alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014052EN.01001801.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)) — X

(Case C-437/12) (1)

1

(Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Registration duty - Similar domestic products - Neutrality of the tax between imported used automobile vehicles and similar vehicles already present on the national market)

2014/C 52/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

X

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 110 TFEU — Domestic taxation — National legislation imposing a registration levy at the time of the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Amount of the levy based, as from 2010, on CO2 emissions — Vehicle first used on the roads outside the Netherlands in 2006 and registered in 2010 for use within national territory.

2

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | For the purpose of applying Article 110 TFEU, the similar domestic products which are comparable to a used vehicle such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was first put into service before 1 February 2008 and was imported and registered in the Netherlands in 2010, are the vehicles already present on the Netherlands market whose characteristics are closest to those of the vehicle in question. |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purpose of applying Article 110 TFEU, the similar domestic products which are comparable to a used vehicle such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which was first put into service before 1 February 2008 and was imported and registered in the Netherlands in 2010, are the vehicles already present on the Netherlands market whose characteristics are closest to those of the vehicle in question.

| 2. | Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a tax, such as the passenger-car and motorcycle tax (belasting personenauto’s en motorrijwielen) as in force in 2010, if and in so far as the amount of that tax levied on used imported vehicles upon their registration in the Netherlands exceeds the lowest residual amount of BPM incorporated into the value of similar used vehicles already registered in that same Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a tax, such as the passenger-car and motorcycle tax (belasting personenauto’s en motorrijwielen) as in force in 2010, if and in so far as the amount of that tax levied on used imported vehicles upon their registration in the Netherlands exceeds the lowest residual amount of BPM incorporated into the value of similar used vehicles already registered in that same Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-20]



[[Page 641]]

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

Part III





The President





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



Memorandum of December 29, 2006--Assignment of Function Under Section 
721(k) of the Defense Production Act of 1950


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 643]]

                Memorandum of December 29, 2006

                
Assignment of Function Under Section 721(k) of 
                the Defense Production Act of 1950

                Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                the laws of the United States, including section 301 of 
                title 3, United States Code, I hereby assign to you the 
                function of the President under section 721(k) of the 
                Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 
                2170(k)), for purposes of submitting such report by 
                February 28, 2007.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 29, 2006.

[FR Doc. 07-20
Filed 1-4-07; 8:49 am]
Billing code 4810-25-M
#### § 201.151 Objections to public disclosure of information.

Upon objection to public disclosure of any information sought to be elicited during a hearing, and a showing of cause satisfactory to the presiding officer, the witness shall disclose such information only in the presence of the presiding officer, official reporter and such attorneys or representatives of each party with demonstrated interests, as the presiding officer shall determine and after all present have been sworn to secrecy. The transcript of testimony shall be held confidential. Within five (5) days after such testimony is given, or document received, the objecting party shall file with the presiding officer a verified written motion to withhold such information from public disclosure, setting forth sufficient identification of same and the basis upon which public disclosure should not be made. Copies of said transcript and motion need not be served upon any other parties than those sworn to secrecy unless so ordered by the presiding officer.
§ 298.30 Nature and content of Obligations. ( a ) *Single page.* An Obligation, in the form of a note, bond of any type, or other debt instrument, when engraved, printed or lithographed on a single sheet of paper must include on its face the: ( 1 ) Name of the Obligor,
( 2 ) Principal sum,
( 3 ) Rate of interest,
( 4 ) Date of maturity, and
( 5 ) Guarantee of the United States, authenticated by the Indenture Trustee, if any.
( b ) *Several pages.* If the Obligation is typewritten, printed or reproduced by other means on several pages of paper, the Guarantee of the United States and the authentication certificate of the Indenture Trustee, if any, may appear at the end of the typewritten Obligation.
( c ) *Rights and responsibilities.* The instrument which is evidence of indebtedness shall also contain all information necessary to apprise the Obligees of their rights and responsibilities including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) Time and manner for payment of principal and interest,
( 2 ) Redemptions,
( 3 ) Default procedure, and
( 4 ) Notification (in case of registered Obligations) of sale or other transfer of the instruments.
TERRA NOVA ACQUISITION CORPORATION




                                                     ______________, 2005

TerraNova Management Corp.
2 Bloor Street West, Suite 3400
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3E2

Gentlemen:

         This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the
effective date ("Effective Date") of the registration statement for the initial
public offering ("IPO") of the securities of Terra Nova Acquisition Corporation
("TNAC") and continuing until (the "Termination Date") the earlier of the
consummation by TNAC of a "Business Combination" or TNAC's liquidation (as
described in TNAC's IPO prospectus), TerraNova Management Corp. shall make
available to TNAC certain office and secretarial services as may be required by
TNAC from time to time, situated at 2 Bloor Street West, Suite 3400, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M4W 3E2. In exchange therefore, TNAC shall pay TerraNova
Management Corp. the sum of US$7,500 per month on the Effective Date and
continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.

