alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 8

List of significant subsidiaries

|                                                                        |  |                  |       |     
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------- | ----- | ----
|Name of Company                                                         |  | Percentage Owned
|                                                                        |  |                 
|Gemplus SA, a French corporation                                        |  |                  | 98.1  | %(1)
|Gemplus GmbH, a German corporation                                      |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Limited, a British corporation                                  |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Electronics SA, a French corporation                            |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Technologies Asia Limited, a Singapore corporation              |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Electronics Asia Limited, a Singapore corporation               |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Tianjin Gemplus Smart Card Company Limited, a Chinese corporation       |  |                  | 51.0  | %(2)
|Gemplus Tianjin New Technologies Company Limited, a Chinese corporation |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Corp., a Delaware corporation                                   |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Card International de Mexico SA de C.V., a Mexican corporation  |  |                  | 100.0 | %(2)
|Gemplus Finance SA, a Luxembourg corporation                            |  |                  | 100.0 | %   
|Gemplus Pologne S.P.Z.o.o., a Polish corporation                        |  |                  | 100.0 | %   
|Zenzus Holdings Ltd., a Gibraltar
corporation                           |  |                  | 100.0 | %   



---

|(1) |  | The remaining shares are mainly held by our employees pursuant to the
exercise of stock options, who may contribute to our company the shares of
Gemplus SA received upon exercise of these options in exchange for shares of
our company. For accounting purposes, these shares are already assumed to be
a component of the companys shareholders equity.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | A subsidiary of Gemplus SA.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

-194-
# C_2018134EN.01000902.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — Kreuzmayr GmbH v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-628/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Successive supplies relating to the same goods - Place of the second supply - Information provided by the first supplier - VAT identification number - Right to deduct - Legitimate expectation on the part of the taxable person regarding the existence of the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct))

(2018/C 134/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 32 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the second of two successive supplies of the same goods which gave rise to only one intra-Community transport. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 32 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the second of two successive supplies of the same goods which gave rise to only one intra-Community transport.

| 2. | Where the second supply in a chain of two successive supplies involving a single intra-Community transport is an intra-Community supply, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the person ultimately acquiring the goods, who wrongly claimed a right to deduct input value added tax, may not deduct, as input value added tax, the value added tax paid to the supplier solely on the basis of the invoices provided by the intermediary operator which incorrectly classified its supply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where the second supply in a chain of two successive supplies involving a single intra-Community transport is an intra-Community supply, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the person ultimately acquiring the goods, who wrongly claimed a right to deduct input value added tax, may not deduct, as input value added tax, the value added tax paid to the supplier solely on the basis of the invoices provided by the intermediary operator which incorrectly classified its supply.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.

1

---
# C_2017104EN.01002601.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 December 2016 — CX

(Case C-629/16)

(2017/C 104/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: CX

Appellant on a point of law:

Other party: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Schärding

Other party:

Question referred

Question referred

Does EU law, and in particular the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (64/733/EEC),
  Journal Officiel 1964, 217, p. 3687/64, the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement,
  Journal Officiel 1972, L 293, p. 3, and Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union (96/142/EC), OJ 1996 L 35, p. 1, preclude national legislation under which goods transport undertakings established in the Republic of Turkey may engage in cross-border commercial carriage of goods to or through the territory of the Republic of Austria only if they have, in respect of the motor vehicles concerned, passes issued as part of a quota established between Austria and Turkey pursuant to a bilateral agreement, or if they are granted authorisation for the individual carriage of goods, in which case there must be a significant public interest in the individual carriage of goods and the applicant must demonstrate that the journey cannot be avoided by organisational measures or by the choice of a different means of transport?

Journal Officiel

Journal Officiel

---
From: Randi Walker
To: Adams, Lucy H.
Cc: Steve DeSantis Subject: RE: Chromium Electroplating information request
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:45:44 AM
Attachments: Chromium facilities Region 6.xls Chromium facilities Region 9.xls

Hi Lucy, We have some additional information to send and a correction. Attached you will find an additional facility (West Falls Machine) in our Region 9 area of the state. The second Excel workbook, corrects an error we reported for the emissions from Utica Metals.

Regarding the test reports. We are not certain they would be useful as, they would be more than 15 years old.

I am still waiting for information for one more facility. When I receive that, I will send it to you.

Randi
No. 53450.

protests 140409-K, etc. (New York).

#### Herbert B. Covert et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
175. 8th, P.O. Box 910 

Miles City, MT 59301·0910 

Dennis DeVany 

Department of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 

July 2, 2013 

Telephone: 406-234-3462 

Fax: 406-234-2903 

Sent via email to: dennis.devany@dot.gov; eas@dot.gov; cc to: 

Mark_Hybner@baucus.senate.gov; mboettger@co.fergus.mt.us, 

drice@milescity-mt.org 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

Please consider this our Petition for Reconsideration regarding Order 

2013-6-13. 

Whereas, Public Law 112-27, signed into law on August 5, 2011, 

amended the definition of an "eligible place" for the purpose of receiving 

Essential Air Service (EAS). Among other things, the amendment states that to 

be eligible, a community must have had an average subsidy per passenger of 

less than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year. 

Whereas, Public Law 112-95, signed into law on February 14, 2012, 

further amended the EAS statutes. Among other things, Section 424 amends 

49 U.S.C. 41733 by adding the following. 

"(2) PROCEDURES TO AVOID TERMINATION.--The 

Secretary shall establish, by order, procedures by 

which each community notified of an impending loss 

of subsidy under paragraph ( 1) may work directly 

with an air carrier to ensure that the air carrier is 

able to submit a proposal to the Secretary to provide 

essential air service to such community for an 

amount of compensation that would not exceed the 

subsidy cap. 

