alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017038EN.01001401.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 29 November 2016 — Rafal Prefeta v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-618/16)

(2017/C 038/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rafal Prefeta

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Did Annex XII of the Treaty of Accession permit Member States to exclude Polish nationals from the benefits of Article 7(2) of the Workers Regulation (1) and Article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive (2) where the worker, though he had belatedly complied with the national requirement that his employment be registered, had not yet worked for an uninterrupted registered twelve month period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did Annex XII of the Treaty of Accession permit Member States to exclude Polish nationals from the benefits of Article 7(2) of the Workers Regulation (1) and Article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive (2) where the worker, though he had belatedly complied with the national requirement that his employment be registered, had not yet worked for an uninterrupted registered twelve month period?

1

2

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is ‘no,’ may a Polish national worker in the circumstances in question 1 rely on Article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive which concerns retention of worker status? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is ‘no,’ may a Polish national worker in the circumstances in question 1 rely on Article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive which concerns retention of worker status?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (Text with EEA relevance)

1

OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1

(2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)

2

OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77

---
# C_2016419EN.01003101.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 August 2016 — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

(Case C-473/16)

(2016/C 419/40)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F

Applicant:

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83/EC (1) be interpreted as not precluding a forensic psychologist’s expert opinion based on projective personality tests from being sought and evaluated, in relation to LGBTI applicants for asylum, when in order to formulate that opinion no questions are asked about the applicant for asylum’s sexual habits and that applicant is not subject to a physical examination? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83/EC (1) be interpreted as not precluding a forensic psychologist’s expert opinion based on projective personality tests from being sought and evaluated, in relation to LGBTI applicants for asylum, when in order to formulate that opinion no questions are asked about the applicant for asylum’s sexual habits and that applicant is not subject to a physical examination?

1

| 2. | If the expert opinion referred to in question 1 may not be used as proof, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83 be interpreted, in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as meaning that when the asylum application is based on persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, neither the national administrative authorities nor the courts have any possibility of examining, by expert methods, the truthfulness of the applicant for asylum’s claims, irrespective of the particular characteristics of those methods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the expert opinion referred to in question 1 may not be used as proof, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83 be interpreted, in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as meaning that when the asylum application is based on persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, neither the national administrative authorities nor the courts have any possibility of examining, by expert methods, the truthfulness of the applicant for asylum’s claims, irrespective of the particular characteristics of those methods?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with this annual filing of DNAPrint genomics, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard
Gabriel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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/ Richard Gabriel
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Richard Gabriel
                                        Chief Executive Officer/President

                                        Date:  May 17, 2005
Exhibit
      23.1








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form S-8 of ProtoKinetix, Incorporated of our report dated March 27, 2006,
      on our audit of the balance sheet of ProtoKinetix, Incorporated as of December
      31, 2005, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
      cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, and for the period
      from December 23, 1999 (inception) through December 31, 2005.





Our
      report, dated March 27, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
      that
      ProtoKinetix, Incorporated has not generated revenue or positive cash flows
      from
      operations and has an accumulated deficit at December 31, 2005. These
      conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue
      as a
      going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that
      might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.








/s/
      Peterson Sullivan PLLC








March
      27,
      2006


Seattle,
      Washington
# Cover

# Change Log

# Overview

DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# BIE Principles and Assumptions

&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# Core FS Pre-Built BIE List

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/cars/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/sps/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/sam/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/top/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/asap/https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/ppmi/https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/cars/reference-and-guidance.htmlhttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/cir/XML5.0.1ExtractFilesSpecificationv201.pdfhttps://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/data/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/g-invoice/gtc-orders-performance-pull(current).pdfhttps://era.nih.gov/about-erahttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/cir/https://home.grantsolutions.gov/home/about/https://pms.psc.gov/about-us.htmlhttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/data-transparency/DAIMS-current.htmlhttps://sam.gov/https://www.dfas.mil/civilianemployees/https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/human-resources/fppshttps://www.gsa.gov/buying-selling/purchasing-programs/shared-services/payroll-shared-serviceshttps://www.gsa.gov/reference/for-gsa-employees/on-the-go/concurgovhttps://www.gsa.gov/travel/agency-services/egov-travel-services-ets/etsnexthttps://www.cwtsatotravel.com/home.htmlhttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/cross-servicing/https://nfc.usda.gov/ClientServices/HR_Payroll/index.phphttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/resources.htmlhttps://smartpay.gsa.gov/https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/cars/reference-and-guidance.htmlhttps://fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/gtas/https://fiscal.treasury.gov/ipac/https://www.ipp.gov/https://www.pay.gov/public/homehttps://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/pam/

