alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016326EN.01000803.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/8

---

Appeal brought on 16 February 2016 by LTJ Diffusion against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2015 in Case T-83/14 LTJ Diffusion v EUIPO — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)

(Case C-94/16 P)

(2016/C 326/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: LTJ Diffusion (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other parties to the proceedings:

Arthur et Aston SAS

By order of 15 June 2016 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
IPAC Operational Metrics for September 2018

[Grand Total - August 2018
[August to September Change,

—_——

|Grand Total -September 2017

Volume by Transaction Type.

Dollar Amount] % of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] 1% of Total Number of Transactions |

Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 14,445 432,325,573] 99.23% 11.795] 7.78%
Buy/Sell La 109.611.831.176] 0.73% 339,176] 91.37%)
Benefits (RITS) bad 5,633,037.293] 0.08% 547] 036%
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 75,035,095] 0.00% 735} 052%
Zero Dollar 0.00%
|Grand Total - September 2018 100.00%|
100.0%]
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Allianz SE, a European Company (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date:March 19, 2008
Check method of payment:

q Check payable to Superintendent of Documents

q GPO Deposit A c c o u n t

q V I S A q MasterCard q D i s c o v e r / N o v u s

Authorizing signature

(expiration date)

ORDER BY FAX:

(202) 512-2250

24 hours a day

Please type or print

If you have questions regarding my order 

Call ( ) ________________________ daytime 

Fax ( ) _______________________

or Email _______________________

ORDER BY PHONE:

(202) 512-1800

7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. 

eastern time

Please return order form with payment.

ORDER BY MAIL Superintendent of Documents

PO Box 371954

Pittsburgh, PA 15250–7954

Thank you for your interest in U.S. Government Information. ALL SALES ARE FINAL.

Order Processing Code

* 3264

Publications 

Qty. List ID Title Price Total Price

Total for Subscriptions

Total Cost of Order

Subscriptions

Qty. Stock Number Title Price Total Price

Total for Publications

NOTE: Prices include regular domestic postage and handling and are subject to

change. International customers please add 25%.

Personal name (Please type or print)

Company name

Street address

C i t y, State, Zip code

Daytime phone including area code

ORDER ONLINE:

• orders@gpo.gov

• www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/

sale/prf/prf.html

24 hours a day

1 2 / 9 8
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAWNTAY LAKEITH SWANN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00443-TDS-1; 

1:18-cv-00527-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawntay Lakeith Swann, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawntay Lakeith Swann seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Swann has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24979]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. CT on November 9, 2023.

PLACE: Cadence Bank Center, 375 E Main Street, Tupelo, Mississippi.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Meeting No. 23-04

    The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on November 
9, 2023, at the Cadence Bank Center, 375 E Main Street, Tupelo, 
Mississippi.
    The meeting will be called to order at 9:00 a.m. CT to consider the 
agenda items listed below. TVA management will answer questions from 
the news media following the Board meeting.
    On November 8, at the Cadence Bank Center, the public may comment 
on any agenda item or subject at a board-hosted public listening 
session which begins at 2:00 p.m. CT and will last until 4:00 p.m. 
Preregistration is required to address the Board.

Agenda

1. Approval of minutes of the August 24, 2023 Board Meeting
2. Resolution Honoring the Late Barbara Haskew
3. Report of the Audit, Finance, Risk, and Cybersecurity Committee
    A. TVA's Insider Trading Policy
    B. Recovery Policy
4. Report of the Operations and Nuclear Oversight Committee
5. Report of the People and Governance Committee
    A. FY 2023 and FY 2024 Performance and Compensation
6. Report of the External Stakeholders and Regulation Committee
    A. Determination on PURPA Standards
7. Report from President and CEO

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For more information: Please call 
Ashton Davies, TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, 
Tennessee. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing 
may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda 
Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    Dated: November 2, 2023.
Edward C. Meade,
Agency Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2023-24979 Filed 11-7-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial  officer of GrandSouth  Bancorporation,  Inc.,  each hereby  certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge,  the accompanying  Amended Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008,  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information
contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the issuer.

April 29, 2009

                                       s/Mason Y. Garrett
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Mason Y. Garrett
                                       Chief Executive Officer


                                       s/J. B. Garrett
                                       -----------------------------
                                       J. B. Garrett
                                       Chief Financial Officer
No. 57204.

protest 197665-K (New York).

#### Bien Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the *396importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found: The protest was sustained to this extent.
# 2016_06 MTS Pivot Table 4

&F	

&P/&N

# 2016_06 MTS Table 4 Detail

&F	

&P/&N
No. 58465.

protests 201803-K and 202935-K (San Francisco).

#### George H. Beurhaus Co. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pumpkin seed kernels the same in all material respects as those the subject of *George Beurhaus Co.*and *Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 269, C. D. 1612), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Document



Exhibit 10.45




Mr. ALEX SHVARTSBURG




January 2019






Dear Alex,




I am pleased to confirm that effective January 1st, 2019, your compensation package will be increased as follows:


Annual Gross Base Salary:  GP 235.000,00
Annual target bonus:  40%


I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and contribution to our business in 2018 and look forward to carrying on working together in 2019.  Your continuous commitment to LivaNova is truly valued.


