alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018032EN.01000701.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/7

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-615/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) - Rights to use immovable property - Exemptions - Scope - Concept of ‘negotiation’))

(2018/C 032/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giovanna Judith Kerr

Applicant:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 15(2) and Article 135(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘negotiation’, within the meaning of the latter provision, may relate to an activity, such as that developed by the applicant in the main proceedings, provided that that activity is that of an intermediary paid to provide a service to one of the parties to a contract concerning financial transactions in respect of title to property, that service consisting of taking the necessary steps to ensure that the vendor and buyer sign that contract, without the intermediary himself signing the contract and, in any event, without that intermediary having any interest in the content of that contract. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are fulfilled in the case before it.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

1

---
¿Puede 

Recibir 
2

muchas cos

Si usted r

obtener cup

Medicaid. E

cuentas méd

Para obte

o ciego, o te

• Anciano q

65 años o 

• Ciego sign

ciego o ti

niños, al 

recibir be

• Una incap

un proble

que dure 

la muerte

adultos, p

a incapac

¿Cuánto 

El pago men

todos los est

• $512 para 

• $769 para 
3

Su Ingre

Cosas Qu

Para recibir 

usted posea 

estar por de

Cosas Que 

No contamo

al decidir si 

Por ejemp

algunas de s

Usualmente 

Pero contam

de banco, ac

Usted pue

contamos n

• $2,000 pa

• $3,000 pa

Su Ingreso

Su ingreso e

por gananci

pensiones. C

como alime

también cue
4

$532 para 

• $789 para 

Si usted t

cada mes. S

trabajo, es p

menos de:

• $1,109 al 

• $1,623 al 

Pero, si u

por incapaci

al mes, es pr

beneficios.

Recuerde

por ese mot

recibir SSI a

cialmente si 

dinero a los 

Donde Us

Para recibir 

en los EE.U

y ser ciudad

(Ciertas per

pueden ser e

tante de Seg

califica).
5

7 a.m. y 7 p

Las perso

pueden llam

“TTY” al 1-8

y 7 p.m. de 

Proveemo

si los solicit

Seguro Soci

para asegur

disponible p

a servirle m

Usted pue

ción acerca 

www.ssa.gov

Internet.

Tratamos 

mente—lo m

números gr

Seguro Soci

que usted re

cortés. Por e

Seguro Soci

telefónicas.
Social Security 

SSA Publication 

(You May Be Ab

May 2000 (Destr

ICN 487427

Unit of Issue—H

Impreso en papel
No. 53935.

#### Bronston Hat Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149736-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015155EN.01003101.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

---

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Sfera Joven v OHIM — Las banderas del Mediterráneo (NOOSFERA)

(Case T-99/15)

(2015/C 155/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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: Las banderas del Mediterráneo, SL (Cox, Spain)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NOOSFERA’ — Application for registration No 11 233 681

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2014 in Case R 158/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 December 2014 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 158/2014-4 in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 2 160 557 and granting in full Community trade mark No 11 233 681 ‘NOOSFERA’ (word mark);

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Client Solution Architects, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62147

)

Under Contract No. N00178

- 05

- D

- 4242 et al

. )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Nicole J. Owren

- Wiest , Esq.

Charles Baek

, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

Washington, D.C.

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Kara M. Klaas

, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Chantilly, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 1 4 , 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62147

, Appeal of Client Solution

Architects, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 14, 2020 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHASTAIN CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 57188.

petition 6863-R (New York).

#### J. & I. Block Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It appeared from the record that the difference between the entered and appraised values was the result of the belief of the importer that certain freight charges from the factory to the port of exportation were a deductible item. It further appeared that no attempt was made to substantiate petitioner’s contention by an appeal to reappraisement because this was an isolated transaction, and the additional duties required to be paid because of the advance in value were so slight that it was not considered practicable. From an examination of the record, the court was satisfied that the undervaluation of the merchandise was the result of an honest difference of opinion between petitioner and the customs officials and that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue of the United States or tp' conc.eal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser -as, to the .value of. the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.'
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dmitry Beinus, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 upon such evaluation;

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  May 15, 2007

By /s/ Dmitry Beinus
   Dmitry Beinus
   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Patrick Hurd v. Braeswood Atrium

Appellate case number: 01-13-00239-CV

Trial court case number: 1027476

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

Appellant filed a “Defendant’s Pauper’s Affidavit for Appeal” containing the language “I 

wish to appeal the judgment of this court . . . .” This pro se filing suffices as a notice of appeal. 

