alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014439EN.01002001.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 15 September 2014 — Fazenda Pública v Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA

(Case C-423/14)

(2014/C 439/26)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública

Applicant:

Defendant: Beiragás — Companhia de Gás das Beiras SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law, and in particular the provisions of Article 78(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1), preclude ... the land use tax paid by the gas distributor from being passed on to the final consumer, without interest or other charges and regardless of the price that the consumer pays for the gas consumed, that is, without being incorporated in that price?
  If the answer to that question is negative, the following question is referred for a preliminary ruling: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law, and in particular the provisions of Article 78(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1), preclude ... the land use tax paid by the gas distributor from being passed on to the final consumer, without interest or other charges and regardless of the price that the consumer pays for the gas consumed, that is, without being incorporated in that price?

1

If the answer to that question is negative, the following question is referred for a preliminary ruling:

| 2. | Does EU law, and in particular the provisions of Articles 73 to 79 of Directive 2006/112/EC, preclude ... the land use tax paid by the gas distributor, when it is passed on to the final consumer, without interest or other charges and regardless of the price that the consumer pays for the gas consumed, from being considered as a taxable amount [for the purposes of VAT]? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law, and in particular the provisions of Articles 73 to 79 of Directive 2006/112/EC, preclude ... the land use tax paid by the gas distributor, when it is passed on to the final consumer, without interest or other charges and regardless of the price that the consumer pays for the gas consumed, from being considered as a taxable amount [for the purposes of VAT]?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.3107 Carbazole violet. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive is carbazole violet (Pigment Violet 23) (CAS Reg. No. 6358-30-1, Colour Index No. 51319).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) The substance listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a color additive in contact lenses in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended coloring effect.
( 2 ) Authorization for this use shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) with respect to the contact lens in which the color additive is used.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore the color additive is exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[53 FR 41324, Oct. 21, 1988]
# C_2014361EN.01002801.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/28

---

Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

(Case T-635/14)

2014/C 361/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2014 given in Case R 1974/2013-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2014 given in Case R 1974/2013-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘URB’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 35, 37 and 39-42 — the Community trade mark No 8 6 56  605

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and relative grounds for invalidity under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) CTMR, Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR and Article 53(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJerseyAve., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 "•:'.'·' lUlJ


### Petition for Exemption Under14CFR 

### § 11.81 toAtlowCommercial Use ofUnmannedAircraft Systems

Petitioner: William 

### J. Powless PO Box456 207- S.-Perry St.

....... Medora, Indiana 47260 Tel. 812.966.0079 Cell. 812.216.6469 Email: BikerBill63@comcast.net

Sections William J. Powless seeking relief: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012, PL 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333, 14 CFR Part21, subpart H, 14 CFR Part 61.113(a} and (b), 14 CFT Part 91: 91.103(b)(2), 91,105, 91.109, 91.119; 91.121,91:151, 1.405, 91.401, 91.409,91.417 

### 1, William J. Powless, am seeking exemption in orderto operate small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) for commercial purposes and to complywith FAA regulations. · · Commercial purposes include: aerial videography and photography services, agriculture surveying, search and rescue assistance, real estate, cinematography, corporate videos, sporting events, and special events. The use ofsUAS technology forthese commercial purposes positively effectthe public interest. Human life is not required on board sUAS reducing risk ofmanned aircraft accidents, environment emissions are reduced, and new markets are emerging increasing local economies. · sUAS aircraft used in these commercial operations will be the DJI Phantom3 Advanced. The DJI Phantom3 Advanced weighs less than 55 pounds, has GPS abilities, and is acommon aircraft used in similarexempt businesses. The aircraft\will be registered in accordance with 14 CFR Part48 and not used for commercial purposesuntil after March 31, 2016. !,William J. Powless, will require maintenance and inspections to be performed based on the requirements afthe manufacturerta maintain airworthiness, All repair atld maintenance will be performed by qualified personnel. I, William J Powless,wish to be a·good steward ofthis emerging technology and will require sUAS training and test flights ofaU Pilots in Command (PIC) beforeany commercial flight, and will conduct all flights inaccordance with the FAA standards and regulations set forth bythe exemption ifgranted.I, William J. Powless, respectfully request that the FAA grant its exemption within it's authority pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act, 85 P.L. 726 (1958).
Respectfully,

# !d~ PO Box456 207 S. Perry St. Medora, Indiana 47260 Submitted December21, 2015



# ..............

# n.~..**--------------------~~**
38965.

#### CROCKER v. THE STATE.

Frankum, Judge.

There was evidence adduced upon the trial that the Sheriff of Stewart County, together with two State revenue agents, raided an illegal distillery which was located between one-fourth and one-half mile back of James Crocker’s house; that a road led from the distillery by his house to a *659highway; that there .was a fire under the still; that five 60-gallon barrels of fermented, alcoholic and intoxicating mash were at the distillery; that the defendant, James Crocker and his brother, Isaac Crocker, were at the distillery; that J ames Crocker’s track which had a dram of water on it was at the distillery; that water is used in the manufacture of liquors to cool the condenser of the still and to make mash; that there was no branch or creek near the distillery; that the distillery was located in a dry gully; that on the approach of the officers Isaac Crocker ran; that James Crocker turned to run but stopped on the command of the sheriff, and said: “There ain’t no use to ran when you are caught”; that James Crocker freely and voluntarily admitted hauling water to the distillery to make mash; that James Crocker “was wet. . . up to his knees . . . with water,” and that “it was an open fair day.” The defendant’s brother, Isaac Crocker, testified that he operated the distillery; that he had bdrrowed the defendant’s track to haul water; that the defendant had nothing to do with the operation of the distillery, and that the defendant had not hauled the water found on the truck to the distillery. The defendant, in an unsworn statement, said that his brother had borrowed his truck,, and when he had not returned the truck, he, the defendant, began looking for it; that he followed the truck’s tracks until he came upon the distillery and that he was talking^to 'his brother when the officers came to the distillery. *Held:*

Decided October. 17, 1961.

