alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016260EN.01000801.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — Rose Vision, SL v European Commission

(Case C-224/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research - Audits finding irregularities in the implementation of certain projects - Commission decisions suspending payment of the amounts payable under certain projects - Action for compensation - Rejection - Statement of reasons))

(2016/C 260/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Rose Vision, SL (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 March 2015 in Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission (T-45/13, not published, EU:T:2015:138), in so far as it concerns Rose Vision SL; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 March 2015 in Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission (T-45/13, not published, EU:T:2015:138), in so far as it concerns Rose Vision SL;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,640,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,537,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   296,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,373,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,126,000
<PP&E>                                      25,170,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,180,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,894,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,634,000
<BONDS>                                      3,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,575,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,485,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,894,000
<SALES>                                     42,938,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,938,000
<CGS>                                       28,021,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,792,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             622,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,854,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,138,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,716,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,716,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-43/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (1)

(Sixth Directive - Article 25 - Common flat-rate scheme for farmers - Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking - Concept of ‘agricultural service’)

(2005/C 182/27)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-43/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 27 November 2003, received at the Court on 4 February 2004, in the proceedings between Finanzamt Arnsberg and Stadt Sundern — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

----
# C_2016305EN.01001101.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EURO 2004. Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

(Case C-291/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Value for customs purposes - Determination of the Customs value - Transaction value - Price actually paid - Doubts based on the veracity of the declared price - Declared price lower than the price paid in respect of other transactions relating to similar goods))

(2016/C 305/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EURO 2004. Hungary Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 181a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994, must be interpreted as not precluding a customs authority practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby the customs value of imported goods is determined on the basis of the transaction value of similar goods, the method in Article 30 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, where the declared transaction value is considered to be unreasonably low in comparison with the statistical average of the purchase prices verified in the context of the importation of similar goods and despite the fact that the customs authority does not refute or call into question the authenticity of the invoice or the bank transfer certificate produced in order to establish the price actually paid for the imported goods, without the importer having submitted, in response to a request to that effect from the customs authority, additional evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of the declared transaction value of those goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   937
<SECURITIES>                                           4,899
<RECEIVABLES>                                          7,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                            5,243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      18,960
<PP&E>                                               104,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                        38,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        91,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  7,728
<BONDS>                                               31,682
<COMMON>                                               2,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            22,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          91,650
<SALES>                                                6,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      13,485
<CGS>                                                  4,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          8,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           69
<INCOME-TAX>                                              31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       38
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                              38
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.03
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                              ARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

               (Under Section 805 of the Business Corporation Law)


     We,  the  undersigned,   being  the  President  and  Assistant   Secretary,
respectively, of Aris Industries, Inc., hereby certify that:

     FIRST:  The  name  of  the  corporation  (hereinafter  referred  to as  the
"Corporation") is ARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

     SECOND:  The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with
the  Department  of State on March 6, 1947 under the name  Uniroy of  Hempstead,
Inc. The Restated  Certificate of  Incorporation of the Corporation was filed on
June 30, 1993.

     THIRD: The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
effected by this Certificate of Amendment is to increase the number of shares of
common stock,  par value $.01 per share,  that the  Corporation is authorized to
issue, from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 shares.

     FOURTH:  To accomplish  the  foregoing  amendment,  Article  "THIRD" of the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation with respect to capital stock of
the  Corporation  is amended by deleting  Paragraphs  1(a) and (b) and replacing
them with the following:

          1. The  aggregate  number  of shares of the  capital  stock  which the
     Corporation  shall  have  authority  to issue is One  Hundred  Ten  Million
     (110,000,000) shares, consisting of:



<PAGE>


          (a) One Hundred  Million  (100,000,000)  shares of Common  Stock,  par
     value $.01 per share (the "Common Stock"); and

          (b) Ten Million (10,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, par value $.01
     per share (the "Preferred Stock").

     FIFTH:  The foregoing  amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation  was authorized by the Board of Directors of the  Corporation,  at a
duly called and convened meeting on April 12, 1999,  followed by the affirmative
vote of a majority of all outstanding shares of the Corporation entitled to vote
at a duly called and convened meeting of shareholders on June 17, 1999.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  we have  subscribed  this  document  on the set forth
below,  and do hereby  affirm,  under the penalty of perjury on this 27th day of
July, 1999.


                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        David Fidlon, President



                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Robert W. Forman, Assistant Secretary
No. 54839.

#### D. Hauser *v.*United States,

protests 127539-K, etc. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sugar sirup the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Olavarria & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 417) and that the total sugars contained in each of the involved entries are as set. forth in the United States analyst’s reports attached to said entries, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 21, 2014

No. 04-13-00805-CR

Ex Parte Santos GUEVARA,

Appellant

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4704-A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On March 7, 2014, this court abated this appeal for an abandonment hearing because 

appellant’s counsel, Mr. James R. Chapman, had failed to respond to orders of this court 

regarding payment of the clerk’s record. On March 19, 2014, a supplemental reporter’s record 

was filed from the abandonment hearing at which Mr. Chapman testified he has not abandoned 

the appeal, and the district clerk testified she has received payment for the record.