Appellant filed this affidavit on March 21, 2013. On March 22, 2013, the county clerk timely 

filed a contest to the affidavit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(e). On March 28, 2013, the trial court 

timely signed an order extending the time to conduct a hearing on the contest by 20 days. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(i)(2)(A), (i)(3). On April 4, 2013, the trial court timely signed an order 

sustaining the contest to the affidavit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(i)(4). If appellant wished to 

challenge the order sustaining the contest, appellant was required to file a motion challenging the 

order no later than April 15, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(2). No timely motion challenging 

the order sustaining the contest was filed. Accordingly, appellant is not entitled to proceed on 

appeal without payment of costs.

Appellant is ORDERED to pay the filing fee of $175.00 to this Court no later than 10 

days from the date of this order, or the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (requiring 

payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing 

indigence), 42.3 (allowing involuntary dismissal); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 

(West Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (West 2005), § 101.041 (West Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court 

of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts 

of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 

(Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). 

Appellant is further ORDERED to file within 30 days of the date of this order proof that 

appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record or 

this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b). 
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 27, 2013
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Citizens First Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy
D. Regan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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
Company.


/s/ Timothy D. Regan
-------------------------------------
Timothy D. Regan,
Chief Financial Officer

March 23, 2006
# C_2015138EN.01005902.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/59

---

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a radiator grille)

(Case T-88/15)

(2015/C 138/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a radiator grille — Application for registration No 1 1 8 67  173

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 December 2014 in Case R 1798/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

prima facie

| — | allow the community trade mark application no. 1 1 8 67  173 to proceed to publication; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the community trade mark application no. 1 1 8 67  173 to proceed to publication;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 106 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12 (legislative day, JANUARY 11), 2017 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2010 entirely. 

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 ‘‘ObamaCare Repeal 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 106 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AF2 FORDABLE CARE ACT AND THE HEALTH 

3 CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT 

4 OF 2010. 

5 (a) PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE

6 ACT.—Effective on January 1, 2018, the Patient Protec7 tion and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) is 

8 repealed and the provisions of law amended or repealed 

9 by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had 

10 not been enacted. 

11 (b) HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILI12 ATION ACT OF 2010.—Effective on January 1, 2018, the 

13 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

14 (Public Law 111–152) is repealed and the provisions of 

15 law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or re16 vived as if such Act had not been enacted. 

17 SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT. 

18 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

19 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

20 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

21 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

22 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

23 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 

24 House of Representatives, as long as such statement has 

25 been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    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, 2003
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
Chief Executive Officer/President
Date:

                                       48
August 15, 1951

No. 55828.

Suit 4657.

#### United States *v.*Kachurin Drug Company.

C. D. 1246 affirmed June 5,1951. C. A. D., 459.
EXHIBIT 99.7

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Enerplus
Resources Fund (the "Registrant"). We hereby further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 12, 2010 for the year ended
December 31, 2009 which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled "Estimate of Reserves and Future Revenue to the Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation Interest in Certain Oil
and Gas Properties located in Montana, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming as of December 31, 2009" dated January 27, 2010, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas
liquids interests effective December 31, 2009.

Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
March 12, 2010

NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC./s/ C.H. (SCOTT) REES III, P.E. C.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2
 WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q
Quarter ended March 31, 2008
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
  §
    
    This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and§
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of
and for the periods presented.
 /s/ Cynthia A. MahlCynthia A. MahlMay 15, 2008
    Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LENNIE ASHCRAFT :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4297

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-04297-LDD Document 6 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1