"(3) ASSISTANCE PROVIDED.--The Secretary shall 

provide, by order, information to each community 
notified under paragraph ( 1) regarding--

"(A) the procedures established pursuant to 

paragraph (2); and 

"(B) the maximum amount of compensation 

that could be provided under this subchapter 

to an air carrier serving such community that 

would comply with basic essential air service 

and the subsidy cap.". 

Whereas, to the best of our knowledge, the Secretary has not established 

procedures by which a community may work with an air carrier to ensure that 

the air carrier is able to submit a proposal to provide EAS. 

Therefore~ we request that the DOT set aside Order 2013-6-13 and allow 

subsidized service to continue at all seven communities until such time that 

the DOT issues an order establishing the above referenced procedures. Once 

the order is issued we request an appropriate amount of time (60 days) to 

review the procedures established within the order and seek carriers to work 

with directly. After such time has elapsed we request that the DOT issue a new 

RFP for all seven Montana communities. It is our opinion that this is the most 

appropriate way to move forward. 

Yours Truly, 

C. A. Grenz, Mayd~
EXHIBIT 10.4(f)
                                                                 ---------------

[LOCAL OKLAHOMA LETTERHEAD]



VIA FACSIMILE (405) 600-0600
----------------------------


April 14, 2004


Ken L. Kenworthy, Sr.
GMX Resources Inc.
9400 North Broadway, Suite 600
Oklahoma City, OK  73114

Re:   Commitment Letter

Dear Ken:

This letter shall confirm that Local Oklahoma Bank has approved the amendment of
certain terms contained in its existing credit agreement with the Borrower. The
approved amendments are conditioned upon the Borrower's election to apply the
proceeds from a recent $1,000,000 equity infusion to eliminate its $1,000,000 of
Senior Subordinated Notes and are detailed as follows:

     o    One year extension of Maturity Date from September 1, 2004 to
          September 1, 2005,
     o    Redetermination of Borrower Base at $6,220,000 and redetermination of
          Monthly Commitment Reduction at $100,000 beginning June 1, 2004. As of
          this letter date, the Borrower's credit facility is fully utilized
          with an outstanding balance of $6,170,000 and $50,000 letter of
          credit.

All other terms and conditions of the existing credit agreement shall remain
unchanged. This offer to amend the credit agreement terms has been extended to
the Borrower and shall require their acceptance on or before the close of
business on May 14, 2004 at which time it shall otherwise expire.

Should you have any further questions or if I can otherwise be of assistance,
please contact me at 405/841-2179.


Sincerely

/s/ John K. Slay, Jr.
John K. Slay, Jr.
Senior Vice President
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                                                             MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III
                                                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.
                                                               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                    (dollars in thousands)


                                             FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   MARCH 31, 2000                           MARCH 26, 1999
                                          ----------------------------------       ----------------------------------
                                          MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH          MERRILL LYNCH        MERRILL LYNCH
                                           PREFERRED         PREFERRED               PREFERRED            PREFERRED
                                         CAPITAL TRUST III   FUNDING III, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST III    FUNDING III, L.P.
                                         -----------------  -----------------     -----------------    ----------------
<S>                                        <C>                <C>                   <C>                <C>
Earnings                                    $ 13,531           $ 15,880              $ 13,531           $ 15,861
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========



Fixed charges                               $      -           $      -              $      -           $      -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                                13,125             13,531                13,125             13,531
                                            --------           --------              --------           --------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions        $ 13,125           $ 13,531              $ 13,125           $ 13,531
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                      1.03               1.17                  1.03               1.17




</TABLE>
##### 



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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Belk, Inc. (the
Corporation) for the quarter ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, certifies 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 results of operations of the
Corporation.

/s/ Thomas M. Belk, Jr.Thomas M. Belk, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 9, 2004
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ALFANCO DEXTER BRITTON, a/k/a Mike, a/k/a Mann, a/k/a Alfanco, a/k/a Alphonso Britton , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00014

- MFU

- RSB

- 2; 5:15

- cv - 80805

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Alfanco D exter Britton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Alfanco Dexter Britton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfie s this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003 ). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Britton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.6

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 Corporation (the "Registrant"). We hereby
further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 9, 2012 for the year ended December 31, 2011, which document makes reference
to our firm and our report dated January 17, 2012 evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids and shale gas interests effective December 31, 2011.

Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.

HAAS PETROLEUM ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.March 9, 2012

F-002950/s/ ROBERT W. HAAS Robert W. Haas, P.E.
President


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the period indicated




This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.






INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.Dated: August 13, 2010
By:
/s/ Steven R. BlakeSteven R. BlakeChief Financial Officer
(V. D. 26)

Entry No. 834580.

#### Amicale Yarns, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 19, 1956)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by reason of a judgment by the first division of this court in the case of *447
      *Amicale Yarns, Inc.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 367, Abstract 57757. Under the terms of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)), the matter was remanded for a determination of value in the manner provided by law. The proceeding before me was abandoned by counsel for the plaintiff. It is, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
lps47193
Exhibit 32.2







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 FullCircle Registry, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Trent Oakley, 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 Financial Officer

Date: April 15, 2005
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cap Rock Energy Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Lee D. Atkins, Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 29, 2004 |                                                          |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                          |
|                             |                                                          |
|                             | By:                                                           | /s/  Lee D. Atkins |   |
|                             | Lee D. Atkins                                                 |
|                             | Senior Vice-President, Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Cap Rock Energy Corporation and will be retained by Cap Rock EnergyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----