alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012399EN.01002002.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)

(Case T-529/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Impulso creador - Earlier figurative Community mark IMPULSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 399/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by F. Brandolini Kujman and J. Devaureix, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2011 (Case R 1101/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA and Evonik Industries AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,994)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,937
<PP&E>                                         107,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                (48,752)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,362
<BONDS>                                        121,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,124
<PREFERRED>                                     22,808
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (86,508)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,339
<SALES>                                         90,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,625
<CGS>                                           61,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,250
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,687
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,687
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88


</TABLE>
# C_2013156EN.01001402.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-197/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148 - Exemption of certain transactions intended for vessels carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial activities - Condition that the vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas)

2013/C 156/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J.-S. Pilczer and D. Colas, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 148(a), (c) and (d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemption of certain transactions intended for vessels carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial activities — Condition that the vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas — Compatibility of a national measure which impermissibly extends the exemptions provided for by the directive

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not making the exemption from value added tax of transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 148(a), (c) and (d) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not making the exemption from value added tax of transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 148(a), (c) and (d) thereof;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 18 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 

Import and Export Act with respect to penalties for powder cocaine 

and crack cocaine offenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled 

Substances Import and Export Act with respect to penalties for powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Powder-Crack Cocaine 

5 Penalty Equalization Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 18 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRAFFICKING. 

2 (a) 50-GRAM PENALTY.—Section 401(b)(1)(A) of the 

3 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘5 kilograms’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘50 grams’’; and 

7 (2) by striking clause (iii). 

8 (b) 5-GRAM PENALTY.—Section 401(b)(1)(B) of the 

9 Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)) is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘500 grams’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘5 grams’’; and 

13 (2) by striking clause (iii). 

14 SEC. 3. POSSESSION. 

15 Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

16 U.S.C. 844(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘cocaine base’’ and 

17 inserting ‘‘any controlled substance described in section 

18 401(b)(1)(A)(ii)’’. 

19 SEC. 4. IMPORT AND EXPORT. 

20 (a) 50-GRAM PENALTY.—Section 1010(b)(1) of the 

21 Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 

22 960(b)(1)) is amended— 

23 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘5 kilo24 grams’’ and inserting ‘‘50 grams’’; and 

25 (2) by striking subparagraph (C). 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 18 IH

1 (b) 5-GRAM PENALTY.—Section 1010(b)(2) of the 

2 Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 

3 960(b)(2)) is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘500 

5 grams’’ and inserting ‘‘5 grams’’; and 

6 (2) by striking subparagraph (C). 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Date: May 7, 2015 Meeting: CIP A Meeting Rule(s) Discussed: Written Materials? Yes/No N am e Organ i za tion Phon e Number 

# {pfi -(XU 

# (J-'1 - ,blJ - '3!;..3**---- -~** **~ ------~** **~~ --**  

# c. ( /\-- 0'/J\-eQ**::2. ~(:,'1-**  11LJ 

# d A- - O A{2__


## e. DA
- O'v.J/O 

### s 

### T I 2o"Z 0 (r (t;
- 

### 0'350 I

# 91~ V<f7 - 117**~'t** 

### to tO ( · 2 

### o / - 77 

### I fo 310 - 

## :r Z-8
- z.. 

### 'f 0 

# s**~·Q.\1.-L-tN** "'- L**f~o~vcnoA)** eo

### (p**~** 

### I -**~~~ ~** **~** 

### L u 

### · 6 _ (o**~** \
- 

### 02 0 (
- ({/ 

# 5

· f- --------------+ -- 

### <;;6 7 - 

# zzo**~** 

## !46o 1 - -------------l ; 1) , (A--:} - 

## OO W**-- -----** **~~ ~~** **-4-- --**  f---- \-lj=---- 

## qr .;__

# --**....:........::-A- --** **&;; ::...=..**  {-

# ~~**~** v J

t )

# ~ frAN llttt'Su.t 

## -' 6 /_ -:f__z . "/-- t '77E P A S taff Use O nl y Su mmar y of Relevant. Fac t ual In fo rmation R eceived: 

### • • • 

### • • 

# Pit'

**JvcDLuv~** C:rJ>;



## _r **{?~l** 2o2.
- /22-/.1<PtJ

**T'k'?ctf1-~u\u~ ~e./\e...c..A.**  '4..\a

**vv-u...~** C..\\ "2., &;'-4

**~-** '2-S o 0 

# 5 k 

# f 

# k<-N lf\ rt

**~~** 

# f4 f._B Nt+'t-\S'--)

**~~~** 

### 7/3-

**<=to~ -!.{**  

## b 

# ss 

# J!fJA-;611-R 1o 2 

# 56i 7YJtJ

· .. ... . •. •

**~** • I '. 

### .
EXHIBIT 32
                           JACKSONVILLE BANCORP, INC.

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                       as Enacted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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 operations of the
        Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


Date:  August 8, 2005                    /s/ Gilbert J. Pomar, III
                                         -------------------------
                                         Gilbert J. Pomar, III
                                         President & Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 8, 2005                    /s/ Valerie A. Kendall
                                         ----------------------
                                         Valerie A. Kendall
                                         Executive Vice President
                                         and Chief Financial Officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 182.405 Fuel restrictions.

