alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012013EN.01000901.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 November 2011 — SIA Forvards V v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-563/11)

2012/C 13/17

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāta

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Forvards V

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct value added tax paid when goods are purchased can be denied to a taxable person who fulfils all the essential requirements for deduction of value added tax, without any abusive conduct on his part having been demonstrated, when the other party to the transactions was not able to effect the supply of the goods for factual or legal reasons (the other party to the transaction is fictitious or the person responsible for it denies the existence of any economic activity or of a specific transaction and that person has no capacity to fulfil the contract)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct value added tax paid when goods are purchased can be denied to a taxable person who fulfils all the essential requirements for deduction of value added tax, without any abusive conduct on his part having been demonstrated, when the other party to the transactions was not able to effect the supply of the goods for factual or legal reasons (the other party to the transaction is fictitious or the person responsible for it denies the existence of any economic activity or of a specific transaction and that person has no capacity to fulfil the contract)?

1

| 2. | May a refusal to recognise the right to deduct value added tax be based as such on the circumstance that the other party to the transaction (the person indicated on the invoice) is considered fictitious (that is to say, his transaction does not relate to an economic activity)? Can the right to deduct input tax also be denied where no abusive practice on the part of the applicant for deduction of the input tax has been ascertained? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a refusal to recognise the right to deduct value added tax be based as such on the circumstance that the other party to the transaction (the person indicated on the invoice) is considered fictitious (that is to say, his transaction does not relate to an economic activity)? Can the right to deduct input tax also be denied where no abusive practice on the part of the applicant for deduction of the input tax has been ascertained?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.056-2 Construction. ( a ) *General.* Rescue boats shall be square-sterned, of normal proportions, not less than 11 feet nor more than 14 feet in length. The length shall be the overall horizontal distance from bow to stern.
( b ) *Construction.* The method of construction shall be such as is accepted as good engineering practice in the case of the specific material used. The hull shall be suitably stiffened to assure adequate strength.
( c ) *Weight.* The weight of the rescue boat, fully equipped, shall not exceed 225 pounds.
( d ) *Seats.* The rescue boat shall be fitted with three thwarts. The middle thwart shall be arranged as the rowing seat.
( e ) *Internal buoyancy.* Buoyant material of suitable unicellular plastic foam shall be installed in the rescue boat. This material shall be protected from mechanical damage. It shall be distributed uniformly in the boat and such that at least one-quarter of the required volume is located at the sides of the boat. The minimum amount of buoyant material, in cubic feet, shall be determined by the following:
*B* = 2 + (*W* − W ÷ d) ÷ 62.4 − *c* (1) Where: *B* = Volume of buoyant material required in cubic feet. *W* = Weight of equipped boat, in pounds. *d* = Specific gravity of hull material. *c* = Density of buoyant material, in pounds per cubic foot.
§ 111.12-7 Voltage regulation and parallel operation. ( a ) *For AC systems:* sections 4-2-3/7.5.2, 4-2-4/7.5.2, 4-8-3/3.13.2, and 4-8-3/3.13.3 of the ABS Marine Vessel Rules (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter); and
( b ) *For DC systems:* section 4-8-3/3.13.3(c) of the ABS Marine Vessel Rules, and IEC 60092-202:2016 and IEC 60092-301:1980 (both incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter); and
( c ) *For mobile offshore drilling units:* sections 6-1-7/5.17.2, 6-1-7/5.17.3, 6-1-7/5.19.2, and 6-1-7/5.19.3 of the ABS MOU Rules (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16360, Mar. 16, 2023]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings 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.
      ( print page 16801)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Bioengineering Approaches to Energy Balance and Obesity Review.                    

*Date:*                         May 18, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Brookshire Suites, 120 East Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21202.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Charles Joyce, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0288,                         *cjoyce@nhlbi.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 29, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1688 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [FDA 225-07-4301]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).  The purpose of this MOU is to establish a formal collaboration between FDA and NCI regarding the creation of a common standards-based data repository to facilitate the electronic exchange and analysis of data from research studies on investigational drugs in a fully secure manner.

# DATES:

The agreement became effective March 2, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Randy Levin, Center for Drug Evaluation Research (HF-18), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD  20857, 301-827-7784  e-mail:                         *randy.levin@fda.hhs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.                

Dated: April 5, 2007.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

      ( print page 19535)          ( print page 19536)          ( print page 19537)          ( print page 19538)          ( print page 19539)    

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[FR Doc. 07-1921 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
#### J. Richards, appellant, v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, appellee.

Filed December 9, 1916.

No. 19080.

Assignment of Wages: Validity. A power of attorney granting authority to assign wages, made previous to tlie existence of a contract of employment, is ineffectual to authorize such an assignment in the future and after a contract of employment has been entered into hy the maker. _

Appeal from the district court for Douglas county: Charles Leslie, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*J. E. von*Dorn, for appellant.

