alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006131EN.01002001.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) — Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Keller Holding GmbH

(Case C-471/04) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Right of a parent company to deduct costs relating to its shareholdings - Non-deductible financing costs having an economic link with dividends exempt from tax - Dividends distributed by an indirect subsidiary established in a Member State other than that in which the parent company has its seat)

(2006/C 131/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land

Applicant:

Defendant: Keller Holding GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), Article 58 and Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 48EC and 56 EC) — Corporation tax — Non-deductibility of expenditure having a direct economic link to tax-free profits — Expenditure incurred by a parent company established in a Member State linked to its shareholding in a subsidiary established in the same Member State, in connection with dividends distributed by a second-tier subsidiary which are exempted from tax by virtue of the fact that this latter company is established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the possibility of deducting for tax purposes financing costs incurred by a parent company subject to unlimited tax liability in that State in order to acquire holdings in a subsidiary where those costs relate to dividends which are exempt from tax because they are derived from an indirect subsidiary established in another Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement, whereas such costs may be deducted where they relate to dividends paid by an indirect subsidiary established in the same Member State as that of the place of the registered office of the parent company and which, in reality, also benefit from a tax exemption.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.

1

---
<PAGE>


                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mason N. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of Merrimac
Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending
          December 28, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



/s/ Mason N. Carter
--------------------------
Mason N. Carter
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
April 21, 2003


The undersigned, Robert V. Condon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



/s/ Robert V. Condon
------------------------
Robert V. Condon
Chief Financial Officer
April 21, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Merrimac Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Merrimac
Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2006030EN.01000101.xml

| 7.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 February 2006

(2006/C 30/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1981 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4667 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68330 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2972 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5558 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,57 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0470 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5739 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,335 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,36 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8133 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5982 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,49 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,341 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5920 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6051 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3706 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2952 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7527 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9488 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 153,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,3324 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6519 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3350 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 046,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,480 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,157 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,8460 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,247 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1981

JPY

Japanese yen

142,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4667

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68330

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2972

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5558

ISK

Iceland króna

75,57

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0470

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5739

CZK

Czech koruna

28,335

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,36

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8133

RON

Romanian leu

3,5982

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,49

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,341

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5920

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6051

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3706

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2952

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7527

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9488

KRW

South Korean won

1 153,89

ZAR

South African rand

7,3324

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6519

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3350

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 046,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,480

PHP

Philippine peso

62,157

RUB

Russian rouble

33,8460

THB

Thai baht

47,247

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### LAKE ELLEN BEACH, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. Robert W. WHITLOCK and Sonia J. Whitlock, his wife, Appellees.

No. 74-564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 19, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jesse James MANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 9, 1981.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Trela J. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s conviction is affirmed but the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and this cause is remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the case of *Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission,*396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981).

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Small 
Research Grants Review.
    Date: September 23, 2009.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Michael L. Bloom, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd; Room 
820, MSC 4872, Bethesda, MD 20892-4872, 301-594-4953, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c41656f646d6960534e606363614c626564226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bef3d7ddd6dfdbd2e1fcd2d1d1d3fed0d7d690d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 9. 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth.
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22227 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### DAFFIN MERCANTILE COMPANY and Continental National American Group, Petitioners, v. Relmon STEPHENS, Jr. and Industrial Relations Commission, Florida Department of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 45271.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 26, 1974.

Petition for Rehearing Dismissed Sept. 9, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 300 So.2d 267.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11

                      STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                      EXHIBIT 11

                      Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings


                                                              Twelve Months Ended
                                                                   December 31
                                                          __________________________
                                                              1997            1996
                                                          ___________    ___________
<S>                                                       <C>            <C>
Basic:

Average shares outstanding:                                 1,766,007      1,764,288
                                                          ===========    ===========

Net Income                                                $ 2,397,560    $ 2,032,289
                                                          ===========    ===========

Net income per share                                      $      1.36    $      1.15
                                                          ===========    ===========


Diluted:

Average shares outstanding:                                 1,766,007      1,764,288

Net effect of the assumed exercise of stock options -
based on the treasury stock method using average
market price.                                                   1,101         10,407
                                                          ___________    ___________
Total                                                       1,767,108      1,774,695
                                                          ===========    ===========