Ms. Jan Davis is the official responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing the 

clerk’s record. Ms. Davis is hereby ORDERED to file the clerk’s record in this appeal no later 

than April 9, 2014.

Because the reporter’s record has already been filed, Mr. Chapman is ORDERED to file 

appellant’s brief thirty days from the date the clerk’s record is filed.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# HH,(jTl-0~>
Robert Allen Hamilton ] June 8, 2015 

### TDCJ-IDNO. 480977 i 

# CaroleS. YoungMedical Facility ! 5509AttwaterAvenue j Dickinson, Texas 77539 {:;. CAUSE NUMBER 50383 - SID NUMBER 03096324 Dear Clerk: 

### My attorney filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals on a actual innocence ...claim, but I do not have the white card where it was 

### denied. Could you please send me a white card or the date it was denied. I need this information. 

### I wish to thank you for your time in thismatter. I will be looking for you response. If there is any charge please let me know.
Robert Alien Hamilton, Pro se TDCJ-ID NO. 480977 

### Carole S. Young Medical Facility Ar.twatsr ?Vvenue5509 Attwater Avenue Dickinson, Texas 77539

1 of 1. 

# JW112015 

# A^Aco$ta,Glerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

OHIO FRESH EGGS, LLC, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

 Civil Action 2:13-cv-13

v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

HERSHEY EQUIPMENT CO., INC.,

 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the April 2, 2013 Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Court Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and remand this case to the

Licking County Court of Common Pleas. 

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that the

failure to object to the within fourteen days results in a “waiver of the right to have the district

judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo.” (Report and Recommendation 6, ECF

No. 14.) The time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. 

Neither party has objected. 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections

have been filed and that the time for filing such objections expired, the Court ADOPTS the 

Case: 2:13-cv-00013-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED. This

case is REMANDED to the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated: May 20, 2013

2

Case: 2:13-cv-00013-ALM-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH N. WEINSTEIN, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

11 USCMA 599, 29 CMR 415

*600No. 14,056

Decided July 1, 1960

*Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore*and *Major Quincey W. Tucker, Jr.f*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel John F. Hannigan*and *Captain Richard T. Yery*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

Written depositions were read in evidence at accused’s trial by general court-martial over defense objection that their use denied him the right to confront the witnesses against him. Such action constituted prejudicial error. United States v Jacoby, 11 USCMA 428, 29 CMR 244; United States v Petterson, 11 USCMA 502, 29 CMR 318.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge Latimer dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 456 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 456

   Expressing the sense of the Senate on the discussion by the North 
   Atlantic Council of secure, sustainable, and reliable sources of 
                                energy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2006

Mr. Lugar submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate on the discussion by the North 
   Atlantic Council of secure, sustainable, and reliable sources of 
                                energy.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the President should place on the agenda for discussion 
        at the North Atlantic Council, as soon as practicable, the 
        merits of establishing a policy and strategy for the North 
        Atlantic Treaty Organization to promote the security of members 
        of the Organization through the development of secure, 
        sustainable, and reliable sources of energy; and
            (2) the President should submit to Congress a report that 
        sets forth--
                    (A) the actions the United States has taken to 
                place the matter referred to in paragraph (1) on the 
                agenda for discussion at the North Atlantic Council;
                    (B) the position of the United States on the 
                matter, as communicated to the North Atlantic Council 
                by the representatives of the United States to the 
                Council;
                    (C) a summary of the debate on the matter at the 
                North Atlantic Council, including any decision that has 
                been reached with respect to the matter by the Council; 
                and
                    (D) a strategy for the North Atlantic Treaty 
                Organization to develop secure, sustainable, and 
                reliable sources of energy, including contingency plans 
                if current energy resources are put at risk.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  Amendment  No. 1 is being filed because the  Registrant's  previously
     filed Form 10-Q for  the quarter ended April 29, 1995 omitted to  include a
     Financial Data Schedule as required. Accordingly, attached as Exhibit 27 is
     the Financial Data Schedule.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998 
<CASH>                                             735,000 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,204,000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                     32,246,000 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,438,000 
<PP&E>                                           6,269,000 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,935,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,471,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,297,000 
<BONDS>                                         17,068,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              150,000 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                                 0 
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,610,000 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,471,000 
<SALES>                                         37,823,000 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,823,000 
<CGS>                                           28,048,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,048,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,494,000 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,033,000 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,752,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (175,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,577,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    522,000 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,055,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.25)
                                               


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9803)

#### E. Miltenberg, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 704941-1/2, etc.

*505(Decided October 6, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for tbe plaintiff.

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

LawheNCe, Judge:

Wben the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, plaintiff offered no testimony but submitted the cases on the records before the court.

An examination of the official papers discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
PUBLIC LAW 109–309—OCT. 6, 2006 120 STAT. 1727

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4841:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Mar. 14, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–309

109th Congress

An Act

To amend the Ojito Wilderness Act to make a technical correction.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OJITO WILDERNESS MAP.

Section 2(1) of the Ojito Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1132 note;

Public Law 109–94) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2004’’ and

inserting ‘‘January 24, 2006’’.

Approved October 6, 2006.

Oct. 6, 2006

[H.R. 4841]