alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019148EN.01004201.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-139/15) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF - Sugar - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Hungary - Conditions for the grant of aid for full dismantling and aid for partial dismantling - Concept of ‘production facilities’ - Assessment of the use of silos on the date of submission of the application for aid - Concept of ‘full dismantling’ - Annex 2 to document VI/5330/97 - Difficulties in the interpretation of EU legislation - Cooperation in good faith)

(2019/C 148/38)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: initially M. Fehér, G. Koós and A. Pálfy, and subsequently M. Fehér, G. Koós, Zs. Biró-Tóth and E. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and B. Béres, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, acting as Agent), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent and C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33) in so far as it excluded an amount of EUR 11 709 400 from financing, by EAGF, in restructuring aid in the sugar sector granted by Hungary.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1378 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1378

To ensure that Social Security and Tier 1 Railroad Retirement benefits 
are properly taken into account for purposes of determining eligibility 
    for Medicaid and for the refundable credit for coverage under a 
                         qualified health plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2011

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that Social Security and Tier 1 Railroad Retirement benefits 
are properly taken into account for purposes of determining eligibility 
    for Medicaid and for the refundable credit for coverage under a 
                         qualified health plan.

    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 ``Savings Through Eligibility Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER 1 RAILROAD RETIREMENT 
              BENEFITS IN CALCULATIONS OF MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS 
              INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 36B(d)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the comma;
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``, and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iii) an amount equal to the portion of 
                        the taxpayer's social security benefits (as 
                        defined in section 86(d)) which is not included 
                        in gross income under section 86 for the 
                        taxable year.''.
    (b) Requiring Savings To Be Used for Deficit Reduction.--
            (1) PAYGO scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this Act 
        shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained 
        pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
        2010.
            (2) Senate paygo scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this 
        Act shall not be recorded on any PAYGO scorecard maintained for 
        purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 9859)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 2543.

(Decided November 29, 1960)

*Stein é Shostalc*for tbe plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the above entitled appeal for reappraisement, which is also set out in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoiced and entered values, ex factory, and that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is the invoiced and entered values, ex-factory.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48781.

#### Protests 540167-G, etc., of S. A. Haram et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
           NAME                                INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
<S>                                            <C>
1.  ClassroomDirect.com, LLC                             Delaware

2.  Childcraft Education Corp.                           New York

3.  Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, Inc.                        New Jersey

4.  Sportime Acquisition Inc.                            Delaware

5.  Sportime, LLC                                        Delaware

6.  SSI Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc.                     Delaware

7.  Global Video, LLC                                    Wisconsin

8.  JuneBox.com, Inc.                                    Wisconsin

9.  New School, Inc.                                     Delaware
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Anthony FECTHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11282

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-00097-CR-3-LAC.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 15, 2005.

Chet Kaufman, Randolph P. Murrell, Federal Public Defender, Tallahssee, FL, Robert A. Dennis, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Robert G. Davies, Michelle McCain Heldmyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Court-appointed counsel for Richard Anthony Fechter seeks to withdraw on appeal pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination reveals no arguable issues of merit on which to base an appeal, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Fechter’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-33588) and Forms S-8 pertaining to the registration of 5,961,973 shares of the
Company's common stock, the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1998-A Direct Hit Stock Plan and 1999 Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-33694), 1999 Equity Incentive Plan and 1999 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (No. 333-88435), and Net Effect Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan (No. 333-95687), and in the related Prospectuses of Ask Jeeves, Inc. of our report dated February 7,
2001, except for Note 13, as to which the date is March 30, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, as amended, and financial statement schedule of Ask Jeeves, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



Walnut
Creek, California
June 4, 2001

---

QuickLinks
No. 54922.

#### G. H. Seffert Co. *v.*United States,

protest 157466-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5535
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEBORAH F. LEE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-382) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah F. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Arthur Eichelberger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1994). 2 PER CURIAM: Deborah F. Lee appeals the sentence imposed after her guilty plea to bank embezzlement in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 656 (West 1976 & Supp. 1996), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1988). We have reviewed the record, including the presentence report and the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and find that the district court did not clearly err in assessing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. * Nor did the court clearly err whenit failed to apply a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Finding no other reversible error, we affirm Lee's sentence. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Before the Third Division,

June 14, 1949

No. 53261.

#### American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 38986-K/89549, etc. (Chicago).

*342Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 46998.

#### Protests 71653-K, etc., of Waldburger Grant & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 report of Medical Solutions Management Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned Lowell Fisher, Interim Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)and EJ
McLean, Vice President and Controller (principal accounting and financial officer) of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    Lowell Fisher                        
|                        |  |  |  | Lowell M. Fisher                            
|                        |  |  |  | Interim Chief Executive Officer             
|                        |  |  |  | (principal executive officer)               
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    EJ McLean                            
|                        |  |  |  | EJ McLean                                   
|                        |  |  |  | Vice President, Controller                  
|                        |  |  |  | (principal accounting and financial officer)
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00110

- CR

IN RE KELLY LEE DICK EY

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Kelly Lee Dickey filed a petition for writ of mandamus on April 3, 2017.