*Carlton S. Brown,*for plaintiff in error.

*Stephen Pace, Jr., Solicitor-General,*contra.

The conviction of the defendant of making intoxicating liquors was authorized by the evidence. *Code*§ 58-206. *Lindsay v. State,*32 Ga. App. 74 (122 SE 649); *Bailey v. State,*44 Ga. App. 564 (162 SE 154); *Chester v. State,*74 Ga. App. 667 (41 SE2d 162).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Exhibit 13.2











FERRARI N.V.


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Alessandro Gili, Chief Financial Officer of Ferrari N.V. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, to which this statement is furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










Date: March 3, 2017By:/s/ Alessandro GiliAlessandro GiliChief Financial Officer











A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Ferrari N.V. and will be retained by Ferrari N.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2014253EN.01005802.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/58

---

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Superficies de Alimentación v Commission

(Case T-433/14)

2014/C 253/79

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Superficies de Alimentación, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---
Opinion issued January 28, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00 926
- CV

——————————— ELIJAH SMITH , Appellant

V. BIG BASS RESORT , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1037700

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Elijah Smith , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1 ; see also
T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § § 51.207 , 51.941(a) , 101.041 ( West 201 3 ); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of2

Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket
No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX
. R. A PP
. P . app. A § B(1)

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 , 42.3(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees

. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.
#### § 1.1021-1 Sale of annuities.

In the case of a transfer for value of an annuity contract to which section 72(g) and paragraph (a) of § 1.72-10 apply, the transferor shall adjust his basis in such contract as of the time immediately prior to such transfer by subtracting from the premiums or other consideration he has paid or is deemed to have paid for such contract all amounts he has received or is deemed to have received under such annuity contract to the extent that such amounts were not includible in the gross income of the transferor or other recipient under the applicable income tax law. In any case where the amounts which were not includible in the gross income of the recipient were received or deemed to have been received by such transferor exceed the amounts paid or deemed paid by him, the adjusted basis of the contract shall be zero. The income realized by the transferor on such a transfer shall not exceed the total of the amounts received as consideration for the transfer.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3120 Ankle joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An ankle joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace an ankle joint. The device limits minimally (less than normal anatomic constraints) translation in one or more planes. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a tibial component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a talar component made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, and is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any ankle joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996, been found to be substantially equivalent to an ankle joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other ankle joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 50709, Sept. 27, 1996]
§ 522.1410 Methylprednisolone. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of suspension contains 20 or 40 milligrams (mg) of methylprednisolone acetate.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 054771 and 069043 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 2 to 40 mg (up to 120 mg in extremely large breeds or dogs with severe involvement) by intramuscular injection or up to 20 mg by intrasynovial injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For treatment of inflammation and related disorders; treatment of allergic and dermatologic disorders; and as supportive therapy to antibacterial treatment of severe infections.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 10 to 20 mg by intramuscular injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For treatment of inflammation and related disorders; treatment of allergic and dermatologic disorders; and as supportive therapy to antibacterial treatment of severe infections.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 3 ) *Horses* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 200 mg by intramuscular injection or 40 to 240 mg by intrasynovial injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For treatment of inflammation and related disorders.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[43 FR 59058, Dec. 19, 1978, as amended at 51 FR 741, Jan. 8, 1986; 53 FR 40728, Oct. 18, 1988; 62 FR 35076, June 30, 1997; 76 FR 53051, Aug. 25, 2011; 78 FR 21060, Apr. 9, 2013; 79 FR 16191, Mar. 25, 2014; 83 FR 48946, Sept. 28, 2018]
EXHIBIT 10.6


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


$60,000


Inver
Grove Heights, Minnesota


December 11, 2002


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, MedicalCV, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (“Maker”), promises to pay to the order of Allan R. Seck (“Lender”), at
9408 Olympia Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, 55347, any other place
subsequently designated in writing by the holder hereof, the principal sum of SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($60,000) together
with interest on the unpaid principal balance from the date hereof at a fixed
rate per annum of six percent (6%) (computed on the basis of actual days
elapsed in a year of 360 days).


THE ENTIRE UNPAID PRINCIPAL BALANCE OF THIS NOTE, PLUS ALL ACCRUED
INTEREST HEREON, SHALL BE DUE AND PAYABLE IN FULL UPON FOURTEEN DAYS AFTER THE
DATE HEREOF.


Maker may prepay this Note in whole or in part without premium or
penalty.  Payments on this Note shall
first be applied to accrued interest and thereafter in reduction of principal.


Maker hereby waives demand, presentment for payment, notice of
non-payment, protest and notice of protest hereon, agrees that when or at any
time after this Note becomes due, the holder hereof may offset or charge this
Note against any account maintained by Maker with the holder hereof, and agrees
to pay, in the event of a default hereon, all costs of collection, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees, whether or not suit is commenced.


This Note shall be governed by, interpreted,
construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of
Minnesota.


	
  MAKER:

  	
  MedicalCV,
  Inc., a Minnesota corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/
  Blair P. Mowery

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Blair P. Mowery

  President and Chief Executive

  Officer
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4320 Removable skin clip. ( a ) *Identification.* A removable skin clip is a clip-like device intended to connect skin tissues temporarily to aid healing. It is not absorbable.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 65 FR 2318, Jan. 14, 2000]