                                          Very truly yours,


                                          TERRA NOVA ACQUISITION CORPORATION



                                          By:
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Name:  Vahan Kololian
                                             Title:

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

TERRANOVA MANAGEMENT CORP.


By:
   ------------------------------
   Name:
   Title:
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 2
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 3
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 4
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 5
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 6
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 7
2:15-cv-11361-BAF-APP Doc # 1 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 8
# C_2013225EN.01005902.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/59

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-572/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/128

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

1

---
Case 5:15-cv-10261-JCO-MKM ECF No. 3, PageID.9 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.14

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the Form
40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  Cigar Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources  and Governance  Interest of Experts in the
Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2016 dated March 23, 2017 for the Cigar Lake property; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the headings  Our Operations and Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  Cigar Lake and Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2016 dated February 9, 2017 for the Cigar Lake property,
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of information derived from the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and
333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan, registration statement (No. 333-196422) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan and registration statement (No. 333-200678) on Form F-10.

Sincerely,



|                           |  |                                                
|-------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|/s/        C. Scott Bishop
|Name:                      |  | C. Scott Bishop, P. Eng.                       
|Title:                     |  | Manager, Technical Services, Cameco Corporation

Date: March 23, 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

STEVEN GARDNER,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

BUTLER COUNTY, PA., PA. DEPT. OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 65 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the “Application for Writ of Mandamus Motion to 

Compel a New Trial” is DENIED.
January20 , 201 2 • ^:z}^)rrr}h^fy, \

, - '.r i •-• \

.•,••,-'/"•> •T Docke t Managemen t Facilit y' ' ^ ' U J U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S E Wes t Buildin g Groun d Floo r Roo m W12-14 0 Washington , DC 2059 0 T o Who m I t Ma yConcern : Inlan d Helicopter s hereb ypetition s fo rexemptio n fro m Par t 12 0 o fTitl e 14 , Cod e o fFedera l Regulation s (1 4 CFR ) t o allo wInlan d Helicopter s t o cove ri fs safet ysensitiv e employee s unde ron e dru g an d alcoho l testin g program . Inlan d Helicopter s operate s unde rFAR 13 5 {Cert . «I7HA3431 | o n demand , an d hold s a (LOA«12HJKSSF ) fo rsightseein g operations . Du e t o th e smal l numbe ro f employees , ( 3 employees ) an d th e fac t tha t al l onl y2 employee s serv e i n bot h capacities , ther e woul d b e n o reductio n i n safet yinvolved . Th e publi cwoul d b e benefite d b yreductio n o fredundan t administrativ e burde n a s a whole . Simila rexemption s hav e bee n issue d fo rsmai l companie s suc h a s ours , wher e man ytype s o ffunction s ar e combine d du e t o smal l markets . Respectfull ysubmitted .

^^tt^-rryBCe''^ — Jaso n Snyder , DE R Inlan d Helicopter s 550 5 East Rutte rAv e Spokan e WA , 9921 2 

### 509-534-911 4 509-534-916 1 Fa

x Flight@\nlandhelicopters.co m
EXHIBIT 99

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


We, Charlie Tokarz and Joseph Aslan of Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc.  (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q-SB of the Company for the quarterly
period  ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: 8/9/02

/s/ Joseph Aslan                        /s/ Charles Tokarz
__________________                     ____________________
Joseph Aslan                            Charles Tokarz
President/CEO                           CFO
#### § 294.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes regulations implementing subtitle B of Title XXXV of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283), section 3511 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Pub. L. 117-81), section 3515, codified at Chapter 534 of Title 46, United States Code, governing the establishment of a Tanker Security Fleet of product tank vessels operating in the foreign trade or mixed foreign and domestic commerce of the United States permitted under a registry endorsement issued by the United States Coast Guard. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have joint responsibility for the Tanker Security Fleet, with responsibility delegated to the Commander, United States Transportation Command through the Secretary of Defense, and the Maritime Administrator through the Secretary of Transportation.
#### CAMP NAMASCHAUG, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ELENITA KENNEDY, HARVEY FASSETT AND LOUIS J. BEERS, EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS F. KENNEDY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Submitted May 18, 1929

Decided November 15, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchaed, Lloyd and Case.

