alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020175EN.01000801.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-732/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by Spain to certain professional football clubs - Guarantee - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Firm in difficulty - Private investor test - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Amount of the aid - Recipient of the aid - Principle of non-discrimination - Duty to state reasons)

(2020/C 175/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, G. Cabrera López and D. López Rus, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as it concerns Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Valencia Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Valencia Club de Fútbol, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings before the Court;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

---
No. 51945.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 117300-K/334, etc. (Chicago and Detroit).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit
32(i)
 
 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Peter V.
DeCrescenzo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:
 
 (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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 Company.
 
 Dated:
May 20, 2005
 
 /s/ Peter V. DeCrescenzoPeter
      V. DeCrescenzo, CEO
No. 52529.

protest 122258-K (Seattle).

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the plaintiff stated that it was impracticable to • present evidence from which the importer could validly argue the claim for free entry because of the impossibility of obtaining evidence as to the exact character of the merchandise in question. An examination of the official papers failing to disclose anything which would warrant disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Case No. 7,828.

#### KINSEY v. KINSEY et al.

[3 Cranch. C. C. 85.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1827.

Wills — Nature of Estate Devised.

A devise to Zenas Kinsey or his heirs, is a devise to him and his heirs; and a proviso that one of the devisee's sons should have a double portion more than his other children, takes effect only in case of the death of the devisee in the lifetime of the testator.

This was an amicable bill filed to settle the construction of the will of Ezra Kinsey. The following is the clause in question:— “I give and bequeathe the whole restand residue of my estate, either real or personal, and of share of stock in trade, and every thing I am possessed of, to Zenas Kinsey or his heirs; N. B. Ezra Kinsey is to have a double portion of my estate more than Zenas Kinsey’s other children. He is to have my silver watch. Zenas Kinsey is to pay his mother, Dorothy Kinsey, $50 yearly dui’ing her lifetime; and he is to pay Mary Shaw $50 yearly during her natural lifetime.”

Mr. Taylor, for complainant, cited Crooke v. De Vandes, 9 Ves. 197.

1

 (Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

The opinion of

THE COURT

was, that the testator meant, in effect to say: “I devise the whole of my estate real and personal to Zenas Kinsey and his heirs; but if he should die before me, I devise the same to such of his children as shall be living at my decease; Ezra, however, to have a double portion and my silver watch.”

THRUSTON. Circuit Judge, not having been present at the argument, gave no opinion.
Microsoft Word 11.0.6502;
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on Form 10-KSB of Sunshine  PCS
Corporation  (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  David
S. Ahl, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(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 Company.



                                                  /s/ David S. Ahl
                                                  ----------------
                                                  Name: David S. Ahl
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 31, 2006
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 120 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 7 of 7
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10364 Summary Calendar

DENNIS RAY PADEN, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BOB GUZIK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CV-178-Y

-------------------- October 17, 2001 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dennis Ray Paden, federal prisoner #47044-079, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Upon independent review, this court concludes that the district court was correct in dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction. “A section 2241 petition on behalf of a sentenced prisoner attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the prison authorities’ determination of its duration, and must be filed in the same district where the prisoner is incarcerated.”No. 01-10364 -2- Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). “Section 2255 [of U.S.C. Title 28] provides the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Relief under this section is warranted for errors that occurred at [or prior to] sentencing.” Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001)(citations omitted). “Nevertheless, a § 2241 petition which attacks custody resulting from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained when the petitioner can satisfy the requirements of the so-called ‘savings clause’ in § 2255.” Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830. That would be the case if “the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. “[T]he burden of coming forward with evidence to show [this] rests squarely on the petitioner.” Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830. To qualify under the savings clause, “the petitioner’s claim must be based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[T]he claim must [also] have been foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion.” Id. Paden has failed to make any such showing. Therefore, the district court’s dismissal of Paden’s habeas petition is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion issued July 23, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00602-CV

———————————

IN RE GREGORY WOOD, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Gregory Wood, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

challenging the trial court’s July 9, 2013 order granting in part his motion to quash 

a subpoena duces tecum from Real Party in Interest, Rodney King, in his capacity 

as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Christopher Michael King. The order

required that he produce certain documents at a deposition.1

 

 1 The underlying case is In the Matter of Marriage of Katherine Louise King and 

Christopher Michael King and In the Interest of R.A.K, a Child, cause number 
2

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

 

2011-23444, pending in the 311th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Denise V. Pratt presiding.
No. 63548.

protest 58/18429 (San Francisco).

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of napkin holders or trivets used in the household and that if the protest were before the collector for review, he would concede the correctness of plaintiff’s claim as to the frame portion, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The tile portion was held properly dutiable as assessed.
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 Quarterly Report of IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Scigliano,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted 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) 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/ William Scigliano
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William Scigliano
                                        Chief Executive Officer

August 30, 2004
No. 54582.

#### N. G. Basevi, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150523-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Case No. 14,975.

#### UNITED STATES v. DODGE.

[2 Gall. 313.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

Oct. Term, 1814.