# FFM Txn Data Element List

&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# ACQ-FFM BIE

&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# GRM-FFM BIE

&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# RPM-FFM BIE

&"-,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# TRT-FFM BIE

&"-,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# GSA SAM-FFM BIE

&"-,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# FFM-DATA Act Files BIE

&A	

© 2021 The MITRE Corporation – all rights reserved.Federal Government – unlimited usage rights.	Version: &F	Page &P of &N

# FFM-GTAS BIE

&A	

© 2021 The MITRE Corporation – all rights reserved.Federal Government – unlimited usage rights.	Version: &F	Page &P of &N

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.emf
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofNational Equipment Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, F. DuffieldMeyercord, Interim Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| /s/ F. DUFFIELD MEYERCORD       |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| F. Duffield Meyercord           |
| Interim Chief Executive Officer |
| April 8,  2004                  |

 

----
No. 60753.

#### Morey Machinery Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 247810-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that if the customs regulations had been complied with, the merchandise would have been granted free entry under paragraph 1615, as amended, *supra,*and that the plaintiff has now complied with said regulations. In view of the stipulation and following Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Knockout Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Bellamy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


April 15, 2005                                  /s/ John Bellamy
                                                ---------------------------
                                                    John Bellamy
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
Product Specifications Tornado H920

Aircraft

 Flight Time 24 min

 Dimension 38.1x33.4x18.1in (969x849x461mm)

 Diagonal Length Without Rotor Blades 36.2 in(920mm)

 Propeller/Main Rotor Diameter 17.3 in (440mm)

 Weight with GB603, GH4 Camera and Battery 176.0 oz (4990g)

 Battery LiPo 6s

 Charger 6S 22.2V LiPo DC Balancing Smart Charger with AC Adapter (included)

 Transmitter 24-channel 2.4GHz with 5.8GHz video downlink (included)

 Flight Modes Smart,Angle, and Home Modes

 Maximum Flying Height(Absolute altitude) 4000m (13124 ft)

 Maximum Flying Height(Relative altitude) 400ft (122m)

 Maximum Rotation Rate 100°/s

 Maximum Roll Angle 35°

 Maximum Horizontal Speed 11m/s 25MPH 40KPH

 Radio Control Frequency Band 2.4GHz

 Operating Temperature Range -10°C to 50°C

ST24

 Operating System AndroidTM

 Number of Channels 24

 Control Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) 2km

 Robust Radio Control Modulation Yuneec Protocol

 Video link Frequency Band 5.8GHz

 Video Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) FCC Compliance: Up to 2296.57ft (700m) 

CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 ft)
 Flight Systems Telemetry Data On Screen Display (OSD) Yes

 LED Backlit LCD Screen 7”

 Tactile (Vibrating) and Audible Feedback Yes

 Built-In LiPo Battery Voltage / Capacity 8700mah Li-ion 1s

 Charger Smart Balance Charge

GB603

 Weight Without camera: 31.4 oz(890g)/With camera: 56.5 oz (1600g)

 Dimension 6.5x8.6x7.7in (165x219x196mm)

 Control Angle Accuracy ±0.02°

 Maxumum Control Range Pitch:between -30°to 90° Yaw:between 0°and 360°

 Mechanical Range Pitch:-120°~75° Roll:between -40°and 40° Yaw:between 0° and 360°

 Maximum Control Speed Pitch:30°/s Yaw: 30°/s

V18

 Dimension 6.9x4.9x8.1in (175x125x205mm)

 Weight 26.5oz (750g)

 Focusing System 18x Optical Zoom

 Field Of View 54.8° (for wide-angle ) ~3.4° (for distal end)