Eor the appellants, *Louis J. Beers.*

Eor the respondent, *J. Glenn Anderson.*

Per Curiam.

This was an action in the Essex Circuit Court to recover on a book account claimed by Camp Namaschaug, Incorporated, against the estate of Thomas E. Kennedy. The book account comprised items of supplies and also board supplied to the two sons of Kennedy. Kennedy was the president of the plaintiff corporation. A resolution was passed in February of 1924 by the board of directors that the administrative officers of the plaintiff, namely, Kennedy and one Maloney and one Myers, should receive as compensation for their services (they were apparently active managers) a share in the net proceeds of the camp. The resolution also provided that the term expenses should include the board and lodging for the camp managers and their immediate families. *1061Kennedy acted as one of the managers and was at the camp with his wife, daughter and two sons. There was no profit and the camp refused to recognize the claim for free board of the two sons, and that is the matter in dispute.

It appears that on March 3d, 1924, the defendant wrote a letter to one of the directors of the plaintiff corporation which contains the following:

“Yesterday I presided at a meeting at my home with Mr. Maloney and Mr. Myers. We went over the whole situation and I succeeded in getting their consent to include depreciation in the expenses. We agreed at Baltimore that this should be $1,000, so I had it inserted in the minutes to avoid any possible misunderstanding. They felt that the administrative officers should receive board and lodging for their wives and themselves. I feel that if our wives should care to come they can be of great service in the office and in the hostess cottage. Of course, this does not include my boys whom I expect to be at the camp, and who will pay the regular charges.”

The case was referred to a referee without, so far as the appellants are concerned, a reservation of jury trial right, and he found that under the resolution as interpreted or modified by the appellant’s letter, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover board for the two sons. This report was confirmed and the defendants appeal.

It seems to us that the appeal is without merit, for two reasons. Eirst we think that for any error of law that might have been committed the sole mode of redress was on application to the Circuit Court to set aside the report and grant a new trial *(Clayton*v. *Levy,*49 *N. J. L.*577), and secondly because we think the judgment was right on its merits.

Appellant contends that the director had no authority to bind the corporation and while this might be true as against the corporation, yet the corporation had a perfect right to adopt her act, which was for its benefit, and sue to recover the amount due on it.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY HAMPTON,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-10305

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

Upon consideration of Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC’s (“Malibu”) Motion for Default

Judgment, its memorandum in support of that motion and the related exhibits, and the

entire record herein, IT IS ORDERED:

 FIRST, that Malibu’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

SECOND, that judgment is entered in favor of Malibu and against Defendant.

THIRD, that Malibu is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $37,500. 

Despite Malibu’s argument to the contrary, the court declines to find a willful violation

based on Malibu’s amended complaint and Hampton’s default. Malibu’s only allegation

in its complaint concerning willful infringement by Hampton is that “Defendant’s

infringements were committed ‘willfully’ within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).” 

(Pg. ID# 6.) This is merely a legal conclusion stated as a factual allegation and it is

doubtful whether it would have survived a motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court finds the damages provided in 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1) to

be sufficient and awards $750 in statutory damages for each of Malibu’s fifty claims

2:15-cv-10305-RHC-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 134
against Hampton. Malibu’s request for post-judgment interest is denied as it did not

request such interest in its complaint.

FOURTH, that Malibu is awarded attorney’s fees and costs in the amount

requested, $1,650.86. The court finds Malibu’s request, as laid out in Mr. Nicoletti’s

declaration, to be reasonable. (Dkt. # 13-4, Pg. ID 126.)

FIFTH, that as of the date of this Order, a permanent injunction is hereby issued

against Hampton enjoining him from directly, contributorily, or indirectly infringing

Malibu’s rights under federal or state law of Malibu’s copyrighted works, including, but

without limitation, by using the internet, BitTorrent, or any other online media distribution

to reproduce or distribute the works, or by making the works available to the public,

except pursuant to a lawful license, or with Malibu’s express consent. Hampton is

further ordered to destroy all unauthorized copies of Malibu’s works on any computer

hard drive, server, or any other medium or device in Hampton’s possession, custody, or

control.

FINALLY, the court declines to exercise continuing jurisdiction over this matter.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 8, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 8, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\SMQ\Civil\15-10305.MALIBU.MotionforDefault.smq.wpd

2

2:15-cv-10305-RHC-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 135