alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012355EN.01000701.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg)) — DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts

(Case C-380/11) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Tax legislation - Capital tax - Conditions for granting a reduction in capital tax - Situation where a company is no longer liable to capital tax following transfer of its seat to another Member State - Restriction - Justification - Overriding reasons in the public interest)

2012/C 355/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DI. VI. Finanziaria SAPA di Diego della Valle & C.

Applicant:

Defendant: Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Capital tax — National legislation making the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax in the Member State concerned for the next five tax years — Situation where a company is no longer liable for capital tax following the transfer of its seat to another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax for the next five tax years.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

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

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of August TechnologyCorporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2003 fully 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 3, 2003 |                    |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    | /s/ JEFF L. O’DELL |   |
|                    | Jeff L. O’Dell     |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |                    |
|                    |                    |
|                    | /s/ STANLEY D. PIEKOS   |   |
|                    | Stanley D. Piekos       |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |                         |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to August Technology Corporation and will be retained by August Technology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Faun Thai, Respondent, v Mohammad B. Butt et al., Appellants.

[824 NYS2d 131]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated July 13, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*448While we affirm the Supreme Court’s determination we do so on grounds other than those relied upon by that court. The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v*Eyler; 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The defendants’ examining neurologist and orthopedist opined in their respective affirmed medical reports that the plaintiffs cervical range of motion was “normal” and “full,” respectively, yet failed to set forth the objective test or tests performed to support their conclusions *(see Ilardo v New York City Tr. Auth.,*28 AD3d 610, 611 [2006]; *Kelly v Rehfeld,*26 AD3d 469, 470 [2006]; *Nembhard v Delatorre,*16 AD3d 390, 391 [2005]; *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]). On this finding alone the defendants failed to meet their initial prima facie burden. Moreover, the defendants’ motion papers did not adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in her verified bill of particulars, that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident. The defendants’ examining neurologist and orthopedist conducted their independent examinations of the plaintiff over two years after the subject accident. Neither expert related their findings concerning this category of serious injury for the period of time immediately following the accident *(see Volpetti v Yoon Kap,*28 AD3d 750, 751 [2006] ; *Sayers v Hot,*23 AD3d 453, 454 [2005]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiffs papers submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00472-CV

ARC PARKLANE, INC. d/b/a Parklane West Healthcare Center,

Appellant

v.

Arvel SEALS Jr., as Representative of the Estate of Dora Sylvia Lehrman, Deceased

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-10177

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 25, 2015

DISMISSED

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal. Their motion states 

they have agreed to dismiss this appeal so that various actions may be taken in the trial court. 

The parties’ joint motion is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f); Caballero v. Heart of Texas Pizza, L.L.C., 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. 2001) 

(per curiam).

PER CURIAM
1

Filed 6/2 8 /23 P. v. Alford CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or

or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
DELBERT WARREN ALFORD,

Defendant and Appellant. A167027

(Mendocino County Super. Ct. No.

22CR 0 2906)

Defendant Delbert Warren Alford appeals from a judgment and

sentence entered on his no contest plea to one count of failure to register as a

convicted sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 2 90.015, subd. (a).) The court

thereafter imposed the negotiated disposition, sentencing him to a 16

- month

sentence. His appellate counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for

an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any

issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or

modification of the judgment. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a

supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon independent review of the

record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm.

Penal Code s ection 1237.5 generally precludes an app eal from a

judgment of conviction after a plea of no c ontest or guilty unless the

defendant has applied for, and the trial court has granted, a certificate of2

probable cause. There are two exceptions: (1) a challenge to a search and

seizure ruling, as to which an appeal is proper under Penal Code section

153 8.5, subdivision (m); and (2) post

- plea sentencing issues. ( People v.

Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th

773, 780.) Defendant requested

, but was denied a certificate of probable

cause. He did not file a suppressi on motion, and the court made no search

and seizure ruling.

