alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016364EN.01001101.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2016 — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner

(Case C-434/16)

(2016/C 364/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Nowak

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Questions referred

| 1. | Is information recorded in/as answers given by a candidate during a professional examination capable of being personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is information recorded in/as answers given by a candidate during a professional examination capable of being personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC (1)?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is that all or some of such information may be personal data within the meaning of the Directive, what factors are relevant in determining whether in any given case such script is personal data, and what weight should be given to such factors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that all or some of such information may be personal data within the meaning of the Directive, what factors are relevant in determining whether in any given case such script is personal data, and what weight should be given to such factors?

---

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

OJ L 281, p. 31

---
Parraguirre Cherry 

Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969), when it 

determined the reasonableness of SDK's attorney fees. No other aspect of 

the previous order of affirmance was disturbed in the order granting 

rehearing. On remand, the district court considered the Brunzell factors, 

adjudicated the lien, and entered judgment in favor of SDK for $37,439.84. 

Garmong again appealed. 

We have considered the parties' arguments and the record in 

this appeal and conclude that on remand the district court properly 

followed this court's mandate and did not abuse its discretion when it 

considered the Brunzell factors and entered judgment in SDK's favor. 

Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 

125 Nev. 527, 531, 216 P.3d 779, 782 (2009) ("[The district court's] 

attorney fees award is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

1-Garmong's August 20, 2013, motion for leave to file a reply to SDK's 

response to the notice of supplemental authorities is granted. The clerk of 

this court shall detach and file the reply attached to Garmong's motion. 

We have considered Garmong's other arguments and conclude that 

they do not warrant reversal. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
cc: Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge 

David Wasick, Settlement Judge 

Carl M. Hebert 

Woodburn & Wedge 

Les W. Bradshaw 

Silverman, Decaria & Kattelman, Chtd. 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg 

Douglas County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
# C_2015262EN.01003501.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/35

---

Action brought on 12 June 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-313/15)

(2015/C 262/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the notice of Competition EPSO/AD/301/15 — Administrators (AD 5); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the notice of Competition EPSO/AD/301/15 — Administrators (AD 5);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-17/15 Italy v Commission (OJ 2015 C 81, p. 27).

Italy

Commission

---
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), JoMei Chang, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Vitria Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of her knowledge, as follows:



The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the
Periodic Report.



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set her hand hereto as of this 14th day of May, 2003.



By:

/s/    JOMEI CHANG,
PH.D.JoMei Chang, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vitria Technology, Inc. and will be retained by
Vitria Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Vitria Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JOSEPH GUILLORY,

3 Worker-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 32,977

5 NEW MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

6 OF THE COURTS and DONA ANA COUNTY

7 MAGISTRATE COURT ENTITIES OF THE 

8 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, a Self-Insured

9 Employer,

10 Employer-Appellee.

11 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION

12 Terry S. Kramer, Workers’ Compensation Judge

13 Perales Law Group PC

14 J. Marcos Perales-Piña

15 Las Cruces, NM

16 for Appellant

17 Morgan Lyman

18 Las Cruces, NM 

19 for Appellee

20 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 VIGIL, Judge.

2 {1} Worker appealed the denial of his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

3 We proposed to affirm in a calendar notice. Employer filed a memorandum in support

4 of the proposed affirmance; however, Worker has not filed a memorandum in

5 opposition and the time for doing so has expired. Therefore, for the reasons discussed

6 in our calendar notice, we affirm the decision of the worker’s compensation judge in

7 this case.

8 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 __________________________________

10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 ___________________________________

13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

14 ___________________________________

15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
No. 59987.

#### W. F. L. Drum Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 267775-K/ 7310, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vellum the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstracts 57385 and 58987, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1736 was sustained.
Opinion issued September 3, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 20 - 00386 - CV

——————————— IN RE JUSTIN COOK , Relat or
Original Proceeding on Petition f or Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Relator, Justin Co ok , has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order that he produce certain records in his personal injury lawsuit

. 1 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus

. S e e T E X
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.8(a), (d). All pending motions are dismi ssed as moot

.

1 The underlying case is Cook v. Spring Transport, LLC and Carlo Chapa , C ause N o. 2019

- 25292 , pending in the 269th Distr i ct Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Cor y Don Sepolio presiding.2 P ER CURIAM Panel consists of J ustices Kelly , Goodman, and Countiss

.
Before the First Division,

January 22, 1945

No. 49970.

#### Petition 6475-R of Francis X. Zuffante (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The question of the proper dutiable value was tried in reappraisement proceedings. Both the single judge in *Luigi Vitelli Elvea*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 466, Reap. Dec. 5661) and the division on review in *United States*v. *Luigi Vitelli Elvea*(11 Cust. Ct. 437, Reap. Dec. 5941) sustained the importer’s contention. While the merchandise in question was not directly involved in that litigation, its dutiable value was held to be subject to the same principle of law in the case of *Francis X. Zuffante*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 338, Reap. Dec. 6033). Although the export value of the instant merchandise was upheld in that case, the actual values found by the court were higher than those at which entry was made due to adjustments for nondurable charges, and additional duties therefore accrued.