In the petition, Relator asks this Court to issue an order directing the trial court to make

a ruling on his “motion to reopen time to file appeal.” Relator did not provide this Court

with a copy of the motion. See T EX .R.A PP .P . 52.7. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ

of mandamus is denied.

AL SCOGGINS

JusticeIn re Dickey Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and file d April 19, 2017
Before the Third Division,

January 10, 1939

No. 40382.

#### Protest 952982-G of Nathan Nibley (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff when this case was called for trial. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
<PAGE>   1

                                 August 17, 1999



First National Bank in Brookings
2220 Sixth Street
P.O. Box 6000
Brookings, SD   57006
Attn:  Jay Weems

                  Re:  Letter Agreement Regarding Bankcard Marketing Agreement
                       and Purchase Agreement

Dear Jay:

         This letter agreement shall memorialize the terms of the agreements
reached between First National Bank in Brookings ("FNB") and The Credit Store,
Inc. ("TCS"). As you are aware, FNB and Service One International Corporation
("SOIC") are parties to a Bankcard Marketing Agreement dated October 2, 1997 and
a Purchase Agreement dated October 2, 1997, as amended on August 31, 1998. SOIC
was merged into TCS, which is the successor-in-interest to the Bankcard
Marketing Agreement and the Purchase Agreement.

         Previously, TCS sent a notice of termination of the Bankcard Marketing
Agreement and Purchase Agreement. This notice has been rescinded by TCS and the
Bankcard Marketing Agreement and Purchase Agreement remain in full force and
effect, according to their terms, as modified by this letter.

         Subject to the renewal and termination provisions of the Bankcard
Marketing Agreement and Purchase Agreement, the current term of these agreements
will expire on October 1, 2000. Furthermore, through October 1, 2000, the Fixed
Fee (as defined in Section 1.5 of the Purchase Agreement) shall be based upon
50,000 credit cards.

         FNB and TCS agree to make mutually acceptable modifications and
amendments to the Bankcard Marketing Agreement and Purchase Agreement as
reasonably necessary to aid and facilitate the securitization of credit card
receivables.


<PAGE>   2

         Within ten (10) days following the execution of this letter, (i) FNB
and TCS shall execute and file UCC-3 amendments to the existing UCC-1 Financing
Statements for the above-described agreements correcting the name, the employer
identification number and address of SOIC to reflect the correct information for
TCS, and (ii) FNB shall deliver to TCS a secretaries certificate evidencing
resolutions by the Board of Directors of FNB approving the Bankcard Marketing
Agreement, the Purchase Agreement, as amended, the Termination Agreement dated
October 2, 1997 and this letter agreement.

         If this letter accurately sets forth the agreements reached between FNB
and TCS, please have this letter executed in the space provided below and
returned to me at your earliest convenience.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   The Credit Store, Inc.


                                   By:  /s/  Kevin T. Riordan
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Kevin T. Riordan, President

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED

First National Bank in Brookings

By:  /s/  David Waligoske
     -------------------------------
    Name:  David Waligoske
           -------------------------
    Title:  Senior Vice President
            ------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, Ghassan Al-Yasin, Claimant—Appellant, v. $178,208.35 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant.

No. 03-57220.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 14, 2005.

Michele C. Marchand, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David A. Katz, Katz *&*Associates, Beverly Hill, CA, for Claimant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY,** Senior Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Kevin T. Duffy, Senior District Judge, Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*823MEMORANDUM ***

Assuming *arguendo*that Al-Yasin established that his failure to file his response on time was excusable, his motion nevertheless failed to demonstrate that he had a meritorious defense. *Casey v. Albertson’s,*362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir.2004). The motion does no more than express counsel’s belief that the late-filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment would have precluded summary judgment. This is insufficient. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
July 26, 1938

No. 39110.

#### Protests 865293-G (B), etc., of Penson & Co. (Import Bag & Bead Corp.).

Abstract 38902. Application by plaintiffs for rehearing granted.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, REGINALD SCHAUDER, the Vice President-Finance,
Secretary and Treasurer of CANAL CAPITAL CORPORATION (the Company), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:

|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended April 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|2. | Information contained in the report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                         

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this
statement this 30th day of October 2012.

/S/ Reginald
Schauder Reginald Schauder Vice President-Finance, Secretary and
Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Canal Capital Corporation and will be retained by Canal
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
No. 46982.

#### Protest 62620-K of Simon, Healey & Goldstein, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise consists of nets made on a bobbinet machine and that *they are*in chief value of silk, not embroidered, the claim at 65 percent under paragraph 1529 and T. D. 48316 was sustained as to that item.
No. 65767.

#### Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/22112-11362 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.