alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016343EN.01001102.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/11

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Slovenská pošta a.s. v European Commission, Slovak Republic, Cromwell a.s, Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.)

(Case C-293/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public undertakings - Amendment of Slovakian legislation on postal services - Exclusive rights granted to incumbent operator Slovenská pošta a.s. to provide ‘hybrid’ mail services - Decision declaring those provisions incompatible with Articles 86 EC and 82 EC))

(2016/C 343/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, R. Sauer and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic, (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent), Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Slovenská pošta a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Slovenská pošta a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John C. Lawrence, President, and Chief Executive Officer of United States Antimony Corporation (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.





Date:
By:
/s/ John C. LawrenceJohn C. LawrencePresident and Chief Executive Officer
Case No. 15,218.

#### UNITED STATES v. GLOVER.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 190.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1831.

Perjury—Promissory Oath.

A promissory oath cannot be the subject of an indictment for perjury.

*1340Indictment for perjury, upon the insolvent’s oath that he would “deliver up, convey, and transfer all his property,” &c„ but •he did not deliver up a promissory note which he had obtained after having made ■oath to his scnedule, and before his oath made before the judge.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.)

THE COURT

(AIORSELL. Circuit Judge, absent),

at the request of Mr. Wallaeh and Mr. Dandridge, for the defendant, instructed the jury that a promissory oath could not be the subject of a prosecution for perjury.
**Certification of the Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

                   I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company") certify that to the best of myknowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2006 of the Company (the "Report"):(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. /s/ Glenn F. Tilton__________Glenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 11, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,118,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,133,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                   813,213
<INVENTORY>                                 18,271,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,041,031
<PP&E>                                      32,878,129
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,119,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,718,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,880,844
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,236,617
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,795,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,718,755
<SALES>                                     23,700,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,700,036
<CGS>                                       10,583,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,623,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               192,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,594,145
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,258,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,336,145
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,336,145
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21



</TABLE>
No. 39045.

#### Protests 771053-G, etc., of Otto Roth & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
Document

Exhibit 10.1



PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION 
2022 FISCAL YEAR COMPENSATION PROGRAM  
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


A.Amounts of 2022 Fiscal Year Compensation
									
	•	Annual Board Retainer (cash):
	$50,000

			
	•	Additional Annual Non-Executive Chairman Retainer (cash):
	$75,000

			
	•	Committee fees (cash):
	
			
		Audit Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

			$20,000 for Members

			
		Nominating and Corporate 
Governance Committee:
	$12,500 for Chair 

			$10,000 for Members

			
		Compensation Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

			$15,000 for Members

			
		M&A Committee:
	$25,000 for Chair 

			$15,000 for Members



Equity Component:
•$225,000 to be delivered in one installment (as set forth below under “Timing”), consisting of Deferred Stock Units (“DSUs”).   


•The number of DSUs to be issued will be determined by dividing $225,000 by the fair market value of Company common stock on the date of issuance.  The DSUs will vest in a single installment on the date of the 2023 Annual Meeting, subject to continued service on the Board thru such date, with full acceleration upon a change in control. 


•DSUs will accrue dividends on the same basis as Company common stock and will be reinvested in additional DSUs.


•DSUs, together with dividends credited on those DSUs, will be settled upon a Director’s separation from service from the Board of Directors or change in control, if earlier, and not upon vesting.  At such time, DSUs will be paid out in the form of Company common stock.  


    1






Timing
•Annual fiscal year cash compensation will be paid in one installment at the Compensation Committee meeting in June, or such other date as determined by the Compensation Committee.  


•Amounts paid will be pro-rated for partial year service, with a fractional month of service rounded to a whole month.  A Director who joins the Board other than on the first day of the fiscal year will be paid a pro-rated amount of the annual fiscal year compensation.  The same proration rule will also apply to any partial year service on any committee.


B.    Stock Retention Guidelines
All non-employee Directors must hold a number of shares of the Corporation’s common stock having a fair market value equal to at least five times the Annual Cash Retainer, which for purposes of this requirement shall include vested DSUs.  Directors have five years to attain this guideline from the date of election to the Board. 


C.    Miscellaneous
Employee Directors shall not be entitled to participate in the 2022 Director Compensation Plan.
    2
United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges   Three Months Ended March 31    20052004 (In Millions)Earnings:     Loss before income taxes$(1,012)$(449)Fixed charges, from below188 165 Interest capitalized(5)-   Loss$ (829)$ (284)   Fixed charges:    Interest expense$ 112 $ 123 Portion of rental expense representative  of the interest factor7642   Fixed charges$ 188$ 165   Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(a)(a)      
___________
(a) Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $1.0 billionin 2005 and $449 million in 2004.
#### Gowen *& al. Appellants from a decree of the Probate Court.*

*A*contract, made by a widow with the heirs and legatees, that, (although she had previously waived the provision made for her in her husband’s will,) she would accept that provision, and make no other claim upon' the estate, can have no effect upon the action of the Probate Court.

Appeal from the Probate Court. Provision was niade for the appellee in the will of her late husband. She waived that provision in due form in the Probate Court, and applied for an allowance out of the personal estate, and was allotved' six hundred dollars. From that allowance, this appeal is taken by the heirs and legatees. An alleged reason for the appeal was, that, after having waived the provisions of the will, she retracted that waiver by an instrument under her hand and seal-, and *517stipulated with the heirs and legatees that she would accept and abide by the provisions of the will, and make no other claim upon the estate.

