alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013141EN.01000701.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v Ablessio SIA

(Case C-527/11) (1)

1

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 213, 214 and 273 - Identification of taxable persons subject to VAT - Refusal to assign a VAT identification number on the ground that the taxable person is not in possession of the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the declared economic activity - Legality - Countering tax evasion - Principle of proportionality)

2013/C 141/10

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Applicant:

Defendant: Ablessio SIA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 214 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 273 of that directive — National legislation providing the possibility to refuse registration on the register of taxable persons identified for VAT purposes if the taxable person does not provide information or provides false information concerning his material, technical and financial capacity to carry out the declared economic activity — Refusal to register a company on the register of taxable persons identified for VAT purposes on the ground that it is not able to carry out the declared economic activity.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 213, 214 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the tax authority of a Member State may not refuse to assign a value added tax identification number to a company solely on the ground that, in the opinion of that authority, the company does not have at its disposal the material, technical and financial resources to carry out the economic activity declared, and that the owner of the shares in that company has already obtained, on various occasions, such an identification number for companies which never carried out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred immediately after obtaining the individual number, where the tax authority concerned has not established, on the basis of objective factors, that there is sound evidence leading to the suspicion that the value added tax identification number assigned will be used fraudulently. It is for the referring court to assess whether that tax authority provided serious evidence of the existence of a risk of tax evasion in the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

1

---
#### Jeanne M. Marzullo, Appellant, v General Motors Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[825 NYS2d 492]

In an action to recover damages pursuant to General Business Law § 198-a, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 2, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendant General Motors Corporation to deem her application for an award of a statutory attorney’s fee abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 on the ground that she had failed to settle an order and judgment within 60 days, and denied her cross motion for an extension of time to settle an order and judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to deem the plaintiffs application for an award of a statutory attorney’s fee abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to settle an order and judgment within 60 days. The plaintiff set forth a valid excuse for the short delay, the plaintiff’s actions were devoid of any intent to abandon her claim, and the record evinces a lack of prejudice to the respondent *(see*CPLR 2005; *Lawton v Lawton,*239 AD2d 866 [1997]; *Parisi v McElhatton,*209 AD2d 495 [1994]; *Levine v Levine,*179 AD2d 625 [1992]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 710 

To exempt firefighters and police officers from the Government Pension 

Offset and Windfall Elimination Provisions under the Social Security Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Mr. TOOMEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To exempt firefighters and police officers from the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provisions 

under the Social Security Act. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fair5 ness for Firefighters and Police Officers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FROM GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET 

7 PROVISION FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE 

8 OFFICERS. 

9 Clause (i) of section 202(k)(5)(B) of the Social Secu10 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)(5)(B)) is amended by striking 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 710 IS

1 ‘‘monthly periodic benefits’’ and all that follows through 

2 the period and inserting the following: ‘‘monthly periodic 

3 benefits— 

4 ‘‘(I) based wholly on service as a member of a uni5 formed service (as defined in section 210(m)), or 

6 ‘‘(II) with respect to which the period of service taken 

7 into account in determining the amount of the benefit in8 cludes at least 5 years of service of the individual as a 

9 firefighter (as defined in paragraph (4) of section 1204 

10 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

11 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284)) or a law enforcement officer (as 

12 defined in paragraph (6) of such section).’’. 

13 SEC. 3. EXCEPTION FROM WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVI14 SIONS FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFI15 CERS. 

16 Subsections (a)(7)(A) and (d)(3) of section 215 of the 

17 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415) are amended by strik18 ing ‘‘section 233, and (III)’’ each place it appears and in19 serting ‘‘section 233, (III) a payment based on service de20 scribed in section 202(k)(5)(B)(i)(II), and (IV)’’. 

21 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

22 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

23 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

24 II of the Social Security Act for months after December 

25 2019. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social SecuVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:04 Mar 18, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S710.IS S710

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 710 IS

1 rity Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust 

2 primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take 

3 into account the amendments made by section 3. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2009-NM-234-AD
Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? YES () explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Isthe AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number ofsmall entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is

### itappropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
PRIVATE LAW 111–2—DEC. 22, 2010 

Private Law 111–2 

111th Congress 

An Act 

For the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR HOTARU NAKAMA 

FERSCHKE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Hotaru Nakama 

Ferschke shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or 

for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance 

of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

of status to lawful permanent resident. 

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Hotaru Nakama Ferschke 

enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 

subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained 

lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 

of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance 

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status 

is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the 

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Hotaru 

Nakama Ferschke, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 

officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal 

year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

of the country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such 

Act. 

(e) PAYGO.—The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose 

of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 

be determined by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary 

Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing 

in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget 

Dec. 22, 2010 

[S. 1774] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
PRIVATE LAW 111–2—DEC. 22, 2010 

Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Approved December 22, 2010. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
# C_2007056EN.01003402.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/34

---

Action brought on 4 January 2007 — Torres v OHIM–Gala-Salvador Dalí (TG Torre Galatea)

(Case T-8/07)

(2007/C 56/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M.A Baz de San Ceferino, and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 24 October 2006 in case R 168/2006-2 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 24 October 2006 in case R 168/2006-2

| — | Order expressly that the Office pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order expressly that the Office pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dalí

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TG Torre Galatea’ for goods in Class 33 (application No 2730513)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘TORRES 10’ for goods in Class 33 (No 466896) and numerous other Community, national and international trade marks

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark refused

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld, annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion of the conflicting marks

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trademark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Cohall, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 903]

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered July 26, 2005, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree under indictment No. 05-251, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same *827court also rendered July 26, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 02-27.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
### §715h. Hearings and investigation by boards; appointment of board and employees

#### (a) Hearings

Any board established under authority of section 715d of this title, and any agency designated under authority of section 715j of this title, may hold and conduct such hearings, investigations, and proceedings as may be necessary for the purposes of this chapter, and for such purposes those provisions of section 78u of this title relating to the administering of oaths and affirmations, and to the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence (including penalties), shall apply.

