alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018052EN.01000601.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 30 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana and Others v Contimark SA, Jordi Socías Gispert

o

(Case C-243/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2009/101/EC - Articles 2 and 6 to 8 - Directive 2012/30/EU - Articles 19 and 36 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 20, 21 and 51 - Recovery of claims arising under an employment contract - Right to bring, before the same court, an action against the company and its director, as a person having joint and several liability for the company’s debts))

(2018/C 052/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 30 de Barcelona

o

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonio Miravitlles Ciurana, Alberto Marina Lorente, Jorge Benito García, Juan Gregorio Benito García

Applicants:

Defendants: Contimark SA, Jordi Socías Gispert

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 [EC], with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, in particular Articles 2 and 6 to 8 thereof, and Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 [TFEU], in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, in particular Articles 19 and 36 thereof, must be interpreted as not conferring on employees, who are creditors of a public limited liability company as a result of the termination of their employment contract, a right to bring, before the same social court as that having jurisdiction over their action for recognition of their wage claims, an action to establish the liability of the director of that company, on the ground that he has failed to convene a general meeting of the company despite the heavy losses sustained by it, with a view to obtaining a declaration that he is jointly and severally liable for those wage claims.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2014**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2014 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: September 29, 2014 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall                                   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                                         |
|                      | Brad Brimhall                                           |
|                      | Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer |

>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Anthony Whitehurst v. Sybil Thomas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00309-CV

Trial court case number: 1167394

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On January 28, 2022, appellant filed a motion to stay the time period for filing his 

brief, noting that he has not received copies of the reporter’s records that he previously 

requested. We interpret appellant’s motion as an extension of time to file appellant’s brief. 

See TEX. R. APP. 10.5(b). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to send to 

appellant a copy of volumes one and two of the reporter’s record filed on September 3, 

2021. We further grant’s appellant’s motion and order that appellant’s brief is due to be 

filed on April 9, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 3, 2022____
Before the Second Division,

January 31, 1946

No. 50867.

#### Petition 6478-R of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The testimony of the two witnesses for the petitioner showed that the trees in question were entered at 32 cents each, which, on entry, was believed to be the correct dutiable value thereof; that subsequent to making entry petitioner learned that the prices actually paid for the trees were higher than those stated on entry; and that on being apprised of that fact, petitioner expected that an opportunity would be afforded to amend the entries, as was customary in such cases, but that before steps could be taken in that direction the merchandise had been appraised. The acting appraiser at Niagara Falls and the customs agent, who investigated the purchase price of the trees in question, testified for the Government that the petitioner had always been truthful and cooperative in their customs transactions, and that, in their opinion, no attempt had been made to defraud the revenue. The court was satisfied concerning the good faith of the petitioner and was loath to believe that a reputable importer would intentionally try to save $23 in regular duties, deliberately running the risk of incurring additional duties in excess of $700, which were imposed in this case. It was held that while the authorities relied upon by the Government may be factually similar in some respects, nevertheless they are different in important particulars and therefore do not control in this case. The court held that satisfactory evidence had been supplied by the petitioner and that the evidence established that the entry of the merchandise was without any intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
From: "Backfisch Don (NORALNM)" <BackfisD@noralnm.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/26/2011 10:16 AM

Subject: RE: Noranda New Madrid, MO Emission Point Coordinates

I have attached a site plan with the emissions points identified.

Don Backfisch

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:51 AM

To: Backfisch Don (NORALNM)

Subject: Re: Noranda New Madrid, MO Emissi on Point Coordinates

Do you have a diagram to match these emission point id nos.?

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. A lexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

From: "Backfisch Don (NORALNM)" <BackfisD@noralnm.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Kisner Jeff (NORALNM)" <KisnerJ@noralnm.com>

Date: 01/26/2011 09:35 AM

Subject: Noranda New Madrid, MO Emission Point Coordinates

Rochelle,



### Attached is a file that includes the coordinates for all of our emission points that was

used in some modeling for our recent PSD application. I hope this is the information

you were needing. Let me know if there is anything else you need.

<< Noranda Emission Point Coordinates.xlsx>>



### Don Backfisch

Environmental Superintendent

Noranda Aluminum, Inc.

P. O. Box 70

New Madrid, MO 63869

Phone (573) 643

- 2361 x2126

Fax (573) 643

- 6721
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00165

- CR

JUAN TREVINO, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 421st District Court Caldwell County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 027

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 

### O RDER Court reporter Aisha White

- Thompson recorded the trial court proceedings in appellate
cause number 06

- 15

- 00165

- CR, styled Juan Trevino v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number
14

- 027 in the 421st Judicial District Court of Caldwell County, Texas. 1 A copy of that record has been requested by Robert E. McDougall. Prior to releasing the reporter’s record, we asked White

- Thompson to redact sensitive data
from the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.10. White

- Thompson has respectfully requested an order
fr om this C ourt requiring the redaction.
Sensitive data includes (1) [a] driver’s license number, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number; (2) bank account number, credit card number, and other financial account number; (3) a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.
T EX

. R. A PP . 9.10(a). Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data. ” Further, “[t]he filing of a document constitutes a certification by the filer that the document complies with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.10(e).

