alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007170EN.01001601.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/16

---

Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-254/07)

(2007/C 170/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2004/17/EC had to be transposed expired on 31 January 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and its results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009.



|                   |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/ Tammie A. Quinlan                               
|Date: May 17, 2010 |  | TAMMIE A. QUINLAN                                   
|                   |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2  CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  I, Steven Rostowsky, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the Trust);  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 Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Trust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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Trust 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 Trust, 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)designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles:  c)evaluated the effectiveness of the Trust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; and  d)disclosed in this report any change in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.  5. The Trusts other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Trusts auditors and the audit committee of the Trust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 Trust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 Trusts internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 28, 2013  /s/   STEVEN ROSTOWSKYSteven   RostowskyPrincipal   Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FREDRICK H. PORTER, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

No. 30,115

July 11, 1975

*Lieutenant Michael C. Barr,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC and *Lieutenant J. W. Malley, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

The military judge erred prejudicially by instructing the members of the accused’s court-martial that in fact "the taking by the accused was with the intent permanently to deprive Private First Class Claude Fisher of the use and benefit of the property.” *United States v Gaiter,*— USCMA —, — CMR — (June 20, 1975).

The decision of the US Navy Court of Military Review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ALAN R. SCHWARZ, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

No. 30,322

July 25, 1975

*Lieutenant Michael C. Barr,*JAGG, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N Kress,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

In a trial by special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, the appellant was convicted of an assault and battery in accordance with his plea and using indecent language contrary to his plea, offenses which are in violation of Articles 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 928 and 934. When the appellant’s case originally came before the Navy Court of Military Review, that court ordered a new review by the staff judge advocate and further action by the convening authority in view of certain prejudicial errors and omissions in the first review.

The appellant’s case is now before this Court, a new review and action having been accomplished and the case thereafter affirmed by the Court of Military Review. Our examination of this second post-trial review, however, réveals yet a further deficiency. In the section of his review where the staff judge advocate set forth his summarization of opinions as to the legality of these proceedings, he erroneously stated that the findings of guilty to both charges and specifications were supported beyond a reasonable doubt by the provident guilty pleas of the appellant. Notwithstanding the correct designation of those pleas elsewhere in the review, as well as discussion of the findings and their evidentiary basis, we find such erroneous advice to be prejudicially confusing and misleading. *United States v McIlveen,*23 USCMA 357, 49 CMR 761 (1975).

While a new review and action by a different convening authority would normally constitute appropriate relief for an error such as this, we see no useful purpose to be gained by yet another review and action in this case. The findings of guilty of the charge and specification alleging the use of indecent language are accordingly set aside and dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy *504for submission to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the assault and battery offense which is hereby affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6845

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERROL TURNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR99-560; CA-05-1105-PJM)

Submitted: February 6, 2006 Decided: February 17, 2006

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Errol Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Errol Turner appeals the district court’s order

construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized

successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and

dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal may not

be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Turner has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

We also construe Turner’s notice of appeal and informal

brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,

208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a movant must assert claims based on
- 3 -

either (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review, or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to

establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant

guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. Turner’s claims do

not satisfy either of these standards. We therefore decline to

authorize a successive § 2255 motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SEC Reference 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with the Annual Report of Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffery Taylor, Principal Executive 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/Jeffery TaylorJeffery TaylorPrincipal Executive OfficerDate: May 17, 2016
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Carl E. Vogel, the Chief Executive Officer of CCH II, LLC and CCH II
Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Carl E. Vogel

Carl E. VogelChief Executive OfficerMay 17, 2004
February 26, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JUNG JU CHANG, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00984-CV V.

H-MART HOUSTON, INC., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, H-Mart 

Houston, Inc., signed October 24, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Jung Ju Chang, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1000

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM048AD

12M/F68-06 --- 6/17/08

12M/F68-01, R1 --- 10/2/06

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the annual report of On the Move Systems Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert Wilson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: June 27, 2014BY: /s/ Robert WilsonRobert WilsonPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 89 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 89

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of 
             national injunctions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of 
             national injunctions, 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 ``Injunctive Authority Clarification 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ORDERS PURPORTING TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST NON-PARTIES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 155 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-
              parties
    ``No court of the United States (and no district court of the 
Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands) shall issue an 
order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of 
any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-
party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity 
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 155 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 2285 the following:

``2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-
                            parties.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007199EN.01002102.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Belgian State v Truck Center SA

(Case C-282/07)

(2007/C 199/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Belgian State

Appellant:

Respondent: Truck Center SA

Respondent:

Question referred

Do Article 105(iii)(b) and Article 107(2)(ix) of the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 adopted pursuant to Article 266 of the Income Tax Code 1992, read in conjunction with Article 23 of the Belgo-Luxembourg Double Taxation Treaty, infringe Article 73 (now Article 56) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, providing for free movement of capital, in that, by limiting the waiver in respect of withholding tax provided for in Article 107(2)(ix) exclusively to interest allocated to resident companies, they have, in particular, first, the effect of discouraging resident companies from borrowing capital from companies established in another Member State and, second, they constitute for companies established in another Member State an obstacle to investing capital, by way of loans, in companies having their seat in Belgium?

---
Exhibit 31.2

 Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
                            2002
The  undersigned,  Lamar Sinkfield,  President  and  CEO  of
Silver  Screen Studios, Inc., a Georgia corporation,  hereby
makes  the  following certification as required  by  Section
906(a)  of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect  to
the  following  of this quarterly report filed  pursuant  to
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
Quarterly  Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended  March
31, 2004.
The  undersigned  certifies that the above  periodic  report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and information  contained
in  the  above  quarterly  report fairly  presents,  in  all
respects, the financial condition of Silver Screen  Studios,
Inc. and results of its operations.
By:/s/ Lamar Sinkfield
Lamar Sinkfield, President,  acting CEO and a acting
Director
 May 20, 2004
(Reap. Dec. 8598)

#### International Electronics Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 763497, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The question of the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of this decision, is before the court for determination.

When said appeals were called for hearing, it was orally stipulated by the parties hereto that the values of the merchandise in controversy were the invoice unit values, net, plus cost of packing when packing is charged extra, as representing export value, there being no foreign value for such or similar merchandise as the prices and disposition are controlled in the home market.

Upon the agreed statement of fact, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that said value is the invoice unit values, net, plus cost of packing when packing is charged extra.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.