EN.01004001.xml

| 18.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/40

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No. COMP/M.4207 — Campina/Fonterra Co-operative Group/JV)

(2006/C 194/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 02/06/2006, 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 English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site 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 32006M4207. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4207. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Articulation (Education)Curriculum DesignHigher EducationHolistic ApproachIntegrated CurriculumInterdisciplinary ApproachLearningLearning ExperienceLearning ModalitiesThematic ApproachUnified Studies Curriculum

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
### §332. Depositaries of public money; financial agents; security required

All banks or trust companies incorporated by special law or organized under the general laws of any State, which are members of the Federal reserve system, when designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be depositaries of public money, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary; and they may also be employed as financial agents of the Government; and they shall perform all such reasonable duties, as depositaries of public money and financial agents of the Government, as may be required of them. The Secretary of the Treasury shall require of the banks and trust companies thus designated satisfactory security, by the deposit of United States bonds or otherwise, for the safe keeping and prompt payment of the public money deposited with them and for the faithful performance of their duties as financial agents of the Government.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §9 (par.), as added May 7, 1928, ch. 507, 45 Stat. 492.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the fifteenth par. of section 9 of act Dec. 23, 1913, as amended. The fifteenth par. constituted the thirteenth par. of section 9 in 1928 (45 Stat. 492), became the fourteenth par. in 1935 (49 Stat. 704), and became the fifteenth par. in 1950 (64 Stat. 458). For further details, see Codification notes set out under sections 321 and 329a of this title.
H. Res. 612

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 6, 2000.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All

points or order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived. The Conference report shall be considered as read.

SEC. 2. House Resolutions 586, 592, 595, 599, and 600

are laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2007020EN.01001102.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 27 November 2006 — Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-484/06)

(2007/C 20/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the rounding-off of VAT amounts governed solely by national law, or — particularly in view of the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the First Directive (1) and Article 11 A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive and Article 22(3)(b), first sentence, (version as at 1 January 2004) and (5) of the Sixth Directive (2) — is it a matter for Community law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the rounding-off of VAT amounts governed solely by national law, or — particularly in view of the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the First Directive (1) and Article 11 A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive and Article 22(3)(b), first sentence, (version as at 1 January 2004) and (5) of the Sixth Directive (2) — is it a matter for Community law?

1

2

| 2. | If the latter is the case, does it follow from the aforementioned provisions of the Directives that the Member States are required to permit rounding-down per article, even if different transactions are included in one invoice and/or one tax return? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the latter is the case, does it follow from the aforementioned provisions of the Directives that the Member States are required to permit rounding-down per article, even if different transactions are included in one invoice and/or one tax return?

---

(1)  First Council Directive of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 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).

2

---