1 O riginally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin , this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of th e Third Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 41.3.3 Having determined that volumes one, two, three, four, five , and six of the reporter’s record include the name of a person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed and that volume eight of the reporter’s record includes the name and birth date of a person who was a minor when the offense was committed, we hereby order White

- Thompson to redact volumes one through six and volume eight of any and all sensitive data included in those records.
The redacted re porter’s record is to be received no later than Thursday, April 11, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: March 13, 2019
Exhibit


















Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities  that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 21

- 00013

- CV

Judy FREEMAN

, Appellant

v.

Kundu JOHNSON , individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of James Phillip Johnson, deceased, Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 13953 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios Justice
Beth Watkins , Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 21, 2021

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties

regarding the assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11

EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three months ended                  Six months ended
                                                              June 30,                           June 30,
                                                        2000             1999              2000            1999
                                                      --------        ----------         --------        ---------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>                <C>             <C>
Numerator:
     Net income (loss)                                $ 36,174        $(236,950)         $ 37,210        $(462,110)

Denominator:
     Denominator for basic earnings per
         share--weighted-average shares                320,267          320,267           320,267          320,267

     Effect of dilutive securities:
         Nonqualified stock options                      1,057                 -            1,057                -
                                                      ---------       -----------        ---------       ----------
     Denominator for diluted earnings
         per share                                     321,324          320,267           321,324          320,267
                                                      =========       ===========        =========       ==========

Basic earnings (loss) per share                       $  0.113        $  (0.740)         $  0.116        $  (1.443)
                                                      =========       ===========        =========       ==========

Diluted earnings (loss) per share                     $  0.113        $  (0.740)         $  0.116        $  (1.443)
                                                      =========       ===========        =========       ==========
</TABLE>


                                      28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN P. CAPANNA : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

 :

FRANCIS J. MARTIN : NO. 04-mc-00088

O R D E R 

AND NOW, this 24th day of August, 2012, consistent with the above discussion, it is 

hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Between the Parties [Docket #34] is 

DENIED.

(2) Defendant’s Counter-Motion for Sanctions [Docket #35] is DENIED.

(3) Future disputes related to the settlement agreement between the parties are to be 

raised in a new action, and not under the original closed case.

BY THE COURT:

S/M. FAITH ANGELL 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By email to: the Honorable Norma L. Shapiro

Jack A. Meyerson, Esq. jmeyerson@meyersonlawfirm.com

Robert M. Kline, Esq. rmklinelaw@aol.com

Case 2:04-mc-00088-NS Document 37 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 2.2****AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT**     **AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT**, dated as of July 13, 2005 (this “Amendment”), by andbetween **MIDWEST BANC HOLDINGS, INC.**, a Delaware corporation (“Seller”), and **WESTERN ILLINOISBANCSHARES, INC.**, an Iowa corporation (“Purchaser”).**RECITALS**     **A. **Seller and Purchaser are parties to a certain Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”)dated as of May 31, 2005.     **B. **Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.     **NOW, THEREFORE,**in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants, representations,warranties and agreements contained herein, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:**AMENDMENT**     **Section 1****.****Amendment****.**Section 5.05 of the Agreement is hereby amended asfollows:          **(a)**In the first sentence of Section 5.05, the phrase “, if requested in writing by Purchaserwithin 60 days of the date of this Agreement,” is hereby replaced with the following: “, ifrequested in writing by Purchaser on or before August 15, 2005,”.          **(b)**In the third sentence of Section 5.05, the phrase “(a) on or prior to the 60th day afterthe date of this Agreement, Purchaser shall have firm commitments to sell, and such sales shalloccur as of or before the Closing Date, at least $20,000,000 of common voting equity of Purchaser”is hereby replaced with the following: “(a) on or prior to August 15, 2005, Purchaser shall havefirm commitments to sell, and such sales shall occur as of or before the Closing Date, at least$20,000,000 of common voting equity of Purchaser”.     **Section 2****.****Continued Force and Effect****.**Except as expressly amended ormodified hereby, each of the terms, provisions, covenants, representations and warranties containedin the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.     **Section 3****.****Counterparts****.**This Amendment may be executed in one or morecounterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute an original.* * *[Signature pages follow on next page]
 

 
     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in counterparts bytheir duly authorized officers, all as of the day and year first above written.      **WESTERN ILLINOIS BANCSHARES, INC.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,087
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,249)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,964
<PP&E>                                      14,680
<DEPRECIATION>                              (5,074)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,318
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        65
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,760
<SALES>                                     14,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,389
<CGS>                                       11,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (15,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (5,064)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (10,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (10,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (1.640)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.640)


</TABLE>
No. 58908.

protests 633307-G, etc. (New York).

#### Max Wulfsohn, Inc. *v.*United States,

*327Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold*& *Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | 1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of                operations. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                  By:   |  /s/              Gilad Gat       |   |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | Gilad                Gat               |   |
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer |   |
|                                  | Chief                Financial Officer |   |
|                                  | August                12, 2008         |   |

----
# Feb

# image1.jpg
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER B. CHESONIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 93 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 14.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Management and
Supervisory Board

Allianz Aktiengesellschaft:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Allianz of America, Inc. Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Allianz Aktiengesellschaft (Allianz) of our report dated April 6, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Allianz and its subsidiaries (collectively, the Allianz Group) as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of changes in shareholders equity and consolidated cash flow statements for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2005, and the financial statement Schedules I, II, III and IV, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Allianz.



|                                           |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/    KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft |  | 
|Aktiengesellschaft                         |  | 
|Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft            |  | 



KPMG
Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft

Aktiengesellschaft

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft



Munich, Germany

April 6, 2006