alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019025EN.01000401.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba

(Case C-664/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 and 273 - Scope of the right of deduction - Absence of invoices - Recourse to a court-commissioned expert report - Burden of proof of the right of deduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality))

(2019/C 25/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lucreţiu Hadrian Vădan

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Alba

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 167, 168, 178(a) and 179, and the principles of the neutrality of value added tax (VAT) and proportionality, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a taxable person who is unable to provide evidence of the amount of input VAT he has paid, by producing invoices or any other document, cannot benefit from a right to deduct VAT solely on the basis of an assessment resulting from an expert report commissioned by a national court.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
    A)
    
    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(a) or
78o(d)) andB)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
  March 31, 2009
Dated
    
    /s/ Amy E. Essex

Amy E. Essex
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 1 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:04-cv-05239-PBT Document 1 Filed 11/10/04 Page 27 of 27
# C_2016090EN.01002002.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/20

---

Action brought on 17 December 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Sky (SKYLITE)

(Case T-736/15)

(2016/C 090/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLITE’ — Application for registration No 11 595 311

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2015 in Case R 2771/2014-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RUBY and JERMIAH EVANS :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4316

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04316-BWK Document 8 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the

District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MONTANEZ, Jr.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

TOM FELKER, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-56726

D.C. No. CV-07-00091-GW(PLA)

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, ** District

Judge.

Jose Montanez, Jr., is a California state prisoner appealing the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. Petitioner is not

entitled to equitable tolling, because he has failed to show diligence. See Bryant v.

FILED

NOV 13 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Ariz. Atty. Gen., 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not

clearly err in finding that petitioner did not demonstrate that he requested his legal

materials while in Administrative Segregation or made any effort to prepare a

petition before such Segregation.

AFFIRMED.
No. 50294.

#### Protests 95163-K, etc., of Wm. B. Heald & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of thé invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 12.2 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Ernesto López Mozo, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telefónica Móviles, S.A.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Reserved]; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 12, 2006
CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
                             18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
                             AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
                  SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In  connection  with  the  Annual Report of New Medium Enterprises, Inc. on Form
10-K  for  the  period  ending  June  30,  2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Ethel Schwartz,
President  &  Chief  Executive  Officer of New Medium Enterprises, Inc. 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 the Securities Act
of  1933,  as  amended;  and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of New
Medium  Enterprises,  Inc.




/s/  Ethel  Schwartz
-----------------------
Ethel  Schwartz
Chief  Executive  Officer
September  13,  2004
May 3, 1962

No. 66743. — Suit 5070.

#### General Ceramics Corporation *v.*United States (R. J. Saunders Co., Inc., a/c The Ferroxcube Corp. of America, Party in Interest).

C.D. 2230 affirmed January 15,1962. C.A.D. 788.
No. 61251.

protests 192130-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, and the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), for “Works of art * * * statuary, sculptures, or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $2.50.”
# C_2017078EN.01000601.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/6

---

Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Tayto Group Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 24 February 2016 in Case T-816/14: Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case C-272/16 P)

(2017/C 078/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Tayto Group Ltd (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 27 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NO.

:

LOVATO, et al. : 02-3924

MCLEAN : 02-3966

GAMEGAN-RICHARDSON : 02-3985

CLIPSON : 02-4137

TERILLI, et al. : 02-4243

MOUSER, et al. : 02-4271

STAMPER : 02-4321

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the C.T.O.

from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

Case 2:02-cv-04243-JG Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

James T. Giles, Chief Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04243-JG Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10762

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN MCCOY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANN RICHARDS ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-179

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John McCoy, Texas state prisoner #399292, appeals the

district court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of his civil rights

suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Although McCoy

argues that he was denied access to legal materials and legal

assistance to prepare his direct appeal, he has not alleged that

he was denied access to the courts. Indeed, he asserts that his

appointed counsel prepared and timely filed a brief without
No. 96-10762

- 2 -

McCoy's legal input. McCoy’s access-to-the-courts assertion is

without merit. See Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). 