*W. D. McHugh, W. H. Herdman, E. P. Holmes*and *Guy O. Chambers, contra.*

*506Fawcett, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in the district court for Douglas county to recover $75 claimed to be due by reason of an assignment of the wages of one Lawrence B. Savage. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

There is no issue of fact involved. In May, 1912, Savage, who was not then in the service of defendant company, executed to one Morgan a power of attorney, in . and by which he empowered Mm, at any time thereafter when Savage should be indebted to plaintiff, to execute and deliver to plaintiff an assignment of any wages, commissions or other moneys due or to become due him from any person, firm or corporation, within one year from the date of the instrument. Savage did not enter the service of the defendant company until August 3, 1912, and his services with the company terminated on September 5,* 1912. On August 27, 1912, Morgan, as attorney in fact for Savage, executed an assignment to plaintiff for all sums of money then due or to become due to Savage from the defendant company not to exceed $81, and on the next day counsel for plaintiff served notice of such assignment on defendant. Defendant refused to pay, and this action was instituted. The answer of defendant shows that during the term of Savage’s service he earned $62.98 in August and $14.70 for the five days in September, but alleges that the pretended assignment was null and void, for the reason that it was executed by an attorney in fact under a pretended powder of attorney executed long prior to the time when Savage entered the employ of defendant. This presents the question of law involved. The district court very correctly held the assignment void, and entered judgment for defendant.

The rule is correctly stated in *Richards v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Go.,*181 Ill. App. 515, as follows: “(1) A power of attorney to make an assignment of wages given by an employee, to plaintiff, cannot authorize plaintiff to make an assignment which will be valid against defendant a subsequent employer with whom the employee *507bad no contract at tbe time tbe power of attorney was executed. (2) An assignment of wages to be earned in tbe future from employers with wlvom tbe assignor bas no contract of employment at tbe time of making tbe assignment is invalid.” Tbe same rule is announced in *Ogle CoOperative House Furnishing Co. v. Shauman,*188 Ill.App. 4, and in *Blakeslee v. Make-Man Tablet Co.,*175 Ill.App. 515. Any other rule would be contrary to tbe clear weight of authority and against public policy.

Affirmed.

Hamer, J., not sitting.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-500

In Re: JAMES CHARLES SLADE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-286-3)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Charles Slade, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Charles Slade brought this mandamus petition seeking an

order directing the district court to order the United States to

respond to his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. The district court

has recently directed a response. Therefore, the complaint of delay

in the district court is moot. Accordingly, while we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 99.2
CERTIFICATION  OF  CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER

                                VILLAGEWORLD.COM
                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of VillageWorld.Com, (the "Small Business
Issuer")  on  Amendment #2 to Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Celia  I.  Schiffner,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of
VillageWorld.Com,  certify  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  section  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  and  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
Small  Business  Issuer.

/s/  Celia  I.  Schiffner
-------------------------
Celia  I.  Schiffner
Chief  Financial  Officer
February  12,  2004
# C_2012399EN.01002202.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/22

---

Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-442/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Act not subject to review - Act which is confirmatory, in part, and informative, in part - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Failure to identify the alleged conduct or to define the alleged damage - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Absence of proof of damage - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2012/C 399/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and D. Calciu, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for the annulment of a letter of the Commission of 27 May 2011, second, for an order for the Commission to pay damages and, third, for an order for the Commission to publish a communiqué.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3710

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kenny Eugene Smart

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: February 15, 2021

Filed: March 4, 2021

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1), Kenny Smart was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and five years of

supervised release. A few months after Smart completed his prison term, the district
court1

 revoked Smart's supervised release because, among other things, he committed

another crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court sentenced

Smart to six months in prison and four years of supervised release. He maintains that

this six-month prison term is substantively unreasonable.

The record shows that Smart completed his imprisonment in May 2020. Since

he challenges the reasonableness of his prison term only (and not the additional term

of supervised release), his appeal is moot. See United States v. Hill, 889 F.3d 953,

954 (8th Cir. 2018); see also Owen v. United States, 930 F.3d 989, 990 (8th Cir.

2019).

Appeal dismissed.

______________________________

1The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
| | CERTIFICATION | EXHIBIT 31.1
| | ------------- | ------------

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

|I, Robert D. Parks, certify that:
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|1.                               
|                                 
|2.                               
|                                 
|3.                               
|                                 
|4.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|5.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 



|Date: | May 7, 2004            
|----- | -----------------------
|      |                        
|      | /s/ ROBERT D. PARKS    
|      |                        
|By:   | Robert D. Parks        
|      | Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3262

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Keelyn Morelle Stokes

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: February 12, 2024

Filed: February 15, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Keelyn Stokes served his 85-month sentence for being a felon in possession of

a firearm and commenced a three-year term of supervised release in February 2021. 

Supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to time served in February

2023. In August, the probation office petitioned to revoke supervised release based

on four new law violations, including charges of domestic battery and theft pending
in state court. At the revocation hearing, Stokes did not dispute the violations and the

parties jointly recommended a within-range revocation sentence of 13 months in

prison followed by an additional 12 months of supervised release. See USSG

§ 7B1.4(a). The district court1 revoked supervised release, accepted the joint

recommendation, and imposed that sentence, which Stokes then appealed. 

On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief arguing that the

revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable. Stokes filed a supplemental pro

se brief raising additional issues. Upon careful review, we conclude that the withinrange sentence for a second supervised release revocation is not substantively

unreasonable, and that the additional issues raised in the pro se supplemental brief are

without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-