Therefore

, our review is of the post

- plea record. It shows defendant

was ably represented by counsel. Defendant completed and executed a

written felony plea form. The court determined defendan t’s no contest plea

was knowingly and intelligently made . There was no abuse of discretion in

sentencing, and the court sentenced defendant in accordance with the

negotiated disposition. (See People v. Tang (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 669, 679

[“ ‘ “severity o f the sentence and the placing of defendant on probation rest in

the sound discretion of the trial court” ’ ”].) The court properly ordered

custody credits and imposed fines and fees.

After a review of the record, we find no arguable issues and affirm the

judgment.3 _________________________ Banke, J.

We concur:

_________________________ Humes, P.J.

_________________________ 

### Bowen, J. *

* Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

A167027, People v. Alford
### §2403. Congressional declaration of policy

#### (a) Stimulation of high rate of productivity growth

The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of productivity on the interrelations of all components of the national economy, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, to stimulate a high rate of productivity growth.

#### (b) Improvement and coordination of Federal plans to carry out policy

It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter.

#### (c) Interpretation of laws, rules, etc., to carry out policy

The laws, rules, regulations, and policies of the United States shall be so interpreted as to give full force and effect to this policy.

(Pub. L. 94–136, title I, §103, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 734.)
#### § 381.191 Distribution of inspected products to small lot buyers.

For the purpose of facilitating the distribution in commerce of inspected poultry products to small lot buyers (such as small restaurants), distributors or jobbers may remove inspected and passed non-consumer-packaged poultry carcasses or consumer-packaged poultry products from shipping containers or immediate containers, other than consumer packages, and place them into other containers which do not bear an official inspection mark: *Provided,* That the individual non-consumer-packaged carcasses bear the official inspection legend and the official establishment number of the establishment that processed the articles; and the consumer-packaged articles are fully labeled in accordance with subpart N: *And provided further,* That the other container is marked with the name and address of the distributor or jobber and bears the statement “The poultry product contained herein was inspected by the U.S.D.A.” in the case of poultry products processed in the United States, or the statement “The poultry products contained herein have been approved for importation under P.P.I.A.” in the case of imported poultry products.
### §1359. Advisory councils for technical services; appointment; functions; compensation and expenses

Each designated agency shall appoint an advisory council for technical services, the members of which shall represent broad community interests and shall be qualified to evaluate programs submitted under section 1354 of this title. The advisory council shall review each annual program, evaluate its relation to the purposes of this chapter, and report its findings to the designated agency and the Governor or his designee. Each report of each advisory council shall be available to the Secretary on request. Members of any such advisory council shall not be compensated for serving as such, but may be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred by them in connection with attending meetings of any advisory council of which they are members.

(Pub. L. 89–182, §9, Sept. 14, 1965, 79 Stat. 682.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Termination of Advisory Councils

Advisory councils in existence on Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period following Jan. 5, 1973, unless, in the case of a council established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such council is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a council established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. See sections 1001(2) and 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Local and Regional Healthy Food Financing Partnerships Grants

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative

What does this program do? 

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) provides loans, grants, and technical assistance 

resources to improve and support access to fresh, healthy, affordable food in urban and rural 

underserved communities. HFFI is using additional USDA-allocated American Rescue Plan Act 

(ARPA - available at this link: https://www.usda.gov/arp) resources to expand its services and 

reach. With an additional $30 million in available grants, the Local and Regional Healthy Food 

Financing Partnerships Program – which focuses on improving access to capital and capacity 

building – is the first funding opportunity available under this expanded initiative. 

What is an eligible area? 

• Those in USDA’s Low Income, Low Access census tracts (information is available at this link: 

https://tinyurl.com/b8v6ejd2)

• Census tracts adjacent to USDA’s Low Income, Low Access census tracts, with median 

family incomes equal to – or less than – 120 percent of the area median family income

• Census Block Groups in Limited Supermarket Access (LSA) areas meeting one or more 

additional distress criteria

When used in conjunction with additional distress criteria, other measures of limited access to 

supermarkets or grocery stores adopted for use by local governments or philanthropic healthy food 

initiatives can also be used to determine eligibility. For help determining if your project is in an 

eligible area, email help@investinginfood.com.