Through appointed counsel, McCoy was provided the means for

ensuring a reasonably adequate opportunity to present his

defense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing McCoy’s claim as frivolous because it has no arguable

basis in law. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-34

(1992).

McCoy’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. We caution

McCoy that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, McCoy is

further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.

McCoy’s motion to amend the record with his brief is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1066 

To provide for the removal of default information from a borrower’s credit 

report with respect to certain rehabilitated education loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2017 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the removal of default information from a 

borrower’s credit report with respect to certain rehabilitated education loans. 

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 ‘‘Federal Adjustment 

5 in Reporting Student Credit Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘FAIR 

6 Student Credit Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1066 IS

1 SEC. 2. REHABILITATION OF QUALIFIED EDUCATION 

2 LOANS. 

3 Section 623(a)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

4 (15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(E) REHABILITATION OF QUALIFIED

7 EDUCATION LOANS.— 

8 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding 

9 any other provision of this section, a per10 son may request to remove a previously re11 ported default regarding a qualified edu12 cation loan from a consumer report, and 

13 such request shall not be considered inac14 curate, if— 

15 ‘‘(I) the lender chooses to offer a 

16 loan rehabilitation program that re17 quires a number of consecutive on18 time monthly payments, in accordance 

19 with the terms and conditions of the 

20 loan rehabilitation program, or any 

21 valid and legally binding modification 

22 thereto, equal to the number of pay23 ments specified under section 

24 428F(a)(1)(A) of the Higher Edu25 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078– 

26 6(a)(1)(A)); and 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1066 IS

1 ‘‘(II) the consumer of such loan 

2 successfully and voluntarily meets the 

3 requirements of that loan rehabilita4 tion program. 

5 ‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.—A consumer may 

6 obtain the benefits available under this 

7 subsection with respect to rehabilitating a 

8 loan only one time per loan. 

9 ‘‘(iii) QUALIFIED EDUCATION LOAN

10 DEFINED.—For purposes of this subpara11 graph, the term ‘qualified education loan’ 

12 has the meaning given such term under 

13 section 221(d) of the Internal Revenue 

14 Code of 1986.’’. 

15 SEC. 3. GAO STUDY. 

16 (a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United 

17 States shall carry out a study on— 

18 (1) the implementation of section 623(a)(1)(E) 

19 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as added by sec20 tion 2; and 

21 (2) any hurdles borrowers experience with the 

22 private loan rehabilitation program. 

23 (b) REPORT.—Not later than the end of the 18- 

24 month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

25 this Act, the Comptroller General shall issue a report to 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 1066 IS

1 the Congress containing all findings and determinations 

2 made in carrying out the study required under subsection 

3 (a). 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CLINNIE DAVIS :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4113

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04113-SD Document 6 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
IPAC Operational Metrics for February 2018

Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 12,096,610,436,161 99.47% 11,909 11.78%

Buy/Sell 57,468,501,971 0.47% 87,942 87.02%

Benefits (RITS) 6,891,416,118 0.06% 416 0.41%

Check Aftermath (TRACS) 74,473,005 0.00% 796 0.79%

Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Grand Total - February 2018 12,161,044,827,255 100.00% 101,063 100.00%

Grand Total - January 2018 8,666,470,791,963 100.00% 105,404 100.00%

January to February Change 3,494,574,035,292 -4,341

Percentage Change 40.323% -4.118%

Grand Total - February 2017 14,560,789,786,337 105,453

Feb 2017 to Feb 2018 Change -2,399,744,959,082 -4,390

Percentage Change -16.5% -4.2%

Volume by Transaction Type
Appendix	B

Planned Equipment inventory:

DJI Phantom 2 with Modified GoPro Hero 4(Modified lense to provide flat 

imaging)

Futaba T8FGS Radio/Transmitter (PIC)