alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01000301.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-462/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Admissibility - Res judicata - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(5), first subparagraph, Article 12(3)(a) and Article 28(2)(e))

Res judicata

(2008/C 209/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 12 and 28 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) — Maintaining in force a reduced rate of 5 % on tolls on road crossings of the river Tagus in Lisbon

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining in force a reduced rate of value added tax of 5 % applicable to road tolls for crossing the Tagus at Lisbon, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28 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 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force a reduced rate of value added tax of 5 % applicable to road tolls for crossing the Tagus at Lisbon, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28 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 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001;

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

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
### §1632. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title VII, §7303, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 455

Section, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1436, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1558, related to market expansion research.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John S. Chen, certify that:


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

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue 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 other financial
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 and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that 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 controls
and 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 changes in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls 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
controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 14, 2004

                                                /s/  JOHN S. CHEN
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                   John S. Chen
                                      Chief Executive Officer and President
#### Alice Watson, appellant, v. George LaFollette and J. H. Savage, appellees.

Gen. No. 7,415.

Action for false imprisonment. Judgment for defendants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 27, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 28, 1925.

Joseph Storey, Charles C. Dickman and Henry J. Ingram, for appellant.

Seholes & Pratt, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
SCWC

- 18

- 0000 437

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

STATE OF H AWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

FRED SILVA III, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 18

- 0000 437; CR. NO. 1PC151000197)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, J J.)

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant Fred Silva III’s

Ap plication for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 4, 2022 , is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, June 13 , 202 2

.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000437 13-JUN-2022 12:20 PM Dkt. 5 ODAC
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00058-CR
Jer maud Des mond Bennett, Appell ant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 20,206-CR, HONORABLE JACK HAMPTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
A j ur y f oun d a pp el l an t Je rm aud D esmon d B en

n ett gui l ty of possessi ng less than

four gr ams of c ocai

ne wi th i nten t to deli ver. See Tex. Heal

th & Saf ety Code An

n. § 4 81.112 (a), (c) (West Supp. 2002). The jury assess ed puni shm

ent, enhan

ced b y a previ

ous fel ony c onviction, at impr iso nme nt fo rfo r t y-fiv e ye ar s a nd a $ 10 , 00 0 fin e. We will a ffir m.

Appell ant’s firs t an d s ec o nd po int s o f er r o ras se r t vio lat io ns o f ar t icle V, sec t ion 7 of t he Te xas Co nst itu t ion. That section provides that a district court “sh al l c onduct its proceedin

gs at t he county seat

of t he coun

ty i n w hi ch the c ase i s pendi ng, except as otherw

ise provided by law. He sha ll ho ld t he r eg ula rt er ms o f his C o ur t at t he Co un t y Se at o f ea ch Co un t y in his dis t r ict in suc h ma nne r as may be presc

ribed by law .” Tex . Cons t. art. V, § 7 (em

pha si s ad ded). The seat of Mi

la m Coun ty i s Ca meron, b ut appe l l an

t’s trial washe l d i

n R ockdal e. The com m i ss i one rs cou rt i n c oun ti eswi th a pop ula t io n o f le ss than 30,000 “ ma y pr ovid e fo r, op er at e, and maint ain a b ra n ch cou rth ous e ou tsi de th e c oun ty seat .” T ex. Lo c. Go v’t1 Th e p opul ati on of Mi l am Cou n ty acc ordi ng to the 2000 c en sus

i s 24,2 38. Texas Almanac at 232 (2 001). 2 Code A nn . § 292.0 231(b) (We st 1999 ). 1 “O n a pprov al of the com

m i ssi oners court. . . a court

. . . ma y . . . con du ct a n y f un cti on at the bra nch co ur t hou se t hat [it ] is au t hor ized t o c ond uct at t he cour thou se located i

nsi de the county sea

t.” Id . § 292.0231(d). On Decem ber 22, 1995, t he Mi

la m Cou n ty Com m i ssi oners ’ Cour

t de sig na t ed t he Ro ge rHa she m Ju ve nile J us t ice Ce nt er in Ro ck da le as a br an ch cou rtho use and app roved