Who can apply? 

• State, local, Tribal governments and their agencies

• Nonprofit organizations

• Cooperative businesses

• For-profit businesses

 
NOTE: Because information changes, always consult official program instructions or contact your local Rural 

Development office for help. A list is available at this link: https://go.usa.gov/xJHPE. You will find additional 

resources, forms, and program information at https://rd.usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

How can funds be used? 

• Support new or existing partnerships, such as state or local food funds or financing programs

• Explore, establish, or grow a healthy food financing fund for underserved communities

• Increase internal and external capacity building

• Identify and improve access to seed capital

What are some of the grant terms? 

• HFFI Partnerships Program grants range from $200,000 to $3 million

How do we get started? 

HFFI is a public-private partnership administered on behalf of USDA Rural Development by 

Reinvestment Fund (information is available at this link: https://www.investinginfood.com) – a 

Community Development Financial Institution. For additional information, email 

help@investinginfood.com. 

What governs this program? 

HFFI was first authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill and reauthorized in the 2018 Farm Bill (information 

available at this link: https://www.usda.gov/farmbill). 

This QR code takes you to our 

partners at www.investinginfood.com.
### §330b. Duties of Secretary

#### (a) Records, maintenance; summaries, publication

The Secretary shall maintain a record of weather modification activities, including attempts, which take place in the United States and shall publish summaries thereof from time to time as he determines.

#### (b) Public availability of reports, documents, and other information

All reports, documents, and other information received by the Secretary under the provisions of this chapter shall be made available to the public to the fullest practicable extent.

#### (c) Disclosure of confidential information; prohibition; exceptions

In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary shall not disclose any information referred to in section 1905 of title 18 and is otherwise unavailable to the public, except that such information shall be disclosed—

(1) to other Federal Government departments, agencies, and officials for official use upon request;

(2) in any judicial proceeding under court order formulated to preserve the confidentiality of such information without impairing the proceeding; and

(3) to the public if necessary to protect their health and safety.

(Pub. L. 92–205, §3, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 736.)
### §238. Penalty for selling in barrels not marked

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale lime imported in barrels from a foreign country, or to sell or offer for sale lime in barrels for shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, unless there shall be stenciled or otherwise clearly marked on one or both heads of the small barrel the figures "180 lbs. net" and of the large barrel the figures "280 lbs. net" before the importation or shipment, and on either barrel in addition the name of the manufacturer of the lime and where manufactured, and, if imported, the name of the country from which it is imported.

(Aug. 23, 1916, ch. 396, §2, 39 Stat. 530.)
From: Karen Hays [Karen.Hays@dnr.state.ga.us]

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:00 PM

To: Adams, Lucy H.

Subject: Fwd: Attached Image

Attachments: Attached Image

Here's the information we discussed. If you want additional information 

concerning these tests, you may wish to contact Ross Winne, Manager, 

Industrial Source Monitoring Program at 404-363-7141.

Karen Hays, P.E.

Manager, Stationary Source Compliance Program Air Protection Branch Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division

4244 International Parkway, Suite 120

Atlanta, GA 30354

Phone (404) 363-7115

Fax (404) 363-7100

Page 1
Exhibit 32.3


                    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection  with this Annual Report of Frontline Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Inger M. Klemp,  the  Principal  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 results of operations
          of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: June 30, 2006

/s/ Inger M. Klemp
------------------------
Inger M. Klemp
Chief Financial Officer
### Justification for the generic name:

If the chemical structure is identified from the name shown in the PMN, there is a risk to potentially suffer harm to commercial interests which would reduce the competitiveness of the business for this substance. We believe that the proposed masked name, where the substitution position and the alkyl group are masked, provides enough information for the basic structure of this substance to be identified and for its hazardous to be assessed.