Net income                                                $ 2,397,560    $ 2,032,289
                                                          ===========    ===========

Net income per share                                      $      1.36    $      1.15
                                                          ===========    ===========

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000187

15-OCT-2019

09:23 AM
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.404 Criteria for determining that a beneficiary knew that services were excluded from coverage as custodial care or as not reasonable and necessary. ( a ) *Basic rule.* A beneficiary who receives services that constitute custodial care under § 411.15(g) or that are not reasonable and necessary under § 411.15(k), is considered to have known that the services were not covered if the criteria of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are met.
( b ) *Written notice.* ( 1 ) Written notice is given to the beneficiary, or to someone acting on his or her behalf, that the services were not covered because they did not meet Medicare coverage guidelines.
( 2 ) A notice concerning similar or reasonably comparable services furnished on a previous occasion also meets this criterion.
( 3 ) After a beneficiary is notified that there is no Medicare payment for a service that is not covered by Medicare, he or she is presumed to know that there is no Medicare payment for any form of subsequent treatment for the non-covered condition.
( c ) *Source of notice.* The notice was given by one of the following: ( 1 ) The QIO, intermediary, or carrier.
( 2 ) The group or committee responsible for utilization review for the provider that furnished the services.
( 3 ) The provider, practitioner, or supplier that furnished the service.
[54 FR 41734, Oct. 11, 1989, as amended at 69 FR 66423, Nov. 15, 2004]
§ 426.100 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This part implements sections 1869(f)(1) and (f)(2) of the Act, which provide for the review of LCDs, NCDs, and certain determinations that are deemed to be NCDs by statute.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart establishes the requirements and procedures for the review of LCDs and NCDs.
#### James SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 5, 1978.

Gold & Fox and Myron M. Gold, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, who is appellant here, was found guilty of grand larceny. On this appeal, reversal is claimed upon the ground that the State had in its possession material which might have given rise to a reasonable doubt concerning appellant’s guilt and that the State failed to furnish this material. See *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); and *Beasley v. State,*315 So.2d 540 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Our review of the record convinces us that the limitation upon *Brady*imposed by the United States Supreme Court in *United States v. Agurs,*427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), applies. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a conviction will not be reversed for violation of the *Brady*rule unless the omission is of sufficient importance to result in a denial of defendant’s right to a fair trial.1 It is clear *877from this record that the proof of the present defendant’s guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt and that the omission claimed could have had no meaningful effect upon the outcome of the trial. Cf. *Cravero v. State,*349 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore, we find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. “While expressing the opinion that representatives of the State may not ‘suppress substantial material evidence,’ former Chief Justice Traynor of the California Supreme Court has pointed out that ‘they are under no duty to report sua sponte to the defendant all that they learn about the case and about their witnesses.’ *In re Imbler,*60 Cal.2d 554, 569, 35 Cal.Rptr. 293, 301, 387 P.2d 6, 14 (1963). And this Court recently noted that there is ‘no constitutional requirement that the prosecution make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all police investigatory work on a case.’ *Moore*v. *Illinois,*408 U.S. 786, 795, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 *877L.Ed.2d 706. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.” *United States v. Agurs,*427 U.S. at 109-110, 96 S.Ct. at 2400.
Administrator, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

CEIVED 

OCT 0 5 2015 

HFARING DOCKET 

Federal Aviation Administration DOT Docket No. FAA-2014-0544 

FAA Case No. 2014S0290047 

Complainant 

vs. Judge Sullivan 

CHERIF DIALLO, 

Respondent. 

COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS 

The Administrator hereby requests that its Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings be 

supplemented to include the following: 

1. Declaration ofTaneesha D. Marshall, Esq. (Exhibit 5) 

Submitted this 30th day of September 2015. 

d~~ TANEESHA D. MARSHALL 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Request to Supplement Motion for Judgment 

on the Pleadings has been sent this date by the following methods: 

miginal and one copy via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention:Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via certified mail and facsimile: 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

One copy via certified and regular mail: 

CherifDiallo 

263 W. 153'd St. 

Apt. 6D 

New York, NY 10039 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

ISEP . 3 o 20151 

Dated 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Administrator, 

Federal Aviation Administration DOT Docket No. FAA-2014-0544 

FAA Case No. 2014S0290047 

Complainant 

vs. Judge Sullivan 

CHERIF DIALLO, 

Respondent. 

