alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016350EN.01000502.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-80/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Temporary importation procedure with relief from duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Conditions laid down for the total relief from import duties - Means of transport for aviation registered outside of the customs territory of the Union and used by a person established outside of that territory - Article 555(1)(a) - Commercial use - Concept - Use of helicopters by an aviation school for remunerated training flights flown by a trainee and instructor - Not included))

(2016/C 350/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flights for helicopter flight instruction, with a trainee pilot and a flight instructor on board, are not to be regarded as constituting commercial use of a means of transport for the purposes of that provision

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.

1

---
§ 1.243-2 Special rules for certain distributions. ( a ) *Dividends paid by mutual savings banks, etc.* In determining the deduction provided in section 243(a), any amount allowed as a deduction under section 591 (relating to deduction for dividends paid by mutual savings banks, cooperative banks, and domestic building and loan associations) shall not be considered as a dividend.
( b ) *Dividends received from regulated investment companies.* In determining the deduction provided in section 243(a), dividends received from a regulated investment company shall be subject to the limitations provided in section 854.
( c ) *Dividends received from real estate investment trusts.* See section 857(c) and paragraph (d) of § 1.857-6 for special rules which deny a deduction under section 243 in the case of dividends received from a real estate investment trust with respect to a taxable year for which such trust is taxable under Part II, Subchapter M, Chapter 1 of the Code.
( d ) *Dividends received on preferred stock of a public utility.* The deduction allowed by section 243(a) shall be determined without regard to any dividends described in section 244 (relating to dividends on the preferred stock of a public utility). That is, such deduction shall be determined without regard to any dividends received on the preferred stock of a public utility which is subject to taxation under Chapter 1 of the Code and with respect to which a deduction is allowed by section 247 (relating to dividends paid on certain preferred stock of public utilities). For a deduction with respect to such dividends received on the preferred stock of a public utility, see section 244. If a deduction for dividends paid is not allowable to the distributing corporation under section 247 with respect to the dividends on its preferred stock, such dividends received from a domestic public utility corporation subject to taxation under Chapter 1 of the Code are includible in determining the deduction allowed by section 243(a).
[T.D. 6598, 27 FR 4092, Apr. 28, 1962, as amended by T.D. 6992, 34 FR 817, Jan. 18, 1969; T.D. 7767, 46 FR 11264, Feb. 6, 1981]
§ 1.45R-5 Claiming the credit. ( a ) *Claiming the credit.* The credit is a general business credit. It is claimed on an eligible small employer's annual income tax return and offsets an employer's actual tax liability for the year. The credit is claimed by attaching Form 8941, “Credit for Small Employer Health Insurance Premiums,” to the eligible small employer's income tax return or, in the case of a tax-exempt eligible small employer, by attaching Form 8941 to the employer's Form 990-T, “Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return.” To claim the credit, a tax-exempt eligible small employer must file a form 990-T with an attached Form 8941, even if a Form 990-T would not otherwise be required to be filed.
( b ) *Estimated tax payments and alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability.* An eligible small employer may reflect the credit in determining estimated tax payments for the year in which the credit applies in accordance with the estimated tax rules as set forth in sections 6654 and 6655 and the applicable regulations. An eligible small employer may also use the credit to offset the employer's alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability for the year, if any, subject to certain limitations based on the amount of the employer's regular tax liability, AMT liability and other allowable credits. See section 38(c)(1), as modified by section 38(c)(4)(B)(vi). However, an eligible small employer, including a tax-exempt eligible small employer, may not reduce its deposits and payments of employment tax (that is, income tax required to be withheld under section 3402, social security and Medicare tax under sections 3101 and 3111, and federal unemployment tax under section 3301) during the year in anticipation of the credit.
( c ) *Reduction of section 162 deduction.* No deduction under section 162 is allowed for the eligible small employer for that portion of the health insurance premiums that is equal to the amount of the credit under § 1.45R-2.
( d ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable for periods after 2013. For rules relating to certain plan years beginning in 2014, see § 1.45R-3(i).
[T.D. 9672, 79 FR 36646, June 30, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4430 Cardiopulmonary bypass intracardiac suction control. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary bypass intracardiac suction control is a device which provides the vacuum and control for a cardiotomy return sucker.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 870.9.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71812, Dec. 30, 2019]
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7984 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship 

AN ACT 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to improve access to disaster assistance for individuals located in rural areas, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 7984 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Small Business 

3 Resilience Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ACCESS TO DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVID5 UALS LOCATED IN RURAL AREAS. 

6 Not later than one year after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 

8 Administration shall ensure that the Associate Adminis9 trator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience 

10 of the Administration takes such actions as necessary to 

11 ensure that individuals located in rural areas (as defined 

12 in paragraph (16) of section 7(b) of the Small Business 

13 Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(16))) for which a disaster declara14 tion has been made under such section 7(b) have full ac15 cess to assistance provided under such section, including 

16 by providing targeted outreach and marketing materials 

17 to such individuals. 