An indenture to that effect, under seal, between the widow of one part, and the appellants of the other part, was introduced.

Ingalls, for the appellants.

The indenture is a *retraxit*of the "waiver.

It is a release of the very claim now in question.

It is a covenant not to prosecute such a claim.

To avail ourselves of the contract now in this process, will prevent circuity of action. *Hastings*v. *Dickinson,*7 Mass. 153 ; *Sew all*v. *Sparrow,*16 Mass. 24 : *Croade*v. *Ingraham,*13 Pick. 33; *Phelps*v. *Johnson,*8 Johns. 43; *Cuyler*v. *Cuyler,*2 Johns. 186 ; *Shed*v. *Pierce,*17 Mass. 623.

*Converse,*for the appellee.

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The proceedings by the indenture were only *in pais.*They did not involve or affect any action of the Probate Court. They could not rescind the waiver, already on the public records. It is said the indenture operated as a technical release. But such a release, to have any effect, must operate on an existing *right.*A widow’s claim for an allowance is not such a *right.*It is merely in the *discretion*of the court. Such a document could not defeat or prevent the proceedings required by the statute for the settlement of estates. *Appeal dismissed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000941138
<NAME> UNISOURCE ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,926,616
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     78,855
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         455,364
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       326,026
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,786,861
<COMMON>                                       638,873
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          (429,061)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 209,812
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,215,120
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  200,500
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    883,607
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                15,238
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 262,584
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,786,861
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      160,941
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           (1,937)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     139,058
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     137,121
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         23,820
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (2,141)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  21,679
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        28,714
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,035)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (7,035)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           7,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2016279EN.01000402.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/4

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Joined Cases C-264/15 P and C-265/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Article 263 TFEU - Situation of a person not directly affected by the decision under appeal - Customs union - Subsequent entry in the accounts and remission of import duties - Reception apparatus for colour television sets from Turkey))

(2016/C 279/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, avocats)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Makro autoservicio mayorista SA and Vestel Iberia SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Makro autoservicio mayorista SA and Vestel Iberia SL shall pay the costs.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132488 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132488 COA: 265518 Macomb CC: 2004-002450-CH HOUSEHOLD BANK, F.S.B., and COMERICA BANK, Defendants-Appellees,

and

VLADIMIR ABRAMOVICH and GALINA ABRAMOVICH, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
Aris Industries, Inc.  Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley
Act - Filed as an Exhibit to 10-Q/A for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2004


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                            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 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Aris Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, That:


(1)      The Company's Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
         March 31, 2004 ("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 result of operations of
         the Company.




BY /s/ ARNOLD H. SIMON
----------------------
Arnold H. Simon
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2004


BY /s/ PAUL SPECTOR
-------------------
Paul Spector
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2004
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 6, 2016, by andamong CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee andCITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-225L (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.7 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Servicer during the period from February 6, 2016 through December 31,2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Exhibit 15






May 4, 2001

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We  are  aware that our report dated May 4, 2001 on our reviews
of   interim   financial  information   of   UniSource   Energy
Corporation  (the  Company) and Tucson Electric  Power  Company
(TEP)  as  of  and  for the period ended  March  31,  2001  and
included in the Company's and TEP's quarterly report on Form 10-
Q  for  the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference  in
the  Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8  (Nos.  333-
43765,  333-43767,  333-43769, 333-53309,  333-53333  and  333-
53337), on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043 and 333-93769), and on Form
S-4  (No.  333-60809)  and in TEP's  Amendment  No.  3  to  the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-65143).

Very truly yours,



PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BONNIE J. ANGLE, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-70939

Tax Ct. No. 29418-11

MEMORANDUM*

BONNIE J. ANGLE, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-70941

Tax Ct. No. 435-12 L

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

FILED

OCT 25 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted October 16, 2017** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT,***

District Judge.

 

Petitioner Bonnie J. Angle appeals the U.S. Tax Court’s denial of reasonable

litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §§

7430(f), 7482(a)(1), and we affirm. 

Litigation costs must be denied if Angle failed to establish that her net worth

did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time her action was filed. 26 U.S.C. §

7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B)). Angle filed for relief as

an innocent spouse on December 23, 2011. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015. 

The evidence shows that Angle’s net worth exceeded $2,000,000 at the time

of filing. Net worth is calculated according to generally accepted accounting

principles, and assets are valued at their acquisition cost. Am. Pac. Concrete Pipe

Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 788 F.2d 586, 590-91 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. 88.88

Acres of Land, 907 F.2d 106, 107 (9th Cir. 1990). At the time of filing, Angle’s

assets included $3,508,009.47 owed to her on loans she had made to two

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge for the

Central District of California, sitting by designation.

2
corporations. Only by valuing these loans at $838,140 did Angle’s accountant

conclude that her net worth did not exceed $2,000,000. Angle argues that the

remaining loan amount of $2,669,869.47 is worthless, but the evidence does not

support this. Angle also argues that the Tax Court was bound to accept the

conclusions of her accountant, but the accountant neither audited nor attempted to

verify the documents he relied upon in reaching these conclusions. 

We decline to address Angle’s argument that she satisfied the “prevailing

party” requirement because she has failed to meet the net worth requirement. 

AFFIRMED. 

3