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 U.S.C. § 1746 

I, Taneesha D. Marshall, declare as follows: 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct. 

I. I have been employed with the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Atlanta, Georgia, 

since 2004 as an attorney. 

2. I am currently assigned as lead and sole Agency counsel on the above referenced matter. 

3. On February 4, 2015, the Agency served its Amended Complaint on the Respondent, Cherif 

Diallo, via regular mail and certified mail at his last known address provided to the Agency. 

4. To date, the regular mail was not returned to the Agency for the Amended Complaint. 

5. On September 15,2015, the Agency served its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the 

Respondent via regular and certified mail at his last known address provided to the Agency. 

6. To date, the regular mail has not been returned to the Agency for the Motion for Judgment 

on the Pleadings. 

7. I have made multiple attempts to contact Mr. Diallo via telephone since March 26, 2015 and 

have been unable to reach him. 

8. The most recent attempt was on September 14,2015 and I left a voice message at his home 

telephone number (347) 664-8774 with my name and contact information. 

9. Mr. Diallo has not contacted the Agency via mail, email, fax, telephone or any other 

-!~rrespondence sin~ 

~eesh~~ Dated September 30,2015 

Government ~ Exhibit 

1 c I ~ 1
§ 424.14 Requirements for inpatient services of inpatient psychiatric facilities. ( a ) *Requirements for certification and recertification: General considerations.* Certification begins with the order for inpatient admission. The content requirements differ from those for other hospitals because the care furnished in inpatient psychiatric facilities is often purely custodial and thus not covered under Medicare. The purpose of the statements, therefore, is to help ensure that Medicare pays only for services of the type appropriate for Medicare coverage. Accordingly, Medicare Part A pays for inpatient services in an inpatient psychiatric facility only if a physician certifies and recertifies the need for services consistent with the requirements of this section, as appropriate.
( b ) *Content of certification.* The physician must certify— ( 1 ) That inpatient psychiatric services were required for treatment that could reasonably be expected to improve the patient's condition, or for diagnostic study.
( 2 ) That the inpatient psychiatric services were provided in accordance with § 412.3 of this chapter.
( c ) *Content of recertification.* ( 1 ) Inpatient services furnished since the previous certification or recertification were, and continue to be, required— ( i ) For treatment that could reasonably be expected to improve the patient's condition; or
( ii ) For diagnostic study; and
( 2 ) The hospital records show that the services furnished were— ( i ) Intensive treatment services;
( ii ) Admission and related services necessary for diagnostic study; or
( iii ) Equivalent services.
( 3 ) The patient continues to need, on a daily basis, active treatment furnished directly by or requiring the supervision of inpatient psychiatric facility personnel.
( d ) *Timing of certification and recertification.* ( 1 ) Certification is required at the time of admission or as soon thereafter as is reasonable and practicable, and must be completed and documented in the medical record prior to discharge.
( 2 ) The first recertification is required as of the 12th day of hospitalization. Subsequent recertifications are required at intervals established by the UR committee (on a case-by-case basis if it so chooses), but no less frequently than every 30 days.
( e ) *Other requirements.* Inpatient psychiatric facilities must also meet the requirements set forth in § 424.13(c), (d), (g), and (h).
[53 FR 6634, Mar. 2, 1988, as amended at 71 FR 27087, May 9, 2006; 71 FR 37504, June 30, 2006; 78 FR 50970, Aug. 19, 2013]
#### Bobby Lee MAGWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. W-19.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 28, 1975.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order, entered without an evidentiary hearing, denying his motion to vacate his 1969 conviction, which was entered pursuant to a guilty plea, for first-degree murder and to set aside his sentence of life imprisonment.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by counsel. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate that reversible error was committed in the proceedings below, and the order appealed herein is affirmed. The trial court properly considered the allegations made by appellant in his motion to vacate to be conclusively refuted by the record of proceedings at the time the plea of guilty was entered. Garcia v. State, 228 So.2d 300 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969).

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.