18 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. 

19 The second paragraph (16) (relating to statute of 

20 limitations) of section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 

21 U.S.C. 636(b)) is redesignated as paragraph (17). 

Passed the House of Representatives June 11, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7658

JACOB DOUGLAS PEYTON, IV,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARK, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:12-cv-00574-GEC)

Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob Douglas Peyton, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, 

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jacob Douglas Peyton, IV, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Peyton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Peyton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
RESOLVED, that the Company's Directors' Fee Stock Plan established April 1, 1998
be amended by adding the following paragraph 11:

                           11. Share Issuance Limitation. In no event shall
                  Shares issued in any one year under the Plan be more than five
                  percent (5%) of the outstanding common stock of the Company at
                  the time of issuance. In no event shall Shares issued in any
                  five-year period under the Plan be more than ten percent (10%)
                  of the outstanding common stock of the Company at the time of
                  issuance.
# C_2014151EN.01003201.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/32

---

Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)

(Case T-193/14)

2014/C 151/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, 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: Nautica Apparel, Inc. (New York, United States)

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 10 January 2014 given in Case R 96/2013-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2014 given in Case R 96/2013-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AERONAUTICA’ for goods in services in Classes 9, 18, 20, 25, 35, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 508 237

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several earlier Community and UK trade mark registrations of the word marks ‘NAUTICA’ and ‘NAUTICA BLUE’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 35

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 1.481-4 Adjustments taken into account with consent. ( a ) In addition to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Commissioner under § 1.446-1(e)(3) for effecting a change in method of accounting, including the taxable year or years in which the amount of the adjustments required by section 481(a) is to be taken into account, or the methods of allocation described in section 481(b), a taxpayer may request approval of an alternative method of allocating the amount of the adjustments under section 481. See section 481(c). Requests for approval of an alternative method of allocation shall set forth in detail the facts and circumstances upon which the taxpayer bases its request. Permission will be granted only if the taxpayer and the Commissioner agree to the terms and conditions under which the allocation is to be effected. See § 1.446-1(e) for the rules regarding how to secure the Commissioner's consent to a change in method of accounting.
( b ) An agreement to the terms and conditions of a change in method of accounting under § 1.446-1(e)(3), including the taxable year or years prescribed by the Commissioner under that section (or an alternative method described in paragraph (a) of this section) for taking the amount of the adjustments under section 481(a) into account, shall be in writing and shall be signed by the Commissioner and the taxpayer. It shall set forth the items to be adjusted, the amount of the adjustments, the taxable year or years for which the adjustments are to be taken into account, and the amount of the adjustments allocable to each year. The agreement shall be binding on the parties except upon a showing of fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation of material fact.
[T.D. 8608, 60 FR 40079, Aug. 7, 1995]
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00129

- CV

GEORGE E. ("TRAE") F OWLER, III, TF MANAGEMENT CO., L LC,
GENERAL PARTNER OF N TX LAND DEVELOPMENT, LP , AND
NTX LAND DEVELOPMENT , LP. APPELLANTS

V.

NORTH TEXAS LAND
DEVELOPMENT , A JOINT VENTURE, AND HENRY R AHMANI,
INDIVIDUALLY APPELLEES

------------

FROM THE 17TH DISTRI CT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered “Appellants ’ Motion To Dismiss.” It is the court ’ s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant s , for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 12, 2014
Exhibit 35.1  LOGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1050-084, 8th Floor 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, as Operating Advisor, CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC33 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGOLeslie Hayton Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.



LOGO
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Itec Environmental Group, Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
      2006,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Gary M.
      De
      Laurentiis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Frederick W. Smith,
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
§ 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their
      knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Gary M. De Laurentiis


By:
      Gary
      M. De Laurentiis


Its:
      Chief Executive Officer, Director





/s/
      Frederick W. Smith


By:
      Frederick W. Smith


Its:
      Principal Financial Officer/


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer





June
      5,
      2006





[A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Itec Environmental Group, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7952 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7952

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend parental leave to 
                  members of the Coast Guard Reserve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2024

   Mr. Jackson of North Carolina (for himself and Mr. Nunn of Iowa) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend parental leave to 
                  members of the Coast Guard Reserve.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coast Guard Reserve Parental Leave 
Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARENTAL LEAVE TO MEMBERS OF THE COAST GUARD 
              RESERVE.

    (a) Extension.--Section 711 of chapter 40 of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended, in subsection (b), in the matter preceding 
paragraph (1), by striking ``is a member of the Army, Navy, Marine 
Corps, Air Force, or Space Force who''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Such section is redesignated as section 
710a of such title.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2004

PEGGY M. PLEDGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DOROTHEA DIX HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-773-BR-I-5) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peggy M. Pledger, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lewis Voight, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Peggy Pledger appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pledger v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources , No. CA-97-773-BR-I-5 (E.D.N.C. June 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED