alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016211EN.01002401.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Günter Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-113/16)

(2016/C 211/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Günter Horváth

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Questions referred

| 1. | Does legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings create a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings create a restriction contrary to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by making the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?

| 2. | Having regard to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are nationals of the Member State concerned affected to the same extent as nationals of the other Member States by legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Having regard to Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are nationals of the Member State concerned affected to the same extent as nationals of the other Member States by legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the continuance of rights of usufruct and use constituted over arable land subject to evidence of a close family link with the person who constituted those rights, so that, if the holder of the right of usufruct or use is unable to establish the close family link, his right is extinguished ex lege with no compensation?

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XIII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/S/    LEO F. WELLS,
III
|Leo F. Wells, III       
|Chief Executive Officer 
|March 28, 2006          



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/S/    DOUGLAS P.
WILLIAMS
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|March 28, 2006
No. 58903.

protests 193660-K, etc. (New York).

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

*326Opinion 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 claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : No. 04-3509 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2012, the following is ordered: 

C “Certain Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum”

(doc. no. 430) is granted; and

C “Certain Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order

and Opinion Entered on February 22, 2012" (doc. no. 422) is denied. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J. 

Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 447 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 1
No. 53966.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 669515-G and 673404-G (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
SCWC-13-0000386

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL SHIMABUKURO,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000386; CR. NO. 11-1-1686)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and Wilson, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Ochiai, in place of McKenna, J., recused, and

Circuit Judge Crabtree, in place of Pollack, J., recused.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Michael Shimabukuro’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on February 16, 2016 is

hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 31, 2016.

John M. Tonaki and

William H. Jameson, Jr.

for petitioner

Keith M. Kaneshiro

Sonja P. McCullen

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Dean E. Ochiai

/s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000386

31-MAR-2016

12:32 PM
EXHIBIT 12.2


SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Matías I. Gaivironsky, certify that:


1.
 I have reviewed
this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F of IRSA
Propiedades Comerciales S.A. (the “Company”) for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2019;





2.
 Based on my
knowledge, this amendment to the annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state 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.
 The Company’s
other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:





a.
 Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervisions, to
ensure that 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.
 Designed such
internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;





c.
 Evaluated the
effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;





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





4.
 The Company’s
other certifying officer 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 reasonably
likely 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 control
over financial reporting.





IRSA Propiedades Comerciales S.A.January 06, 2020
By:
/s/ Matías
I. GaivironskyMatías
I. GaivironskyChief
Financial and Administrative Officer
**EXHIBIT 23 –****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 forthe Company’s 1996 Stock Option Plan and 1996 Recognition and Retention Plan (Registration No.333-83198) of our report dated March 31, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements ofFirst Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 which appear in this Form10-K of First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008./s/ Plante & Moran, PLLCAuburn Hills, Michigan
No. 50842.

#### Protest 90430-K of Wilbur Ellis Co. (San Francisco).

Ekwall, Judge:

Importations of woven wire netting were assessed with dumping duty under the Antidumping Act of 1921. Plaintiff in this action has filed protest against such assessment on the ground that the appraisement, reappraisement, and liquidation are null and void because the mandatory requirements of section 499, Tariff Act of 1930, were not complied with in that the collector failed to designate, and the appraiser failed to examine the statutory number of packages in the importation.

Appraisement was made prior to the enactment of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

From the testimony introduced at the hearing held at the port of San Francisco and an examination of the official papers it is apparent that the designation of the collector was as follows in each case:

U. S. Appraiser will examine at wharf before delivery.

It has been held that the designation “Wharf” upon the summary sheet is an insufficient designation in that it does not comply with said section 499. We find that the above-quoted designation is insufficient and not in compliance with the statute. See *New York Match Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*3 Cust. Ct. 283, C. D. 255; *United States*v. *Stauffer Eshleman & Co., Ltd., et al.,*Reap. Dec. 5732; and *Sabine Transportation Co.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 4409.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the. Secretary of the Treasury had promulgated any special regulation with respect to the designation and examination of this type of merchandise.

The law is well settled that the requirements of the statute are mandatory. Inasmuch as they have not been complied with in this case, we sustain the claim of the plaintiff that the liquidations herein are illegal for the reason that the appraisement and reappraisement were null and void. Therefore the dumping duty was illegally assessed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1223 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1223

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2018

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly know as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89-224 (79 Stat. 897) 
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) 
relating to the distribution or use of funds, as soon as practicable 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall disburse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated or 
deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees and 
administration and per capita trust accounts, as identified by the 
Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as in effect on the day 
before the date of enactment of this Act).

            Passed the Senate March 22, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
# C_2018161EN.01000601.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 — SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) v European Commission, French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation

(Case C-127/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam - Restructuring and recapitalisation aid, guarantees and waiving of Sernam's financial debts by SNCF - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Sale of assets en bloc - Concept of ‘sale’ - Confusion between object and price of the sale of assets en bloc - Open and transparent procedure - Private investor test - Application of that principle to an assignment of assets en bloc - Compensatory measures))

(2018/C 161/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: SNCF Mobilités, formerly Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard, G. Fabre and V. Landes, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), French Republic, Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders SNCF Mobilités to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Mory SA and Mory Team. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SNCF Mobilités to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Mory SA and Mory Team.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

1

---
​

Exhibit 10.11
​
​
SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION 
OF 
ATLANTIC UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION 
​
Effective February 1, 2021
	

	


	
		
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Amount

	Annual Retainer Cash Fees (1)
	 

	Service as a Director (2)
	$35,000

	Service as Chairman of the Board of Directors
	$80,000 (additional)

	Service as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors 
	$20,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Audit Committee
	$20,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Compensation Committee
	$13,500 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Risk Committee
	$15,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	$10,000 (additional)

	Service as Chairman of Trust Committee
	$10,000 (additional)

	Members of Audit, Compensation, Risk, Nominating and Corporate Governance and Trust Committees
	$8,000 (additional)

	 
	 

	Meeting Fees Per Meeting
	 

	Executive Committee (in person or telephonic)
	$1,000

	Executive Committee (telephonic lasting under an hour)
	$500

	Meetings above the maximum number of meetings during the year 
	$1,000

	Special Purpose Committees
	$500

	 
	 

	Equity Compensation
	 

	In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors receive an annual stock retainer of $50,000 paid quarterly in advance in unrestricted shares of the Company’s common stock. 

	 
	 

	(1) The retainer fees are payable in advance in quarterly installments.
​
	 

	(2) Non-employee directors may elect to receive all or a portion of the Director cash retainer in unrestricted shares of the Company’s common stock, beginning with the second quarter in 2021.
	​



​

​
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ James J. GiancolaName:
    
    James J. GiancolaTitle:
    
    President andChief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    May 12, 2008/s/ JoAnn Sannasardo LilekName:
    
    JoAnn Sannasardo LilekTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President andChief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    May 12, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROSALIND and CALVIN NUNNERY :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4173

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-04173-RB Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 64789.

#### Menkes Feuer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/18458(A), 58/18468, and 58/18467 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that 7,032 square feet of the leather covered by entry 773282, 15,826.1 square feet of the leather covered by entry 774270, and 2,000 square feet of the leather covered by entry 783394 were used in the manufacture of shoes. The claim of the plaintiff was sustained to that extent.
EXHIBIT 13(a).1

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Lukas Winkler, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
INFICON Holding AG (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Company's Report on Form 20-F on or about March 31, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            (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) and 78o(d)) and

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


Date: March 31, 2004    By: /s/ Lukas Winkler
                           --------------------

Lukas Winkler
President and Chief Executive Officer
Certificate of Service

I certify hereb y that on the 24th Day of September, 20 02, I pe rsona lly

served or caused to be served a copy of the attached Government’s Response To A

Supplemental Motion, addressed to:

Sydney Bradshaw A13 914 980

Berks County Prison 

1287 County Welfare Road 

 Leesport, PA 19533-9397 

 petitioner, 

by first class mail service upon petitioner.

______________________________________

STEPHEN J. BRITT

Assistant United States Attorney

Easte rn District of Pennsylvania

615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106-4476

(215) 861-8443

(215) 861-8642 telecopier 

Case 2:02-cv-04268-CG Document 10 Filed 09/24/2002 Page 1 of 1
Order filed, October 18, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00823-CV

____________

DONALD KILPATRICK, Appellant

V.

ERIC L. ESTES; ADRIANA POTOCZNIAK, ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-31821D

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 30, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; JOSHUA SARNER; : NO. 02-4302

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE; :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D.; JOHN MATUSAVAGE; :

JOHN DOE PROCESS SERVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND :

AS AGENT FOR SARNER 7 ASSOCIATES, P.C.; :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE; LEONARD SARNER, :

ESQUIRE; AND JODI H. BROWN, M.D. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2002, after conducting a telephone status conference

with counsel in the above-captioned matter, it is herebyORDERED that a Discovery Hearing shall

take place on January 2, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3H, United States Courthouse, 601

Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 30 Filed 12/20/2002 Page 1 of 1