 Video Transmission Range Pitch: 1968.5ft(600m)

 Video Resolution FULL HD 1080p 30FPS

 Photo Resolution 2 Megapixels

 Storage(memory) Micro SD Class 10, 4~32GB

 Control Angle Accuracy ±0.02°

 White Balance Automatic White Balance

 Transmission System 5.8GHz

 Input/Operating Voltage 13V to 24V

 Working Temperature 0°C to 40°C
 Storage Temperature 0°C to 40°C

 Angular Vibration Range ±0.02°

 Adjustable Incline Pitch:+30°~ -120°; Yaw:+/-0°~ 360°; Roll: -45°~ +45°

 Maximum Control Speed Pitch:30°/s Yaw: 35°/s
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 2315

In re: SHAPAT AHDAWAN NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott , Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ t o the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond . ( 3:17

- cr - 00003

- MHL

- 1 )

Submitted : February 27 , 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON , WYNN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), contesting the validity of his 2018 conviction and seeking an order vacating h is criminal judgment. A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available only when the movant demonstrates a fundamental error for which a more usual remedy is not available and that he had valid reasons for not attacking the conviction earlier. United States v. Lesane , 40 F.4th 191, 19 7 (2022). Although Nabaya was released from prison in January 2022, he is still serving his supervised

- release term. A defendant serving a supervised

- release term is considered “in custody” for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Swaby , 855 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2017). Because the more usual remedy is available, Nabaya cannot seek relief through a coram nobis petition. See Lesane , 40 F.4th at 197. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of error coram nobis and deny Nabaya’s pending motions. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Nabaya’s petition for writ of error coram nobis and related motions as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Nabaya’s claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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.
PETITION DENI E

D USCA4 Appeal: 23-2315 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
No. 63571.

protests 119691-K/454, etc. (Chicago).

#### Castletown Liquor Distributors et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co.,*Inc. (40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 65415.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/20929 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, J.David Darnell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of INTACInternational, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) that to myknowledge on the date hereof:

(a)           TheAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year endedSeptember 30, 2006, filed on the date hereof with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(b)           Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated:     December 14,  2006 |                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                               |
|                                                        |                                               | /s/ J. DAVID DARNELL |   |
|                                                        |                                               | J. David Darnell |   |
|                                                        | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

Thiscertification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 of theAct, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to theliability of that section.

----
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-11-00309- CV In re Agustin Zurita ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

The petition f

or writ of mandamus is de nied and the motion for emer g ency relief is dismiss ed. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Filed: May

23, 2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60605

Summary Calendar

ROCKIE D. PICKENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VIMAL POWELL, Inmate Legal Assistance Program Technician, 

in his individual capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-CV-427

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

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Clement, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rockie D. Pickens, Mississippi inmate # 71454, seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district

court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint under FED. R. CIV.

P. 4(m) for failure to serve the defendant. Pickens argues that

he was entitled to rely on the United States Marshal’s Service to

serve Powell and that it failed to effect service by not serving

Powell personally at his home address. 
No. 05-60605

-2-

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Pickens is challenging

the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken

in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.

1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). Because

Pickens was IFP, he was entitled to rely on the Marshal’s Service

to effect service of his complaint on Powell. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2); Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d

1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the Marshal’s Service attempted

to serve Powell by certified mail only and not personally, the

Marshal’s Service improperly performed its duty, and the district

court abused its discretion when it dismissed Pickens’s suit. 

See Lindsey v. United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444,

447 (5th Cir. 1996); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e); MISS. R. CIV. P.

4(c)(5); Triple C Transp., Inc. v. Dickens, 870 So. 2d 1195,

1198-99 (Ms. 2004). 

IT IS ORDERED that Pickens’s motion to proceed IFP is

GRANTED. The district court’s certification decision is VACATED, 

and the case is REMANDED for the district court to identify

evidence that the Marshal’s Service attempted to serve Powell

personally. If the district court is unable to identify such

evidence, it should order the United States Marshal’s Service or

other appropriate person under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e) to serve

Pickens’s complaint on Powell personally. 

IFP GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.