Kind Regards,




/s/ Thad Huston            
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017030EN.01002001.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-551/16)

(2017/C 030/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. Klein Schiphorst

Applicant:

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004, (1) having regard to Article 63 and Article 7 of Regulation No 883/2004, the objective and scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and the free movement of persons and workers, be applied in such a way that a request for the extension of the export of an unemployment benefit can in principle be refused unless, in the view of the Uwv [Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen: Management Board of the Employee Insurance Agency], given the particular circumstances of the case, for example, where there is a concrete and demonstrable prospect of work, it would be unreasonable to refuse the extension of the export?
  If not, |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004, (1) having regard to Article 63 and Article 7 of Regulation No 883/2004, the objective and scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and the free movement of persons and workers, be applied in such a way that a request for the extension of the export of an unemployment benefit can in principle be refused unless, in the view of the Uwv [Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen: Management Board of the Employee Insurance Agency], given the particular circumstances of the case, for example, where there is a concrete and demonstrable prospect of work, it would be unreasonable to refuse the extension of the export?

1

If not,

| 2. | How should Member States apply the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How should Member States apply the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

1

---
NOTICE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES

TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENT IN PUBLIC FUNDS DEPOSIT TIMEFRAMES

December 10, 2021 

Given the exigent circumstances facing Federal agencies as a result of coronavirus/COVID-19 

pandemic, and the reported concern that agencies may not have sufficient staff resources available

for a period of time to collect and deposit monies on a daily basis, the Bureau of the Fiscal

Service is extending the deposit timeline beyond one day as referenced in 31 CFR § 206.5 and 

Volume I, Part 5, Section 2055 of the Treasury Financial Manual. The deposit timeline is 

temporarily extended to up to three days, the period of time specified in the statute, 31 U.S.C.

§3302(c)(1). Your agency is now required to deposit public funds received from any source into

the Treasury or a Treasury-designated depositary within three business days of receipt.

Before this timeline becomes effective for your agency, you must send an email to 

arm@fiscal.treasury.gov agreeing to these terms. This email must come from an official of the

agency and be sent from an agency .gov email account. 

The temporary deposit requirement will be effective through April 30, 2022, unless amended by 

Fiscal Service prior to that date, if conditions warrant.

If you have any questions, please contact Tamara Whitaker, Director, Over the Counter Division 

at tamara.whitaker@fiscal.treasury.gov.

Thank you. 

Sandra R. Paylor 

Assistant Commissioner for Revenue Collections Management

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Signature:
Skip to Main Content Contact Us|About Us|Sign In
     Top Links
 Project Search Navigation
 Home
 Funding
 Research
 Publications
 Newsletters
HomeAbout UsJoint Fire Science Program
        Breadcrumb
    Main Body
 1998 Joint Fire Science Plan
        Provides a scientific basis and rationale for implementing fuels management activitiesFooter
 The Basics
			Fire Science Info
			Partners
			What is FireScience.gov?HomeContact UsAbout Us
			Fire Science Exchange NetworkFundingResearchPublicationsNewsletters
			Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Accessibility
            The Joint Fire Science Program funds scientific research on wildland fires and 
                distributes results to help policymakers, fire managers and practitioners make sound 
                decisions. More...
          Release 1.0
Exhibit  99.2:  Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


                            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 Quarterly Report of Mid-America  Capital  Partners,  L.P.
(the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Simon R.C.  Wadsworth,  Chief  Financial  Officer of  Mid-America
Apartment Communities,  Inc. certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 Partnership.

Mid-America Capital Partners, L.P.
         By:  MAACP, Inc. (general partner)

         /s/Simon R.C. Wadsworth
         Simon R.C. Wadsworth
         Chief Financial Officer
         November 14, 2002
# C_2016402EN.01001701.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner

(Case C-425/16)

(2016/C 402/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hansruedi Raimund

Applicant:

Defendant: Michaela Aigner

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (Article 96(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) be dismissed on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith (Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) if, despite the defendant having brought a well-founded counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark (Article 99(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424), the court has not yet ruled on that counterclaim? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (Article 96(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) be dismissed on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith (Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) if, despite the defendant having brought a well-founded counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark (Article 99(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424), the court has not yet ruled on that counterclaim?

1

| 2. | If the answer is in the negative: May the court dismiss an action for infringement on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith, if the court at least simultaneously upholds the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, or must the court delay the decision on the action for infringement in any event until the decision on the counterclaim is res judicata? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the negative: May the court dismiss an action for infringement on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith, if the court at least simultaneously upholds the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, or must the court delay the decision on the action for infringement in any event until the decision on the counterclaim is res judicata?

res judicata

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
Opinion issued March 11, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 0 1047
- CR

——————————— TYSON BUSBY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 17 4 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1391450

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Tyson Busby , pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.115(a), (c) (West 2010). The tr ial court found appellant guilt y and, i n accordance with the terms of a ppellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to2

confinement for two years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only app eal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 44.02 (West 2006); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d). Here, the trial court’ s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id

. T he trial court ’s certification states t hat this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’ s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no ri ght of appeal , we must dismiss this appeal

. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), mus t dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardl ess of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Report of FullCircle Registry, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Norman L. Frohreich Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting Officer May 5, 2011
Before the Third Division,

March 25, 1953

No. 57201.

protest 130417-K (New York).

#### Catz American Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shredded or grated coconut meat, cooked in sugar sirup and packed in tins, the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Allied Food Corporation of America*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 222, C. D. 1412), thp claim of the plaintiff was sustained.