alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.195 Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. ( a ) A manufacturer of aircraft manufactured within the United States may apply for an experimental certificate for an aircraft that is to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, or customer crew training.
( b ) A manufacturer of aircraft engines who has altered a type certificated aircraft by installing different engines, manufactured by him within the United States, may apply for an experimental certificate for that aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, or customer crew training, if the basic aircraft, before alteration, was type certificated in the normal, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category.
( c ) A person who has altered the design of a type certificated aircraft may apply for an experimental certificate for the altered aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, or customer crew training if the basic aircraft, before alteration, was type certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, or transport category.
( d ) An applicant for an experimental certificate under this section is entitled to that certificate if, in addition to meeting the requirements of § 21.193— ( 1 ) He has established an inspection and maintenance program for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft; and
( 2 ) The applicant shows that the aircraft has been flown for at least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type certificated aircraft which has been modified. The FAA may reduce these operational requirements if the applicant provides adequate justification.
[Amdt. 21-21, 33 FR 6858, May 7, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 21-28, 35 FR 2818, Feb. 11, 1970; Amdt. 21-57, 49 FR 39651, Oct. 9, 1984; Amdt. 21-59, 52 FR 1836, Jan. 15, 1987; Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53389, Oct. 16, 2009]
EXHIBIT 32.1


**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**RULE 13a-14(1) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,**


**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In connection with the quarterly report of House of Brussels Chocolate Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Grant Petersen, Chief Executive officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: September 14, 2004




By:
/s/ Grant PetersenGrant PetersenChief Executive Officer
#### Shrock *et al. v.*Bowden *et al.*Administrators.

A variance between the contract, as described in the endorsement ori the writ, and as set forth in the declaration, cannot be taken advantage of on a writ of error, after judgment by default. The objection is cured by the statute of Jeofails, it being properly the subject of a plea of abatement, or special demurrer, in the court below.

It is too late, after judgment by default, to assign as error, that the endorsement on the writ does not state the sum actually demanded by the suit.

Where the declaration in stating the date of the note sued on, and the time of payment, showed it to be payable on á day anterior to its date, it was held to be merely a clerical error. '

IN ERROR to the.circuit court of Madison county.

Wyley & Gillespie, for plaintiffs in error.

Tupper & Rollins, *contra.*

Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Trotter.

This was an action of *assumpsit*in the usual form, upon a promissory note. Judgment was entered against the appellants by default, in the court below. There are several errors assigned, but it is not deemed necessary to notice any except the following:

First. It is assigned as error that there is a material variance between the contract described in the endorsement on the writ, and that set forth in the declaration. The endorsement stating the note to be due on the 1st of March, 1837, and the declaration, describing it to be due on the 1st of March, 1835. The objection is undoubtedly a valid one, and must have been fatal to the appellees if it had been taken in the proper form, by plea in abatement or special demurrer, in the court below. But it cannot be taken in this court, after a judgment by default in the inferior court. It is cured by the statute of Jeofails. It is also assigned as error, that the endorsement on the writ does not state, as it should do, *the**427sum actually demanded by the suit. This objection is also too late, and cannot be allowed. It is also objected that the process of *capias ad respondendum*was not served upon the appellants. But this assignment of error is not supported by the record. The last objection is, that the declaration in stating the date of the note sued on, and the time of payment, has shown it to be payable on a day anterior to its date. This is clearly a mere clerical error, and is cured after verdict or default.

Let the judgment be affirmed.
#### Vincenzo Piazza et al., Appellants, *v.*National Reserve Insurance Company, Respondent.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided September 30, 1936.)

*Thomas F. Curley*for motion.

*Peter F. Gulotta*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless stipulation for judgment absolute is filed within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
Exhibit 32
 
 
 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Scott N. Flanders and Christoph Pachler each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Scott N. Flanders
 Name:
Scott N. Flanders
 Title:
Chief Executive Officer
 Date:
November 9, 2010
 
 
 /s/ Christoph Pachler
 Name:
Christoph Pachler
 Title:
Chief Financial Officer
 Date:
November 9, 2010
 
 
 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to Playboy Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Playboy Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Barry W. Tackett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. for
the period ending December 31, 2004;

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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business
issuer and 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: July 29, 2005

/s/Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, CFO (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       925,804
<SECURITIES>                               2,112,366
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,250,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                  98,621
<INVENTORY>                                   23,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4,361,015
<PP&E>                                     3,085,090
<DEPRECIATION>                               310,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            11,488,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,122,746
<BONDS>                                    2,342,311
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                   8,688,402
<OTHER-SE>                                (1,658,396)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              11,488,062
<SALES>                                       25,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,504,001
<CGS>                                         32,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                353,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              92,749
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              241,608
<INCOME-TAX>                                  10,017
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          231,591
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 231,591
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.07


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Samuel E. Mauran, Deceased. Arthur W. Johnson et al., Appellants; Elizabeth L. Betton et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 5, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*Walter A. Fullerton, James A. Leary*and *Francis J. Neddo*for appellants.