#### (b) Appointments

The members of any board established under authority of section 715d of this title shall be appointed by the President, subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5; and any such board may appoint, subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, such employees as may be necessary for the execution of its functions under this chapter.

(Feb. 22, 1935, ch. 18, §9, 49 Stat. 33; Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, title XI, §1106(a), 63 Stat. 972.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Provisions of subsec. (b) that authorized appointments "without regard to the civil service laws" omitted as obsolete and superseded. Such appointments are now subject to the civil service laws unless specifically excepted by those laws or by laws enacted subsequent to Executive Order 8743, Apr. 23, 1941, issued by the President pursuant to the Act of Nov. 26, 1940, ch. 919, title I, §1, 54 Stat. 1211, which covered most excepted positions into the classified (competitive) civil service. The Order is set out as a note under section 3301 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

"Chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5" substituted in subsec. (b) for "the Classification Act of 1949, as amended" on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5.

#### Amendments

1949—Subsec. (b). Act Oct. 28, 1949, substituted "Classification Act of 1949" for "Classification Act of 1923".

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

#### Repeals

Act Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, cited as a credit to this section, was repealed (subject to a savings clause) by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, §8, 80 Stat. 632, 655.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 of Financial SecurityAssurance Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert P. Cochran,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies 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.
|        | By:    | /s/ ROBERT P. COCHRAN    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |   | March 28,  2006     |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

1

----
### §1178. Nonapplicability of chapter to certain machines and devices

None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to apply—

(1) to any machine or mechanical device designed and manufactured primarily for use at a racetrack in connection with parimutuel betting,

(2) to any machine or mechanical device, such as a coin-operated bowling alley, shuffleboard, marble machine (a so-called pinball machine), or mechanical gun, which is not designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling, and (A) which when operated does not deliver, as a result of the application of an element of chance, any money or property, or (B) by the operation of which a person may not become entitled to receive, as the result of the application of an element of chance, any money or property, or

(3) to any so-called claw, crane, or digger machine and similar devices which are not operated by coin, are actuated by a crank, and are designed and manufactured primarily for use at carnivals or county or State fairs.

(Jan. 2, 1951, ch. 1194, §9, as added Pub. L. 87–840, §6, Oct. 18, 1962, 76 Stat. 1077.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on sixtieth day after Oct. 18, 1962, see section 7 of Pub. L. 87–840, set out as an Effective Date of 1962 Amendment note under section 1171 of this title.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Neat Home Investors, LLC, Ignacio Flores, and Leticia

Ramirez v. Frank Grande and Suzan Grande d/b/a CJ Properties

Appel la te case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 334

- CV

Trial court case number: CI55015

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 and Probate Court of Brazoria County

Appellant s

, Neat Home Investors, LLC, Ignacio Flores, and Leticia Ramirez , have filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s April 5, 2017 final judgment and have filed their appellants’ brief. The brief of appellees, Frank Grande and Suzan Grande d/b/a CJ Properties , was due on September 11 , 201 7 . Appellees, represen ting that the parties have
reached a settlement, twice moved for an extension of time to file their brief. We granted appellees’ motions and extended the time to file their brief to January 9, 2018. On January 30, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that, unless they filed a motion to dispose of the appeal, notified the Court of the status of the settlement proceedings, or demonstrated that a live controversy as to the merits of the appeal existed, the Court might dismiss the appeal. Appellees responded by fil ing a third agreed

motion to extend the time to file their brief

. In their motion, appellees state that “[t]he parties have settled this matter and have a si gned Rule 11 amongst the attorneys” but

indicate that the settlement is not finalized

. Accordingly, we abate the appeal. Unless the parties file, within 30 days of the
date of this order, a motion to reinstate and dismiss or otherwise dispose of the appea l

, a report advis ing the Court of the status of the settlement proceedings , or a response
demonstrat ing that a live controversy as to the merits of the appeal exists, the appeal may

be reinstated and dismissed without further notice

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s

active docket.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry J e nnings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 22, 2018
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Gouverneur Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard F. Bennett, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by
                  the Report.


February 8, 2008                       By: /s/ Richard F. Bennett
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard F. Bennett
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer




                                       26
#### § 2.52 Suspension of rate schedules.

The interpretation stated in § 2.4 applies as well to the suspension of rate schedules under section 4 of the Natural Gas Act.

(Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717-717w (1976 & Supp. IV 1980); Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-828c (1976 & Supp. IV 1980); Dept. of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352 (Supp. IV 1980); E.O. 12009, 3 CFR part 142 (1978); 5 U.S.C. 553 (1976))

[Order 303, 48 FR 24361, June 1, 1983]