The use of alternative fuels, other than diesel fuel or gasoline, as fuel for an internal combustion engine will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Commandant.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 986, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997]
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Data Series 525
EAARL Coastal       Topography�Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey and New York,       2009
Amar Nayegandhi,1 Saisudha Vivekanandan,1       John C. Brock,2 Sara Stevens,3 C. Wayne       Wright,4 Jamie M. Bonisteel,1 David B.       Nagle,1 Xan Yates,1 and Emily S.       Klipp1

1Jacobs Technology Inc., St. Petersburg,       FL; 2U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine       Geology Program, Reston, VA;       3National Park Service, Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network,       Kingston, RI; 4U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg, FL.

This DVD contains lidar-derived bare-earth (BE) and first-surface (FS) topography GIS datasets of a portion of       the Gateway National Recreation Area in New Jersey and New York. These       datasets were acquired July 8-9, 2009.

Click on a tile number (1 - 20) to view the corresponding images and       links to each data directory.

Click on the links below to view mosaics of the data.

Bare       Earth (BE) 2-meter-resolution       mosaic

First       Surface (FS) 2-meter-resolution       mosaic

Suggested Citation: Nayegandhi, Amar, Vivekanandan, Saisudha, Brock,       J.C., Stevens, Sara, Wright, C.W., Bonisteel, J.M., Nagle, D.B., Yates,       Xan, and Klipp, E.S., 2010, EAARL coastal       topography�Gateway National Recreation Area, New Jersey and New York,       2009: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 525, 1 DVD.

Publications are available from USGS Information Services, Box       25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046       (telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS; email: infoservices@usgs.gov).

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey URL: pubs.usgs.gov /ds/525/index.htmlPage Contact Information: FeedbackPage Last Modified: Friday, 27-Aug-2010 09:49:48 EDT
# C_2013225EN.01005604.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/56

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 12 June 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-29/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/108

Language of the case: German

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

1

---
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER and CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of Wescorp Energy Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Douglas Biles, Chief Executive Officer and I, Terry Mereniuk, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: November 13, 2006 | (signed) Douglas Biles__
|------------------------ | ------------------------
|                         | Douglas Biles, CEO      
|                         |                         
|                         |                         
|                         | (signed) Terry Mereniuk_
|                         | Terry Mereniuk, CFO     

---
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.10-130 Fees for examination of foreign mobile offshore drilling units. Each foreign mobile offshore drilling unit must pay: ( a ) For examination for the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance indicating compliance with the design and equipment standards of either the documenting nation or the International Maritime Organization Code for Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, a fee of $1,830.
( b ) For examination for the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance indicating compliance with the design and equipment standards of 46 CFR part 108, the inspection fee listed in table 2.10-101 of this subpart for the same type of mobile offshore drilling unit.
[CGD 91-030, 60 FR 13563, Mar. 13, 1995, as amended by USCG-2010-0759, 75 FR 60001, Sept. 29, 2010]
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On January 26, 2007, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement for an Outfitter and Guide Management Plan on the Red Rock Ranger District was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         (71 FR 4346-4348). The 2006 NOI is hereby rescinded.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Nagiller, NEPA Coordinator, Coconino National Forest, 1824 S. Thompson St., Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, telephone (928) 527-3413. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Red Rock Ranger district is currently completing an assessment of the special use program. This assessment will be used in the future development of a new proposed action for management of outfitter and guide permits. 

Dated: April 30, 2007. 

Joseph P. Stringer, 

Deputy Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07-2282 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# C_2013129EN.01001802.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Ruse Industry v Commission

(Case T-489/11) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid granted by Bulgaria in the form of a debt waiver - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Distortion of competition - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 129/35

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ruse Industry (Ruse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and D. Stefanov, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/706/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/10) (ex N 389/09) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Ruse Industry (OJ 2012 L 320, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ruse Industry AD to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ruse Industry AD to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2004 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Rick Berry, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  RICK  BERRY   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Rick Berry              |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

August 9, 2004

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanders MorrisHarris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### AARON P. SUSSMAN, PLAINTIFF, v. YELLOW TAXICAB COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Argued October 3, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the plaintiff, *Alfred Brenner.*

For the defendant, *George F. Seymour, Jr.*

Per Curiam.

This is plaintiff’s rule to show cause on the ground of inadequacy of damages.

The plaintiff, a dentist in active practice, earning according to his testimony some $25,000 a year over expenses, was injured by having his hand jammed in-the door of a taxicab of the defendant company, necessitating the amputation of about half of the first finger with incidental injury to two other fingers, causing stiffness. The testimony showed with substantial clearness that the plaintiff’s right hand was permanently crippled.

The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3,000, and counsel for the defendant conceded on the argument that this verdict is inadequate, but claimed that it ought to stand because as they said the jury had serious doubt whether the plaintiff ought to recover anything under the circumstances, and that the verdict was the result of a *326compromise. It is well settled that a verdict under such circumstances cannot stand. The question then remains whether the new trial should be limited to damages only. The trial judge undertook to make, this limitation of the rule, but we do not feel controlled by such limitation in this court. *Faggioni*v. *Weiss,*128 *Atl. Rep.*540; 3 *N. J. Mis. R.*371; *De Peole*v. *Passaic City Steam Laundry,*137 *Atl. Rep.*890; 5 *N. J. Mis. R.*687; *Infirri*v. *Staseak,*4 *Id.*915; *Wilentz*v. *Lonky,*6 *Id.*711. We incline to the view that there should be a new trial at large. Such will be the order.