When this case was called for trial the petitioner testified that prior to entry he sought information from the customs examiner concerning dutiable values of the instant merchandise; that he followed the quotations given by the customs officials at that time; and that subsequent to entry but prior to appraisement inquiry was made of people in the trade, all of whom supported petitioner’s belief that the invoice values were truly representative of dutiable values. From an examination of the record and a consideration of the circumstances relating to entry and final appraisement of the merchandise in question, the court was satisfied that the petitioner had met the burden imposed under section 489 and that the relief sought should be allowed. The petition was therefore granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

     Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or
              15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. 1350, and pursuant to Section
                      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Kit Tsui, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Industries
International, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Annual Report"), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m) and

(2) information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Industries
International, Inc.

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.


Date: April 20, 2004                        /s/ Dr. Kit Tsui
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Dr. Kit Tsui
                                            Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                            Executive Officer
                                            Industries International, Inc.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CFO CERTIFICATION**

I, Bobby D. Ray, certify that:

          1.          I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Foundation Capital Resources, Inc.;

          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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

          4.          The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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;

                    c.          Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

          5.          The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DALTON JAMES BENNETT, JR. A/K/A 

DALTON JAMES BENNETT,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00138-CR

Appeal from the

372nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1244131D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the judgment of 

conviction should be modified to reflect that the trial court assessed the punishment in 

Appellant’s case. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 32    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 Amended Annual Report of FullCircle Registry, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB/A for the annual period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Trent Oakley, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) 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 or 78o(d)); 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/Trent Oakley Trent Oakley Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Date: July 28, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-50808) of TECO Capital Trust I of our report
dated March 28, 2001 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this
Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated January 12, 2001, except for the information in Note P as to which the
dates are March 12, 2001 and March 15, 2001, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of TECO Energy, Inc., which
appears in the TECO Energy, Inc. Form 10-K dated March 28, 2001.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Tampa, Florida
March 29, 2001


                                       15
Before the Second Division,

June 21, 1944

No. 49545.

#### Protests 19011-K, etc., of Levin Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It appeared that these sets are similar to those involved in Levin v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 74, C. D. 797), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the needles were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1724; the thimbles dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils; the thread at one-half cent per 100 yards, but not less than 20 nor more than 35 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 902 as cotton thread; and the container as the usual container of the merchandise, the value of the container to be prorated among the different values of the articles in the set. Those claims were therefore sustained as to the sets identified in the decision.
(V. D. 29)

Entry No. 11903, etc.

#### Colonial Optical Co. and Perryman, Mojonier Company et al. *v.*United States

(Decided September 19, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for- the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These are valuation proceedings which arose by reason of judgments by the first division of this court in *Colonial Optical Co. and Perryman, Mojonier Company et al.*v. *United States,*33 Cust. Ct. 443, Abstract 58543; *Prismatic, Inc., and James G. Wiley et al.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 379, Abstract 59078. By such judgments, under the terms of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2636), the matters were remanded to a single judge to “determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise.” The proceedings before me have been abandoned by counsel for the plaintiffs. They are, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Amended Quarterly Report of National Equipment Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Rodgers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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/
KEVIN RODGERS

Kevin
Rodgers
Chief Executive Officer
August 23, 2002

---

QuickLinks
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 5:51 PM

To: Hutson, Nick; Harvey, Reid; Culligan, Kevin

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Grossman, Andrea

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- 111(b) New-Mods 

preamble and reg text

Attachments: SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 

Preamble_7 25 2015.docx; SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111(b) 

New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RegText7 25 2015.docx

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the latest version of the EPA 

draft final rule, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. 

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. 

Nathan
# C_2016175EN.01001501.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/15

---

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 29 March 2016 — Yukos Universal Ltd v European Investment Bank

(Case C-185/16 SA)

(2016/C 175/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yukos Universal Ltd (represented by: H. Boularbah, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to declare the grounds, amounts and arrangements for the debts which the Russian Federation holds against it; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to declare the grounds, amounts and arrangements for the debts which the Russian Federation holds against it;

| — | Authorise YUL to serve interim and final garnishee orders on the European Investment Bank in respect of those debts and, de minimis, of all sums owed or which will be owed by the European Investment Bank to the Russian Federation in its capacity as issuer of bonds subscribed by the Russian Federation, including on the interest generated by those bonds and their reimbursement, in accordance with the arrangements laid down in the applicable issue contract(s) or prospectus(es) and up to an amount, in principal and interest, subject to revaluation during the proceedings, of EUR 1 690 886 892,20 (amount of the debt held by YUL against the Russian Federation); |
| --- | --- |

—

Authorise YUL to serve interim and final garnishee orders on the European Investment Bank in respect of those debts and, de minimis, of all sums owed or which will be owed by the European Investment Bank to the Russian Federation in its capacity as issuer of bonds subscribed by the Russian Federation, including on the interest generated by those bonds and their reimbursement, in accordance with the arrangements laid down in the applicable issue contract(s) or prospectus(es) and up to an amount, in principal and interest, subject to revaluation during the proceedings, of EUR 1 690 886 892,20 (amount of the debt held by YUL against the Russian Federation);

de minimis

| — | In any event, order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs of these proceedings.

---