*Contempt—Purging—Perjury.*

If the party purge himself on oath, the court will not near collateral evidence for the purpose of impeaching his testimony, and proceeding against him for the contempt. But if perjury *882appear, the party will be recognised to answer, &c.

[Cited in Re Pitman, Case No. 11,184; Re May, 1 Fed. 743; U. S. v. Anon., 21 Fed. 768.]

[Disapproved in Re Bates, 55 N. H. 327. Cited in Burke v. State, 47 Ind. 53l; Fish-back v. State. 131 Ind. 318, 31 N. E. 86; State v. Earl, 41 Ind. 465. Disapproved in State v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 456.J

This was a process of attachment against the respondent for a contempt in forcibly rescuing T. P. Shaw, a prisoner in the custody of the marshal, under an indictment for treason.

G. Blake, for the United States.

L. Saltonstall, for respondent.

1

 [Reported by John Gallison, Esq.]

PER CURIAM.

We cannot receive any collateral evidence as to the offence, but if the respondent, by his affidavit, and answers on oath to interrogatories proposed by the district attorney, discharges himself of the contempt, no further proceedings can be had against him on the attachment. If, from any collateral evidence, it should appear, that there is reason to believe the respondent has perjured himself, we will recognise him to answer, at the next term of the court, to such matters as may be found against him. See, as to con-tempts and practice thereon, Vin. Abr. “Con-tempts.’’ A, B; Prac. Reg. 99, 100; Gilb. Com. PI. 20, 21; 12 Mod. 511; Mod. Cas. 73; Com. Dig. “Chancery,” D, 3;' Salk. 321; 4 Bl. Comm. 283; Rex v. Horsley, 5 Term R. 362; 3 Hawk. P. C. bk. 2, c. 22, §§ 1, 32-34; 1 W. Bl. 640; Wyatt’s Reg. 138; 2 Burrows, 796: Doug. 516; Bac. Abr. “Attachment,” B.

The respondent was discharged.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. : NO. 07-cv-02647-JF

 :

LUIS VASQUEZ : (Crim. NO. 03-548-01) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. August 3, 2007

Defendant has filed a motion for reconsideration of

this court’s Memorandum and Order filed July 10, 2007, which

rejected plaintiff’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant

asserts that several of his claims for relief were overlooked in

that decision.

I agree that certain of defendant’s contentions were

not specifically discussed in this court’s Memorandum in support

of the July 10, 2007 ruling, but that was because they did not

require discussion. It remains true that petitioner’s principal

allegations center upon his assertion that the evidence at trial

was insufficient to support his conviction (because the

government relied upon the testimony of informants who should not

have been allowed to testify). Defendant also asserts that trial

counsel’s closing argument was inadequate, that the trial court

lacked jurisdiction (because he robbed a state bank rather than a

federal bank), and that trial and appellate counsel were

inadequate for failing to raise these defects at any point. The

lack of merit in these contentions is, I believe, self-evident.

Case 2:03-cr-00548-JF Document 68 Filed 08/06/07 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendant also makes a general assertion that trial

counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation, but there is

no suggestion that any useful information remained undiscovered. 

There is simply no merit to any of defendant’s arguments.

An Order follows.

Case 2:03-cr-00548-JF Document 68 Filed 08/06/07 Page 2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. : NO. 07-cv-02647-JF

 :

LUIS VASQUEZ : (Crim. NO. 03-548-01) 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3 day of August 2007, upon rd

consideration of the motion of Luis Vasquez for reconsideration

of this court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 10, 2007, IT IS

ORDERED:

That upon further consideration, the motion for

reconsideration of this court’s Order dated July 10, 2007 is

DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:03-cr-00548-JF Document 68 Filed 08/06/07 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1330 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1330

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize a dependent to 
  transfer entitlement to Post-9/11 Education Assistance in cases in 
   which the dependent received the transfer of such entitlement to 
  assistance from an individual who subsequently died, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 8, 2017

 Mr. Rounds (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize a dependent to 
  transfer entitlement to Post-9/11 Education Assistance in cases in 
   which the dependent received the transfer of such entitlement to 
  assistance from an individual who subsequently died, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Increasing Transferability of 
Entitlement to Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO POST-9/11 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BY DEPENDENTS WHO RECEIVE 
              TRANSFERS FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY DIE.

    Section 3319(f)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph (B):
                    ``(B) Transfers by dependents after death of 
                transferors.--In a case in which entitlement is 
                transferred to a dependent under this section and the 
                individual who made the transfer subsequently dies, 
                such dependent may transfer some or all of such 
                entitlement to another dependent to whom entitlement 
                was already transferred under this section by such 
                individual.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019139EN.01004401.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-415/16) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)

(2019/C 139/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

---
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 54 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
No. 56983.

#### Mr. Leon Marks *v.*United States,

protests 188753-K and 192398-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware teapots and coffeepots, each encased in a metal felt-lined cozy, the same in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *Leon Marks*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1393), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|   | (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                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |                                                                                                            |                                   |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| June                26, 2006 |                                                                                                       | /s/ Mark                E. Gitter |
|                         | Mark                E. Gitter, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer (Principal                Accounting Officer) |

----