i ts use as a bra nch c ourthouse

by the 2 0th Di

stri ct Court. See Te x. R. Evi d. 20 4 (

jud icia l no t ice o f co un t y o r din an ce s) . No vio lat io n o f ar t icle V, se ct io n 7 is shown. Poi

nts of error one and two are ov errul

ed. In h i s th i rd poi n t of er ror, appe l l an

t as se rtsth at th e c ourt shoul d have suppressed evi dence se ize d a s a r es ult of a n unlawfu l sear ch. Appe llantdo es no t spe cify the evide nce in qu est ion, butwe as su me h e r ef er s to the cocain e fo un d d ur ing t he se ar ch inc ide nt t o his a r r es t fo rpu blic into xicat ion. Appell

ant did not move to suppress t hi s evidence and di d not ot herwise ob j ec t to i ts adm i ssi on. No err

or is pres en ted. See Tex . R. A

pp. P. 33 .1; Te

x. R . Evi d. 103( a). The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: March 21, 20023

Publish
#### § 2400.18 Declassification and downgrading authority.

Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving the same position; the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing by the Director, OSTP. The Executive Director, OSTP shall maintain a current listing of persons or positions receiving those delegations. If possible, these listings shall be unclassified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           125,086
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         402
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 125,488
<CASH>                                          10,353
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              13,402
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,305
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 92,417
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             14,461
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  9,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,305
<PREMIUMS>                                      56,135
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              7,134
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,479
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     315
<BENEFITS>                                      44,679
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      8,804
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             4,619
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,585
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,376
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,376
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F1>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Available on an annual basis only.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 585.207-585.209 [Reserved]
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

46) IV-E-34 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:29 AM Sheet 46 of 105 
P.2 

A-83-27 

IV-E-34 

CORPORATION 

TELEPHONE CALL REPORT - INDUSTRIAL BOILER S02 

DATE: April 7, 1987 

TO: Al Arkett 

Babcock & Wilcox 

20 S. Van Buren Avenue 

Barberton, OH 44203 

(216) 753-5411 

FROM: J.A. Elliott 

SUBJECT: B & W FBC unit at Lauhoff Grain 

Mr. Arkett provided the following information: 

o Lauhoff Grain (Danville, IL) 

- One unit at 19 MW 

- Projected to start up in December 1988 

- Circulating bed 

- Will burn Midwest bituminous coal with 2 to 3% sulfur content 

- Subject to Illinois EPA regulation 

- Design Ca:S ratio not available 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13000/Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27709/(919)541-9100
Exhibit 3.3


                           AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE BYLAWS


           RESOLVED, that the first paragraph of Article XV of the Company's
           bylaws be amended as follows:

               "The chairman of the board shall be the chief executive
               officer of the Corporation and shall have general charge and
               supervision of the business of the Corporation, and shall
               preside at all meetings of the stockholders and of the board
               of directors at which he is present, except as otherwise voted
               by the board of directors."

          RESOLVED, that the second paragraph of Article XV of the Company's
          bylaws be amended as follows:

               "The President shall have such duties and powers as shall be
               designated from time to time by the board of directors. In the
               absence of the chairman of the board, the president shall
               preside at all meetings of the stockholders and of the board
               of directors at which he is present, except as otherwise voted
               by the board of directors."
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

UNILOC 2017 LLC, Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., Cross

- Appellant

HTC CORP., HTC AMERICA, INC., Appellees

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor

______________________

2020

- 1306, 2020

- 1317, 2020

- 1326

__________________ ____
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2018

- 00424, IPR2018

- 01028, IPR2018

- 01631, IPR2018

- 01653.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________ Case: 20-1306 Document: 93 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2021J EFFREY A. S TEPHENS
, Etheridge Law Group, Southlake, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by J AMES E THERIDGE
, R YAN S. L OVELESS
, B RETT M ANGRUM

.

E LIZABETH M OULTON
, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for cross

- appellant and appellees. Cross

- appellant also represented by M ELANIE L. B OSTWICK
, B ENJAMIN P AUL C HAGNON
, M ARK S. D AVIES
, Washington, DC.