*James McPhillips, C. E. Fitzgerald*and *F. G. Bascom*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties filing briefs payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs. Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 29.1523 Minimum flight crew. The minimum flight crew must be established so that it is sufficient for safe operation, considering— ( a ) The workload on individual crewmembers;
( b ) The accessibility and ease of operation of necessary controls by the appropriate crewmember; and
( c ) The kinds of operation authorized under § 29.1525.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Augustus Mackenzie, Deceased. Donald Mackenzie, Jr., an Infant, by Frederick A. Keck, His Special Guardian, et al., Appellants; Augustus Mackenzie, Jr., et al., Respondents.

(Submitted November 25, 1936;

decided December 31, 1936.)

*404
      *Fred L. Gross, Frederick A. Keck*and *Daniel G. Connolly*for appellants.

*405
      *John E. Purdy*for Augustus Mackenzie, Jr., respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Until a jury has agreed upon a verdict upon the issues submitted to it, a verdict upon other issues directed at the trial is not embodied in any order or decree or judgment which constitutes a judicial determination of such issues. Until then it remains merely a ruling made in the course of the trial. Section 463 of the Civil Practice Act which, by section 69 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, is made applicable to trials in the Surrogate’s Court, provides that after disagreement of a jury a new jury shall be empanelled “ and the same proceedings must be had before the new jury as if it was the jury first empaneled.” In accordance with the provisions of the statute, at the new trial every issue may be litigated again as if there had been no previous trial.

The order of the Appellate Division and that of the Surrogate’s Court should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court to proceed in accordance with this opinion. The question certified should be answered in the negative.

Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur; Crane, Ch. J., Loughran and Finch, JJ., dissent.

Ordered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11672]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR-77-7292-b; FRL-6583-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon 
RACT Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for the purpose of 
revising the RACT Rule. The SIP revision was submitted by the State to 
satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements for a SIP. In the 
Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the 
State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal 
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal amendment 
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments 
are received in response to this action, no further activity is 
contemplated. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final 
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested 
in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received in writing by June 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Christine Lemme, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality, 
at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the state submittal 
are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal 
business hours. The interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the visiting day with Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 
98101 and/or The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Air 
Quality Division, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-1390. 
Telephone: (503) 229-5696.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mahbubul Islam, Office of Air Quality 
(OAQ-107), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: March 1, 2000.
Chuck Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 00-11672 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86168) pertaining to theWatchGuard Technologies, Inc. Rapidstream, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84081) pertaining to the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1996Stock Incentive Compensation Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-43562 and Form S-8 No. 333-62742) both pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51196) pertaining to the 2000 QiaveStock Option Plan of our report dated January 23, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Seattle Washington 

March 10, 2004
# C_2022109EN.01001001.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira v Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache SA

(Case C-513/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(b) - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Exemption of hospital and medical care - Closely related activities - Thermal treatment - Amount charged for compiling an individual file including the user’s clinical history)

(2022/C 109/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Respondent: Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity consisting in compiling an individual file, including the user’s clinical record, which entitles the user to purchase ‘traditional thermal cure’ medical care within a spa establishment, is liable to come within the exemption from value added tax provided for in that provision as an activity closely related to medical care, where those files set out data relating to the user’s state of health, planned and prescribed medical care as well as the manner in which that care is to be administered which must be consulted for the provision of care and to achieve the therapeutic objectives pursued. That medical care and activities closely related to it must also be undertaken, under social conditions comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, by a centre for medical treatment or diagnosis or by another duly recognised establishment of a similar nature within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b).

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 10.24

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated April 16, 2002, except for Note 2, which is
dated April 15, 2003, accompanying the consolidated financial statements
included in the Annual Report of CTI Industries Corporation and Subsidiaries on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of CTI
Industries Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (Nos.333-76006 and
333-76008) and SB-2 (No. 333-31969).


/s/ Grant Thornton, LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 29, 2003
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|1. |  | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86168) pertaining to the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. Rapidstream, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-84081) pertaining to the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Compensation Plan
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. |  | Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-43562 and Form S-8 No. 333-62742) both pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. |  | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51196) pertaining to the 2000 Qiave Stock Option Plan
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



of our reports dated March 24, 2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.,
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc., included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Seattle, Washington

March 29, 2005