F RED W ILLIAMS , Williams Simons & Landis PLLC, Austin, TX, for appellees. Also represented by T ODD E RIC L ANDIS , Dallas, TX.

R OBERT M C B RIDE , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandr ia, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE
, F ARHEENA Y

ASMEEN R ASHEED
, M OLLY R. S ILFEN

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK
, M AYER
, and H UGHES
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 10, 2021 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-1306 Document: 93 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2021
Meeting Summary:

 On March 26, 2014, Miles McEvoy (NOP Deputy Administrator) and Melissa Bailey (NOP Standards Division Director) had a phone call with Mr. Drew Norman of One Straw Farm.  Mr. Norman inquired about whether his farm could be certified organic before the final rule (NOP
- 13 -01) addressing biodegradable biobased mulch films is published. In particular, he inquired whether stopping use of Biodegradable Mulch until it is allowed b y this rulemaking action would affect his ability to receive organic certification.  Mr. McEvoy reiterated that this type of mulch is not currently allowed and advised Mr. Norman to hold off submitting his certification application until the final rule is published. Mr. McEvoy explained that after a final rule is published a certifying agent would need to review any his current use of this mulch to determine whether it complies with any allowance on National List. Mr. McEvoy advised that, as long as the mat erials used comply with the National List when certifying agent considers the application, the operation could be eligible for organic certification at that time.
#### § 240.1 Purpose.

This part implements policy, responsibilities and procedures for executing the DoD Information Assurance Scholarship Program (IASP).
§ 635.7 Collection of deoxyribonucleic acid. ( a ) Army Law Enforcement (LE) personnel will collect deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) pursuant to DoDI 5505.14 (available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/550514p.pdf*), DNA Collection Requirements for Criminal Investigations. Per this subpart, a sample of an individual's DNA is to allow for positive identification and to provide or generate evidence to solve crimes through database searches of potentially matching samples. DNA samples will not be collected from juveniles.
( b ) Army LE personnel will obtain a DNA sample from a civilian in their control at the point it is determined there is probable cause to believe the detained person violated a Federal statute equivalent to the offenses identified in DoDI 5505.11 (available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/550511p.pdf*), Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements, and 32 CFR part 310, Department of Defense Privacy Program, except for the listed violations that are exclusively military offenses. For the purposes of this rule, DNA shall be taken from all civilian drug offenders, except those who are arrested or detained for the offenses of simple possession and personal use. ( 1 ) When Army LE personnel make a probable cause determination concerning a civilian not in their control, Army LE personnel are not required to collect DNA samples. Likewise, Army LE personnel are not required to obtain DNA samples when another LE agency has, or will, obtain the DNA.
( 2 ) Army LE personnel will use the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL) DNA kit which includes a DNA sample card and the USACIL DNA database collection eform. Army LE personnel will forward civilian DNA samples to the USACIL. Army LE personnel will document, in the appropriate case file, when civilian LE agencies handle any aspect of the DNA processing and whether the civilian LE agency forwarded the DNA sample to the FBI laboratory.
( c ) DoD Instruction 5505.14 (available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/550514p.pdf*) details the procedures former Soldiers and civilians must follow to request expungement of their DNA records. Former Soldiers and civilians from whom DNA samples have been taken, but who were not convicted of any offense giving rise to the collection of DNA, do not submit requests to have their DNA record expunged through installation PMO/DES channels. To request expungement of DNA records for civilians pursuant to Sections 14132 of title 42, United States Code, the requestor or legal representative must submit a written request to: FBI, Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135, Attention: Federal Convicted Offender Program Manager.
H. Res. 1470 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 20, 2024. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF JURISDICTION OF THE TASK FORCE 

ON THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF DONALD 

J. TRUMP. 

Section 2(a)(1) of House Resolution 1367, One Hundred 

Eighteenth Congress, is amended by inserting ‘‘and on September 15, 2024 in West Palm Beach, Florida’’ after ‘‘Pennsylvania’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.